Little Book 2009-2012

Table of Contents
A Little Book for Humanity...............................................................................................................................1 Epicurus on the unnecessary fear of death.......................................................................................................2 Marcus Aurelius on bearing misfortune...........................................................................................................5 Marcus Aurelius on the unnecessary fear of the future..................................................................................8 Epicurus on making the future better than the past.....................................................................................11 Marcus Aurelius on rejecting the sense of injury..........................................................................................14 Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on rejecting the sense of injury".................................................17 Epicurus on the limits of pleasure...................................................................................................................18 Epicurus on overindulgence.............................................................................................................................21 Bertrand Russell on pursuit of a vision ...........................................................................................................24 Marcus Aurelius on harmony and universe...................................................................................................27 Marcus Aurelius on the privilege of being alive.............................................................................................30 Marcus Aurelius on imperfect humans ...........................................................................................................33 Marcus Aurelius on fountain of good ..............................................................................................................36 Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on fountain of good"...................................................................39 Bertrand Russell on dogma and evidence .......................................................................................................40 Oscar Wilde on pure and simple truth...........................................................................................................43 Feedback for Post "Oscar Wilde on pure and simple truth"..................................................................46 Robert G. Ingersoll on intellectual honesty....................................................................................................47 Feedback for Post "Robert G. Ingersoll on intellectual honesty ".........................................................50 Bertrand Russell on values and science..........................................................................................................51 Hippocrates on the difference between opinions and science.......................................................................54 Bertrand Russell on the mistakes of Aristotle................................................................................................57 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on the mistakes of Aristotle ".....................................................60 Marcus Aurelius on living among lying men ..................................................................................................61 Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on living among lying men "......................................................64
Table of Contents
Bertrand Russell on the interdependence of humankind ..............................................................................65 Bertrand Russell on preoccupation with possessions....................................................................................68 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on preoccupation with possessions"...........................................71 Bertrand Russell on free intellect and fanaticism..........................................................................................72 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on free intellect and fanaticism".................................................75 Marcus Aurelius on living well........................................................................................................................76 Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on living well"............................................................................79 Marcus Aurelius on nature and humans........................................................................................................80 George Orwell on the difference between patriotism and nationalism.......................................................83 Feedback for Post "George Orwell on the difference between patriotism and nationalism"................86 George Orwell on money..................................................................................................................................87 Thomas Paine on the ownership of earth.......................................................................................................90 Howard Winters on "we" and "them"...........................................................................................................93 Epicurus on possessions and servility.............................................................................................................96 Marcus Aurelius on happy life .........................................................................................................................99 Epicurus on fame and status..........................................................................................................................102 Feedback for Post "Epicurus on fame and status"...............................................................................105 Epicurus on malevolent God..........................................................................................................................106 Feedback for Post "Epicurus on malevolent God ".............................................................................109 Bertrand Russell on teapots in orbit.............................................................................................................110 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on teapots in orbit" ....................................................................113 Epicurus on the folly of praying....................................................................................................................114 Thomas Paine on the debauchery of the Almighty......................................................................................117 Robert G. Ingersoll on prisons of the mind..................................................................................................120 Marcus Aurelius on living a noble life..........................................................................................................123 Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on living a noble life"...............................................................126 Bertrand Russell on philosophy and theology..............................................................................................128
ii
Table of Contents
Bertrand Russell on vastness and fearful passionless force of non-human things...................................131 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on vastness and fearful passionless force of non-human things".................................................................................................................................................134 Marcus Aurelius on causes of controversies.................................................................................................135 Bertrand Russell on conquering fear............................................................................................................138 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on conquering fear"..................................................................141 Epicurus on fearing the celestial and atmospheric phenomena.................................................................142 Epicurus on living wisely and honorably and justly....................................................................................145 Marcus Aurelius on good and evil.................................................................................................................148 John Ruskin on consequences of beliefs ........................................................................................................151 Marcus Aurelius on loving those who wrong you........................................................................................154 Bertrand Russell on the authority of the sacred books...............................................................................157 Thomas Paine on the approval of slavery in religions.................................................................................160 Feedback for Post "Thomas Paine on the approval of slavery in religions " .......................................163 Walter Lippmann on dangers of thinking alike...........................................................................................166 Anaxagoras on the idea of ownership...........................................................................................................169 Diax on wanting things to be true ..................................................................................................................172 Author's friends..............................................................................................................................................174 About the author.............................................................................................................................................176 Pageviews.........................................................................................................................................................177
iii
A Little Book for Humanity
Epicurus on the unnecessary fear of death
"Death is nothing to us; for that which has been dissolved into its elements experiences no sensations, and that which has no sensation is nothing to us." - Epicurus (Principal Doctrine number 2)
My own thoughts on the quote: In my mind Epicurus is in practice saying here that fear of death is quite unnecessary. In death a person just does return to the state where he or she was before he or she was born, and there is no pain after that. The fear of death in itself is the enemy, not the inevitable death, that is a similar necessary and vital part of life as birth is. I well know that this is so easy to say, but so difficult to really d. However, the easiest way to diminish fear is to stop unnecessarily thinking about things that you do really fear. This is especially true if your thinking does not really change anything, but only makes you fear a thing you need not fear. Epicureans do think that living a full and good life is the best antidote for fear of death. Of course, religions are feeding on this fear of death and they do their utmost to keep it up. So it comes as no surprise that death is the main decorative motive in all Christian churches and an instrument of killing is its main symbol. This Epicurean doctrine is not at all about those left behind after our death, but it is all about how we personally deal with the idea of our own death. The loss felt by others can also of course be lessened if they can accept death as a natural and necessary part of life and not, for example, as a divine sanction for our sins. After your death you do really exist, but only as a memory of you and your actions in other people's minds. A person leaving good memories with his good actions will live for a long time in those memories after he or she is gone and more importantly will also be remembered
fondly. (This piece was reworked on 24th of August, 2011)
by jaskaw @ 29.11.2009 - 20:48:53 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/epicurus-on-death-7480720/
Marcus Aurelius on bearing misfortune
"Here is the rule to remember in the future, When anything tempts one to be bitter: not, "This is a misfortune" but "To bear this worthily is good fortune." - Marcus Aurelius
My own thoughts on the quote: Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic and also a Stoic philosopher, even if he was also a Roman emperor. The Stoic way of thinking that Marcus Aurelius did embrace is all about controlling ones own feelings and ideas. Stoics want to most of all make the best of bad and unfortunate situations in life, where one is helpless to change things by one's own actions. There just are all too many situations where ones needs to face hardship and trouble that are not of one's own making, but are brought about by big forces of history and nature and most of all by pure chance. However, this does not mean that Stoics would have thought that people should accept all things just as they come. There just, however, inevitably are many situations in life where one simply can not change anything with his or her actions. In these situations, the Stoic way of thinking can still be a great tool in retaining ones sanity at least. I think that in certain situations even that is an achievement well worth striving for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius "Marcus Aurelius (Latin: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus; (26 April 121 17 March 180), was Roman Emperor from 161 to 180. He ruled with Lucius Verus as co-emperor from 161 until Verus' death in 169. He was the last of the "Five Good Emperors", and is also considered one of the most important Stoic philosophers." (This entry was rewritten on 25th of August, 2011)
by jaskaw @ 29.11.2009 - 20:50:21 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/marcus-aurelius-on-misfortune-7480732/
Marcus Aurelius on the unnecessary fear of the future
"Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present." - Marcus Aurelius
My own ideas on the quote:
I think that Emperor Marcus Aurelius is presenting here one of the very central themes of the Stoic philosophy here, as Stoic philosophy is all about removing unnecessary ballast from ones mind. Inflicting oneself with unnecessary fear of unknown and uncertain future just is all too common. This happens in spite of that it can be the most destructive form of mental self-mutilation there is on offer. Marcus Aurelius does think that you can avoid this unnecessary trap, which is mostly created by your own mind, if you just really do put some effort into making it happen. For my part, I do not think that Marcus Aurelius is saying that this would be an easy thing to do at all. In my mind, he is just saying that realizing the amount of unnecessary fears that do fill our minds, will help us in coping with the reality. This marvelous quote does also say that if you have made it so far, there is no reason to think that you would not succeed in the future also. The only thing he sees as a necessary
requirement for achieving this goal is to take the full use of rational mind and use a as rational attitude as possible when we think about the future also. Of course, any kind of full rationality is just a pipe-dream, as we all are mere humans, who are always mostly driven by instincts and emotions. However, at least striving for some semblance of rationality will always produce more rational results than just letting emotions and instincts lead you where they want.
(This piece was completely refurbished on 25th of August, 2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius "Marcus Aurelius' work Meditations, written in Greek while on campaign between 170 and 180, is still revered as a literary monument to a philosophy of service and duty, describing how to find and preserve equanimity in the midst of conflict by following nature as a source of guidance and inspiration. The meditations serve as an example of how Aurelius approached the Platonic ideal of a philosopher-king and how he symbolized much of what was best about Roman civilization."
by jaskaw @ 29.11.2009 - 20:51:44 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/marcus-aurelius-on-future-7480741/
Epicurus on making the future better than the past
"While we are on the road, we must try to make what is before us better than what is past; when we come to the road's end, we feel a smooth contentment." - Epicurus (Vatican sayings, 48)
Of course, we can never know what does wait for us in the future. However, in my mind Epicurus is saying here that if we can get ourselves trust in the idea that we can try to make future better than the past, the future just might really get better. If we are content to dwell in the failures, mistakes and simple bad luck of the past, the future will be no different from the past. I think that this quote is all about not worrying unnecessarily about the future, as nothing good will come out of it, but giving it a try at least before succumbing to pessimism and cynicism that so often tempt all of us. The last sentence is a reminder that there is a real reward waiting for us, if we just put our minds into it. It is not something to be had behind the grave, but a real, more peaceful and purposeful state of mind, that can, in fact, be achieved from even trying to make a difference in the course of our own lives. However, in my mind this quote is not about forcing oneself or others to do something differently, but about finding the will to change one's own life for the better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus "Epicurus (Greek: , Epikouros, "ally, comrade"; 341 BCE 270 BCE) was an ancient Greek philosopher and the founder of the school of philosophy called Epicureanism. Only a few fragments and letters remain of Epicurus's 300 written works. Much of what is known about Epicurean philosophy derives from later followers and commentators."
by jaskaw @ 29.11.2009 - 20:58:03 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/epicurus-on-the-roads-end-7480793/
Marcus Aurelius on rejecting the sense of injury

"Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears." - Marcus Aurelius
My own thoughts about the quote: Of course there are also mental injuries that are so deep that we just cannot wish them to disappear, but I still think as Marcus Aurelius suggests here that the less you dwell in your mental injuries, the better you will always feel in the long run. A central problem with philosophy often is that it seems to deal in absolutes, even if often these ideas just seem to be presented as absolutes on the surface. In the real world, they can just as easily be seen just as worthwhile ultimate goals that one can strive for. So, also striving for them without ever reaching the goal itself can be a really worthwhile enterprise. I must emphazise again that Marcus Aurelius is not suggesting here that all mental injuries can go away by just wishing it to be so. I also think that one must do work to overcome them, but if we do not realize that we often do not need to drag those mental wounds with us, we will miss an important opportunity. I think that one can vastly improve one's life even without getting rid of ALL of the mental injuries which one has collected during one's life (as this is simply impossible), but just by trying to even get in the general direction of that ultimate goal. However, this quote just makes no sense to me if it is interpreted erroneously to include also physical injuries. Still, this very simple sentence makes a sea of sense when it is understood in the right way. Mental wounds all too often happen only in the wounded mind itself. Often they just do not exist anywhere else. They are often creatures of ones own imagination only and one also can get rid of them by using one's mind.
I think that Marcus Aurelius is essentially suggesting here just that the less one does allow mere words to bite, the less they can actually wound.
(This piece was completely refurbished on 28th of August, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius "Marcus Aurelius acquired the reputation of a philosopher king within his lifetime, and the title would remain his after death; both Dio and the biographer call him "the philosopher". Christians Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Melito gave him the title too. The last named went so far as to call Marcus "more philantropic and philosophic" than Pius and Hadrian, and set him against the persecuting emperors Domitian and Nero to make the contrast bolder. "Alone of the emperors," wrote the historian Herodian, "he gave proof of his learning not by mere words or knowledge of philosophical doctrines but by his blameless character and temperate way of life." by jaskaw @ 29.11.2009 - 20:59:14 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/marcus-aurelius-on-feelings-of-injury-7480805/
Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on rejecting the sense of injury"

jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 03.12.2010 @ 22:04 When I find myself in times of trouble, mother Mary comes to me, speaking words of wisdom, let it be. And in my hour of darkness she is standing right in front of me, speaking words of wisdom, let it be. Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be. Whisper words of wisdom, let it be. And when the broken hearted people living in the world agree, there will be an answer, let it be. For though they may be parted there is still a chance that they will see, there will be an answer. let it be. Let it be, let it be, ..... And when the night is cloudy, there is still a light, that shines on me, shine until tomorrow, let it be. I wake up to the sound of music, mother Mary comes to me, speaking words of wisdom, let it be. Let it be, let it be, ..... Rita [Visitor] 12.02.2012 @ 01:59 My interpretation would be "injury" in this sense means hurt feelings due to difference of opinion, or belief. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 12.02.2012 @ 02:32 You are quite right, Rita, I think.
Epicurus on the limits of pleasure

The magnitude of pleasure reaches its limit in the removal of all pain. When such pleasure is present, so long as it is uninterrupted, there is no pain either of body or of mind or of both together."
- Epicurus (Principal Doctrine number 3)
My own ideas on the quote: This simple sentence gives all new light to something that is probably the most commonly misunderstood thing in the whole of Epicureanism. The sad fact is that this willful misinterpretation was originated quite on purpose by first Platonist's and Stoics and later even more forcefully by the early Christians, who all simply wanted to make their rival Epicureanism look bad. The Epicurean goal in life is not at all about hedonism or having some kind of uninterrupted pleasure, as the early Christians did claim. Pleasure is, in fact, defined in Epicurenism as removal of pain and not at all as just having some kind of pleasant sensations. So, the ultimate state of bliss is achieved in Epicureanism when one is not in any kind of pain either mentally or physically. It should be pointed out that one does not even need physical pleasures as such to achieve the state of bliss, even if they do no harm either. The mental pain is, of course, the most difficult one to avoid. Again, it is not even stated that such a state of bliss would be, in fact, achievable in practice. This saying is just about the theoretical maximum state of pleasure or in other words the lack of all pain. Of course, this sounds also quite like a Buddhist idea. It is possible that some Buddhist influences had reached Greece by the time of Epicurus (he lived 341 BCE 270 BCE). Just as probable, however, is that the two thinkers were just reaching same kind of conclusions in a very same kind of social and economical stage of development of their respective societies. Of course, Epicurus is expressing here only the ideal state. He is not saying that achieving it would be easy or
even possible for all in practice. However, he gives in his other writings detailed ideas of how this state of 'ataraxia' as he called it can be achieved in practice, if one just is willing to commit oneself to this task hard enough. (This piece was completely reworked on 29th of August, 2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus "For Epicurus, the purpose of philosophy was to attain the happy, tranquil life, characterized by ataraxia peace and freedom from fear and aponia the absence of pain and by living a self-sufficient life surrounded by friends. He taught that pleasure and pain are the measures of what is good and evil, that death is the end of the body and the soul and should therefore not be feared, that the gods do not reward or punish humans, that the universe is infinite and eternal, and that events in the world are ultimately based on the motions and interactions of atoms moving in empty space."
by jaskaw @ 29.11.2009 - 21:25:34 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/epicurus-on-pleasure-7480956/
Epicurus on overindulgence
"No pleasure is a bad thing in itself, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail disturbances many times greater than the pleasures themselves."
ipal Doctrines, 8)
>
My own thoughts on the quote: This Epicurean doctrine is one of those which are extremely commonly forgotten when people try to portray Epicureanism as hedonistic and reaching only for the unlimited pleasures. This doctrine just is all about the harmful side-effects that the striving for physical or mental pleasures can have. The big difference to Christianity in Epicureanism is that nothing is seen as forbidden or sinful just because of some divine revelation. In fact, things are valued on the benefits and disturbances they can bring with them. These disturbances can be caused either to a person him- or herself or to his or her relationships with others and the society. One of course needs a rational mind that is capable of doing such valuations. In Epicurean ideal world a person simply should be able to see when the negative aspects of an activity are greater that the good it brings. Epicurean way of thought is based on a strong expectation of self-discipline and the ability to analyze ones own actions. This is in direct contrast with Christianity, where a person is not supposed to make this kind of personal valuations at all. I personally understand that the 'disturbance' mentioned here is anything that can create off-balance in any way in ones relationships with other people or in one's own mind or body. Naturally, for example, eating or drinking too much can cause far more trouble than they do bring pleasure. Disturbances are all the things that disturb the state of "ataraxia", which is a state that is characterized by freedom from worry or any other preoccupation.
Many anti-Epicurean writers of the past have described ataraxia as apathy. Most of all early Christians did dig up things just like this to make Epicureanism look bad. Epicureanism was at a time a major competitor for this emerging new religion, which was still wet behind its ears, when Epicureanism was a well established and a well esteemed school of thought. The Christian claim is, however, a complete forgery, as ataraxia has nothing to do with apathy, but it is the ultimate goal as a state of mind where a person is at peace with him or herself and the outside world. I personally believe that a person can be tremendously active and productive at the same time when he or she is striving for this kind of greater inner strength and peace. It is not, however, claimed anywhere that it is even ever possible ever to attain a complete and perfect peace of mind. In my mind, the central thing here is a process, where a person avoids such things that do disturb his or her relationships with other people. Most of all the goal is to avoid all such actions that would make attaining peace in ones own mind more difficult. (This piece was completely rewritten on 30th of August, 2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus : "Epicurus' philosophy is based on the theory that all good and bad derive from the sensations of pleasure and pain. What is good is what is pleasurable, and what is bad is what is painful. Pleasure and pain were ultimately, for Epicurus, the basis for the moral distinction between good and bad. If pain is chosen over pleasure in some cases it is only because it leads to a greater pleasure. Although Epicurus has been commonly misunderstood to advocate the rampant pursuit of pleasure, what he was really after was the absence of pain (both physical and mental, i.e., suffering) - a state of satiation and tranquility that was free of the fear of death and the retribution of the gods. When we do not suffer pain, we are no longer in need of pleasure, and we enter a state of 'perfect mental peace' (ataraxia."
by jaskaw @ 29.11.2009 - 22:10:40 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/epicurus-on-overindulgence-7481220/
Bertrand Russell on pursuit of a vision

"I have lived in the pursuit of a vision, both personal and social. Personal: to care for what is noble, for what is beautiful, for what is gentle; to allow moments of insight to give wisdom at more mundane times. Social: to see in imagination the society that is to be created, where individuals grow freely, and where hate and greed and envy die because there is nothing to nourish them. These things I believe, and the world, for all its horrors, has left me unshaken."
- Bertrand Russell in "The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell" (1967)
Bertrand Russell shows with the example of his own life that a person can lead a full and fulfilling life while being fully aware of all of the evil and unjust things that are always going on in the world around us. Bertrand Russell knew extremely well that we will never achieve any kind of perfect society, but he got never tired of trying to improve the society where we do live in. However, when one does what one can realistically expected to make a personal impact on things, one can rest assured that one's life has not gone to waste, as Bertrand Russell most certainly did feel at the end of his long and extremely productive life. Bertrand Russell was no saint at all, but he was a champion for the downtrodden, a tireless defender of the cause of peace and a first and foremost always a rational thinker. However, his often hard-hitting rationality did not prevent him from enjoying all the beautiful, little and often fragile things our universe and our culture do produce. All in all, Bertrand Russell is a superb example of how one does not need any kind of religion (or a strong ideology like communism, either) to dedicate one's life into making our common little blue dot a better place to live for all of us. (This piece was reworked on 31th of August. 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS[1] (18 May 1872 2 February 1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic.[2] At various points in his life he imagined himself a liberal, a socialist, and a pacifist, but he also admitted that he had never been any of these things in any profound sense. Russell was a prominent anti-war activist; he championed free trade and anti-imperialism. Russell went to prison for his pacifism during World War I. Later, he campaigned against Adolf Hitler, then criticised
Stalinist totalitarianism, attacked the United States of America's involvement in the Vietnam War, and was an outspoken proponent of nuclear disarmament." by jaskaw @ 30.11.2009 - 01:50:43 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/bertrand-russell-on-goals-in-life-7482354/
Marcus Aurelius on harmony and universe

"He who lives in harmony with himself lives in harmony with the universe."
- Marcus Aurelius in ' Meditations'
My own ideas on the quote: What Marcus Aurelius is saying here is a extremely straightforward but extremely powerful thing; accepting what and who we really are will get us a long way towards accepting also other people as who and what they really are. On the other hand, I think that only after we accept the value of the central important other people in our life, can we even dream of some kind of universal harmony in our own lives. This idea is as far as I know also a very central message in Buddhist thinking too. One must at very first point reach some kind of a state of harmony within oneself, as it is the very first necessary step if one really wants a create a state harmony with other people. I think, in fact, that if you are in harmony with your immediate surroundings, the harmony with the universe will follow from that. In the end, the very central part and the most important part of our universe is for the rest of our life in real life inhabited by people we already know. How we relate and react to them will pretty much shape and color the whole of our tiny corner of the universe. Our actual real life in this far-away corner of the universe of course expands and retracts according to how world around us does evolve and change. However, I think that in fact the most meaningful and indispensable part of our whole universe can often be contained in a single room. (This piece was reworked on 1th of September, 2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius
"While on campaign between 170 and 180, Aurelius wrote his Meditations in Greek as a source for his own guidance and self-improvement. The title of this work was added posthumously originally he entitled his work simply: 'To Myself'. He had a logical mind and his notes were representative of Stoic philosophy and spirituality. Meditations is still revered as a literary monument to a government of service and duty. The book has been a favourite of Frederick the Great, John Stuart Mill, Matthew Arnold, Goethe and Wen Jiabao."
by jaskaw @ 30.11.2009 - 20:08:42 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/30/marcus-aurelius-on-universe-7486124/
Marcus Aurelius on the privilege of being alive

"When you arise in the morning, think of what a precious privilege it is to be alive - to breathe, to think, to enjoy, to love."
- Marcus Aurelius in 'Meditations'
My own ideas on the quote: I think that Marcus Aurelius is up to something very important here. It just is all too easy to forget that the fact of being alive for another day makes one a member of a very privileged group. We just all too easily take for granted many things in life. The human mind is simply built in such a way that we do not normally even notice when we are allowed the ultimate luxury of living through a whole day without encountering any personal pain or suffering. To really notice this we need to make a conscious effort. I think that the true importance of people like Marcus Aurelius lies in just this ability to raise our level of everyday consciousness. A writer or a philosopher does not need to create incredible new emotions and paint grand new visions. At times it is quite enough just to make us aware of the existence of all of the little good things that we already have. On the other hand, I think you need not to do anything very special to make any day in your life important to yourself. Just a lazy moment spent on doing nothing else than letting the free flow of thinking arise just can at times be the best thing one can ever make. It can even be the very simple deed of thinking freely and clearly for a moment can make just this particular day the most important one of our whole life. I'm sorry to say that endless lazy hours spent mindlessly looking on the hypnotic glass eye of the television set is in my mind at least, however, a different thing altogether.
(This piece was heavily edited 3rd of September, 2011) PS. I was diagnosed with a incurable cancer a few weeks after rewriting this piece in September of 2011. A couple of months later I was given just a few days to live. Happily I over-lived that crisis. Thanks to an intensive chemotherapy the illness is now under under control. It will never go away, but the imminent risk of death has receded. A few days ago I did write these lines:
You can know how wonderful a simple slice of bread can taste after you have been desperately hungry. You can taste the real sweetness of a glass of water after being really thirsty. You can also feel the wonderful joy of just being alive on a quite ordinary day after you have tasted death.
The first weeks or even months after recovery from the brink of death were something special, but then it all is routine again; bills have to be paid; car has to be washed; dished need to be cleaned. One has to remind oneself that it really is a privilege to be able to those things. I really need to remember the marvelous words uttered by Marcus Aurelius every day. (Added 16th of June, 2012)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius "Marcus Aurelius' work Meditations, written in Greek while on campaign between 170 and 180, is still revered as a literary monument to a philosophy of service and duty, describing how to find and preserve equanimity in the midst of conflict by following nature as a source of guidance and inspiration." by jaskaw @ 30.11.2009 - 20:56:39 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/30/marcus-aurelius-on-the-privilege-of-being-alive-7486419/
Marcus Aurelius on imperfect humans

"Not to feel exasperated or defeated or despondent because your days are not packed with wise and moral actions. But to get back up when you fail, to celebrate behaving like a human -however imperfectly- and fully embrace the pursuit you have embarked on."
- Marcus Aurelius in "Meditations"
My own thoughts on the quote: In practice Marcus Aurelius is just saying here that there is no reason and what's more important no excuse for giving up, even if one is inevitably unable to reach the highest levels of excellence in things a person wants to achieve in life. I'd like to add to this that we should remember also that standards we normally use to evaluate people were originally set by similar failing and frail people as we are. They were often even then quite unreachable, but I think that there just needs to be unreachable goals also in life. Marcus Aurelius reminds here that we all will fail and fall, but we can stand up again and keep trying again and again. We can become better human beings even after we have failed day by day, week by week, year by year. However, I do also think that the really big thing here is that one should remember that no human can never be and never has been perfect. Anybody who claims this sort of thing even for his or her favorite character in history is just a victim of wishful thinking or simply lying. Saints or seemingly over-human historical figures are all too often created by just leaving the bad parts out of the final story and exaggerating the good parts. The exact opposite is of course very often true with the great villains of history.
On the other hand, Marcus Aurelius is in my mind saying here that all humans can always develop themselves, if they just really want to do it, even if they failed time after time and even miserably thus far. This possibility for betterment just might get all too easily lost when we sink too deep in the abyss that is called the real life, but it is always still there, if we just find the will to seek it again. (This piece was completely re-written on 4th of September, 2011)
http://www.iep.utm.edu/marcus/ "The philosophy of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius can be found in a collection of personal writings known as the Meditations. These reflect the influence of Stoicism and, in particular, the philosophy of Epictetus, the Stoic. The Meditations may be read as a series of practical philosophical exercises, following Epictetus three topics of study, designed to digest and put into practice philosophical theory. Central to these exercises is a concern with the analysis of one s judgements and a desire to cultivate a cosmic perspective. by jaskaw @ 01.12.2009 - 15:53:50 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/marcus-aurelius-on-being-human-7491078/
Marcus Aurelius on fountain of good

"Look within. Within is the fountain of good, and it will ever bubble up, if thou wilt ever dig."
My own thoughts of the quote: This idea is simply the deep essence of humanistic world-view. I really think that deep buried in all humans there is the ability to do good also, but sometimes it just must be dug up with a conscious effort, or it may go to waste. However, circumstances created by for political, social, economical or ideological reasons do all too often create situations where an individual is unable to express his or her true personality. This all too often happens because of pressures brought about by other people who are acting as a collective. To truly see how a person really is, I think that one should be able to look at that person separate from the pressures brought about by the social, political or religious group he or she belongs to. I suspect that the true nature of a person is often revealed only if the person in question is able to act without the constraints that are brought about by different ideologies or group-pressures, which is of course quite impossible at times. For me core thing in humanism is also a belief in the ability of humans to change. In my mind a true humanist would think the fact that a person acts in a certain way at a certain moment does not entail that he or she would not be able to change his or her behavior later. The circumstances that have brought about this behavior can after all always change at a later stage.
Of course, there are also people who are not able to change. There really are people who do not do a single recommendable deed during their entire lives, but happily they are extremely rare exceptions.I think that these kinds of conditions are commonly caused by very deep psychological problems and traumas. However, I don't see these people as showcases for the basic human condition, but of just how it can be changed and perverted by traumas and often quite uncontrollable things like mental illness. However, such people are happily so rare that whole books are written about people who turn out to be that way. It is too easily forgotten that they still make the headlines just because the acts of wanton cruelty are so rare. On the other hand all too many problems in this world are created just by our own false negative expectations and too hasty characterizations that we make of other people. If you believe that a person you will meet will be difficult or unlikable, your own negative expectations just could be the thing that does really trigger negative responses in the other person. The result just may be that he or she will really be difficult and unlikable and you will be seen as such also. Of course, it is all too easy to just sit here and say that a positive attitude will get you far. On the other hand, just remembering this little maxim by Marcus Aurelius could make one really understand that there could well be a hidden fountain of good inside that other person also. (This piece was completely reworked on 5th of September, 2011)
http://www.iep.utm.edu/marcus/ "Marcus personal reflections in the Meditations may be read as a series of written exercises aimed at analyzing his own impressions and rejecting his own unwarranted value judgements." by jaskaw @ 01.12.2009 - 22:33:18 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/marcus-aurelius-on-fountain-of-good-7493386/
Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on fountain of good"

Outi [Visitor] 16.02.2012 @ 00:23 Thank you for this quote which is so true. We do tend to hide in roles, don't we. But when in a thrusted group you can throw yourself in a giving dialogue, listening to others, being present, to the bottom, asking precisive questions and reaching those secretive fountains of good.
Bertrand Russell on dogma and evidence

"I mean by intellectual integrity the habit of deciding vexed questions in accordance with the evidence, or of leaving them undecided where the evidence is inconclusive. This virtue, though it is underestimated by almost all adherents of any system of dogma, is to my mind of the very greatest social importance and far more likely to benefit the world than Christianity or any other system of organized beliefs."
- Bertrand Russell in "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?" (1954)
My own ideas on the quote: I think that Bertrand Russell presents here the very basic requirements for the good decision-making process in any society. Decisions should not be based on dogmatic beliefs only, but they should be done based on the real world evidence and merits of the issue at hand, as far as is possible at least. An instant reaction based on some old and well-known dogma is admittedly often the quickest way to reach a decision. However, I see that the basic thing Bertrand Russell is saying here is that when people get over that old gut-reaction, we will have, in fact, caused a real revolution in the decision-making process in our societies. After that moment things would be decided more and more on their real current merits, not on what has been done in the past. Bertrand Russell is not, however, saying here at all that one should keep on waiting for all possible new information before making a decision, as that would often slow down decision-making process. In my mind, he is just saying that one should normally just gather that available real evidence which we already have access to and make decisions based on them and not on old dogmatic beliefs. On the other hand, I see that he is saying that we should defer making a final decision on those things that we have too little information to base even a real opinion on. Too often the old dogma would be our only guide in cases like this. Of course, the difficult part here is to see when we have enough information to make a stand, and when we should withhold our decision until there is enough real information. That decision still requires true wisdom, and this is sometimes in short supply in any form of government, I'm afraid. (This piece was completely overhauled on 6th of September, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell "Russell is generally credited with being one of the founders of analytic philosophy. He was deeply impressed by Gottfried Leibniz (1646 1716) and wrote on every major area of philosophy except aesthetics. He was particularly prolific in the field of metaphysics, the logic and the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of language, ethics and epistemology." by jaskaw @ 01.12.2009 - 22:38:20 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/bertrand-russell-on-dogma-and-evidence-7493422/
Oscar Wilde on pure and simple truth

"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple."
- Oscar Wilde
My own ideas on the quote: Are there such things as absolute truths at all? I think that we just can have a lot of best possible guesses, truckloads of extremely good approximations and masses of extremely accurate information. However, the big question remains if any of them are unmovable and final truths. In fact, science is in its essence not at all about creating or even searching for any kind of final truth. Science is just about finding the best possible answer and explanation that is currently available, when we use all of our current knowledge and current tools for discovery. The best possible answers provided by science will change if a better answer or better explanation is ever found. I would go as far as to say that absolute and unmovable truths are found only in mathematics and religions, and even those in the religions are, in fact, mostly extremely bold and extravagant delusions. Just their boldness and extravagance makes it so difficult to see their true nature as things that were made up by men to create at least some kind of answer to questions that did not have real answers at those ignorant times. On the other hand I think that the absolute truths are possible even in mathematics only as far it is used as a purely theoretical tool. The perceived absoluteness evaporates even from mathematics as soon as one starts measuring and calculating real world entities. In nature we can all too often define things to be measured or counted in any kind of absolute terms. Only theoretical mathematics is free to use absolutes, when it uses purely theoretical mathematical entities in its theorems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_wilde "Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde (16 October 1854 30 November 1900) was an Irish writer and poet. After writing in different forms throughout the 1880s, he became one of London's most popular playwrights in
the early 1890s." by jaskaw @ 01.12.2009 - 23:08:53 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/oscar-wilde-on-truth-7493601/
Feedback for Post "Oscar Wilde on pure and simple truth"

FedupwithR [Member] 06.12.2009 @ 20:34 As Truth is not a material object it cannot exist. The Truths spoken of by religions are all too often unverifiable. The result of hallucinations, optical illusions rumor etc.
jonaslaves [Member] 07.09.2011 @ 15:14 If is true that there's no absolute truth, than there's one truth: that there's no absolute truth. A contradiction in terms. I guess that nobody has a perfectly knowledge of the truth, but some part of the truth can be purchased. One thinker once said: "For now we see through a glass" In his times, the glass was a peace of metal where you could see an opaque and confuse image. But it is not because WE cannot possess the truth that the truth stop to exist. Only omniscience contemplates that absolute truth. Which we are far from being. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 07.09.2011 @ 20:44 If read carefully again, Jonaslaves, you will notice that I have nowhere stated in absolute terms that there cannot be absolute truths, as you seem to presume, but I have just posed a question if they do exist. I stated that science does not offer them and how religions do not have them in my mind (even if they are claim so) and I doubt the full absoluteness of mathematical theory in practical world. However, if you read the thing again, you will notice that I have not made the opposite claim either of impossibility of absolute truths, as I have just presented my own (which of course cannot be a absolute truth) view on the things that many people see as absolutes. | Show subcomments jonaslaves [Member] 07.09.2011 @ 23:36 Me too mate. I'm not arguiing to refute. I'm just arguing..
Robert G. Ingersoll on intellectual honesty

"But honest men do not pretend to know; they are candid and sincere; they love the truth; they admit their ignorance, and they say, "We do not know."
- Robert G. Ingersoll in "Superstition" (1898)
As I see it, Robert G. Ingersoll is speaking here about the unbelievable callousness of many of the religious people who simply claim to know the final and unmoving answers to many question that are difficult or even impossible to answer in the real world. However, they all too often claim to have the final and unmovable truth of how people should behave and how things should be arranged in a life of a human being. It just takes a lot more guts of a person to say: "I really do not know what the final answer is, and I do not know if I ever will". A true follower of any of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) will just never be capable of doing it, as the main selling point of these religious is just claiming to have certainties in issues where they simply do not exist. On the other hand, science is not at all about being certain and creating final and unerring laws of nature. Science is all about striving to reach the best possible answer there is to be had at any given moment. This is a quite different thing than a final and absolute truth offered so easily and eagerly by so many religions. On the contrary, the answers that are given by science can and will change when new data emerges and enough scientists are convinced of te correctness of the new information. That fact is also the main reason why religion and science will always be inherently incompatible on a very basic level. (This piece was rewritten on 8th of September, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll "Robert Green "Bob" Ingersoll (August 11, 1833 July 21, 1899) was a Civil War veteran, American political leader, and orator during the Golden Age of Freethought, noted for his broad range of culture and his
defense of agnosticism. He was nicknamed "The Great Agnostic." by jaskaw @ 02.12.2009 - 11:31:55 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/robert-g-ingersoll-on-intellectual-honesty-7495958/
Feedback for Post "Robert G. Ingersoll on intellectual honesty "

Richard Prins [Visitor] http://richardprins.com 02.12.2009 @ 11:44 I'd add one of my favourites by Charles Darwin to this (from The Descent of Man, 1871, p. 4): "It has often and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can never be known: Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 02.12.2009 @ 11:47 A great quote, Richard, thanks!
FedupwithR [Member] 06.12.2009 @ 20:17 I would have said "unbelievable effrontery"of the religious.
Bertrand Russell on values and science

"While it is true that science cannot decide questions of value, that is because they cannot be intellectually decided at all, and lie outside the realm of truth and falsehood. Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know."
- Bertrand Russell in "Religion and Science (1935), ch. IX: Science of Ethics"
My own ideas on the quote: I expect that we can also scientifically explore what concepts like love and morality really are, how they have evolved and what purpose they serve. Most of all we can study what is the groundwork that is laid out by the physical and most of all cultural evolution of human species on which these ideas do rest in general. I think that by doing this we can achieve significant insights into the real nature of human values. We can do it by trying to understand with the help of true scientific inquiry why certain models of human behavior are classified as 'good' and certain others as 'bad' in a society at a given time. However, I also think that classifying specific actions for example 'loving' or 'moral' and others as 'unloving' or 'immoral' in a specific society cannot in reality be done by scientific methods alone. The values themselves that are used in a society are, of course, created in a quite unpredictable cultural processes that can change unexpectedly and even quite rapidly at times, when the situation and needs of the society do change rapidly. I think that the exact classification of different human activities as 'good' or 'bad' is primarily determined by the overall basic moral grammar that is in use in a particular society. A fact of life is that this moral grammar is never based on rational ideas alone at all, but also on fears, deep-seated emotions and also on some extremely irrational ideas and ideologies. However, we can use the scientific method to determine which are the real net results of applying different versions of morality and values for the individual or society at large. I believe that we can well do this, even if we cannot determine the values themselves with scientific methods alone. (This piece was completely rewritten on 9th of September, 2011)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/
"Bertrand Arthur William Russell (b.1872 d.1970) was a British philosopher, logician, essayist and social critic best known for his work in mathematical logic and analytic philosophy. His most influential contributions include his defense of logicism (the view that mathematics is in some important sense reducible to logic), his refining of the predicate calculus introduced by Gottlob Frege (which still forms the basis of most contemporary logic), his defense of neutral monism (the view that the world consists of just one type of substance that is neither exclusively mental nor exclusively physical), and his theories of definite descriptions and logical atomism. Along with G.E. Moore, Russell is generally recognized as one of the founders of modern analytic philosophy. Along with Kurt Gdel, he is regularly credited with being one of the most important logicians of the twentieth century. Over the course of his long career, Russell made significant contributions, not just to logic and philosophy, but to a broad range of subjects including education, history, political theory and religious studies. In addition, many of his writings on a variety of topics in both the sciences and the humanities have influenced generations of general readers." by jaskaw @ 02.12.2009 - 15:27:38 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/bertrand-russell-on-values-and-science-7497094/
Hippocrates on the difference between opinions and science

"There are, in fact, two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance."
- Hippocrates (460 BC - 377 BC) in "Law"
My own ideas on the quote: As I see it, Hippocrates is not saying here that people should not have opinions of their own, as some people have clearly interpreted this quote. I think that Hippocrates is just implying also here that also opinions should be based on facts as far as possible, and on the other hand merely forwarding opinions that are not based on know facts can not be science. I think that what Hippocrates, in fact, does mean here by opinions are ideas which are based just on the force of tradition and old prejudice, or those ideas that are based on wishful thinking and not on known facts. Of course, in all organized human communities there will always be different opinions based on differences in life experiences, different expectations and different views on the world as a whole. However, I think that the more these opinions are based on known and established facts of the physical world, the more realistic the decisions that are made based on them will ultimately be. It must be on the other hand clearly stated that I fear that a society based on facts alone is in practice impossible, as passions and emotions have always played and will always play on important, or even decisive role in human decision making. However, I think that merely understanding the at times enormous difference that does exist between facts and opinions, as Hippocrates is suggesting here, can help in the creation of even a little bit more rational societies. I think that even small steps towards that direction can make our world a little bit better place to live. (This piece was completely rewritten on 10th of September, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocrates "Hippocrates of Cos or Hippokrates of Kos (ca. 460 BC ca. 370 BC) was an ancient Greek physician of the Age of Pericles (Classical Athens), and is considered one of the most outstanding figures in the history of medicine. He is referred to as the father of Western medicine recognition of his lasting contributions to the field as the founder of the Hippocratic School of medicine. This intellectual school revolutionized medicine in ancient Greece, establishing it as a discipline distinct from other fields that it had traditionally been associated with (notably theurgy and philosophy), thus establishing medicine as a profession." by jaskaw @ 02.12.2009 - 23:55:21 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/hippocrates-on-opinions-and-facts-7500556/
Bertrand Russell on the mistakes of Aristotle

"Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths."
- Bertrand Russell in "The Impact of Science on Society" (1951)
My own ideas on the quote: There always is the imminent danger of following authority blindly present also in modern science, even if it is in its foundations based on endless doubting and questioning of the established facts and current scientific 'truths'. The reason why this is dangerous also in science is, of course, that the supposed authority can be dead wrong in some things, even if he or she can be on the right track on very many other things. So, the danger lurks at the very moment when a scientist achieves a position where his or her work is not doubted and questioned anymore. We are all humans, and it is only natural that this will happen from time to time. At times the dominant figure just first must pass away from the scene before his or her work can be studied with a genuinely critical eye. However, the real fantastic thing about modern science is that this critical analyzing of the established facts and 'truths' is a nonstop event. Eventually, even if often slowly and laboriously, the right path can be found again and mistakes of even eminent men and women corrected. We can, in fact, count on that even the most well-established mistakes will be corrected in the world of science given enough time. This inbuilt ability for self-correction in science makes in fact it unique among all of the enterprises humanity has embarked on during its long history. Aristotle thought that women are a lower species than men and just maybe he wanted just to find support for his opinions and maybe for that reason did not even want to check the facts. This danger of ideological bias lurks of course also today also in science, but the openness and self-corrective quality of science can work wonders also in this respect. (This piece was rewritten on on 11th of September, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell "Russell is generally credited with being one of the founders of analytic philosophy. He was deeply impressed by Gottfried Leibniz (1646 1716) and wrote on every major area of philosophy except aesthetics. He was particularly prolific in the field of metaphysics, the logic and the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of language, ethics and epistemology." by jaskaw @ 03.12.2009 - 15:19:07 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/03/bertrand-russell-on-aristotle-7503438/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on the mistakes of Aristotle "

Jim DeMaegt [Visitor] 11.09.2011 @ 18:44 In today's world those who control the internet sites on a subject usually Cannot be Questioned and they are often more authoritarian than virtually any category of "thinkers" in the past.
Marcus Aurelius on living among lying men

"There is but one thing of real value - to cultivate truth and justice, and to live without anger in the midst of lying and unjust men."
A wise person will not let fears and negative emotions to guide one's life. This is the very central message of Stoicism and Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic. From his book 'Meditations' it is easy to see that Stoic thinking did help him greatly in his extremely difficult job as the Emperor of Rome. After all, Marcus Aurelius was the emperor of the mightiest empire of his time. He was expected to collaborate and get along with all kinds of people from all walks of life to do his work really well. By all known accounts he also succeeded in making this difficult and extremely demanding principle work in real life. Of course, no person can ever control his or her negative emotions fully, but at least giving it a try can also help. The single most important and valuable single phrase for me in this quote is "without anger". The ability to remain calm in the most difficult moments of social interactions can also put one in a position of clear advantage compared to those who act in a state of anger. So, Marcus is not speaking out just because of universal love for the whole of mankind. Of course, this kind of thing is incredibly more difficult to implement than to just say. However, just understanding the real value of patience is really the necessary start. On the other hand, in my books passion is a quite different animal than anger, as passion is a positive feeling
and anger is normally a negative one. Passion drives you forward, but anger very often stops you on your tracks. With passion let loose, one so easily gets stuck in the old and otherwise soon bygone mishaps and even just imagined wrongdoing of others. If I let my anger to guide me, I may end up spending my energy in wallowing in old and often quite meaningless insults and wrongdoing of others in the past, instead of concentrating on things that I am about to accomplish in the future. (This piece was completely refurbished on 23th of February, 2012)
http://www.iep.utm.edu/marcus/ "The philosophy of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius can be found in a collection of personal writings known as the Meditations. These reflect the influence of Stoicism and, in particular, the philosophy of Epictetus, the Stoic. The Meditations may be read as a series of practical philosophical exercises, following Epictetus three topics of study, designed to digest and put into practice philosophical theory. Central to these exercises is a concern with the analysis of one s judgements and a desire to cultivate a cosmic perspective. by jaskaw @ 03.12.2009 - 19:15:51 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/03/marcus-aurelius-on-living-among-lying-men-7504684/
Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on living among lying men "
FedupwithR [Member] 06.12.2009 @ 19:41 Henry Miller once said that anger was a mental sickness. Anger seems to be accepted today as a justifiable way to behave whereas, as you say, it is totally negative. Anger itself never solves any problems and life would be so much more agreeable if everyone just stayed calm. maugen [Visitor] 12.09.2011 @ 13:02 a master constantly beating his dog will result in one of two things; the dog will eventually bite back or just roll over and die. In some situations i am of the opinion it can be justified, and not all negative but an emotion that in the same sense as passion can drive you forward in the right direction. Wwb [Visitor] 13.09.2011 @ 17:29 Feeling Angry is a normal and essential part of life. How you behave when you,re angry and what you do with your anger ..... That is what separates mice from men.
Bertrand Russell on the interdependence of humankind

"Humankind has become so much one family that we cannot ensure our own prosperity except by ensuring that of everyone else. If you wish to be happy yourself, you must resign yourself to seeing others also happy."
- Bertrand Russell in "The Science to Save Us from Science" in The New York Times Magazine (1950)
My own ideas on the quote: In my mind Bertrand Russell is in practice saying here that our human race has for a very long time been so interdependent that to ensure our own true happiness, we must ensure that others are happy too. I'm also quite sure that he did mean this on a global level, not only in ones own immediate circle of family and friends or even one's own society. It takes of course a lot of effort to see and really comprehend the mankind as united whole, with all of its different ideas of how the relationships between humans should be organized. I think that Bertrand was way ahead of his time, but I do also think that globalization is, in fact, a very old phenomena. The interdependence between all nations was there even in 1950, when Bertrand Russell did write these sentences, but it was not perhaps then talked about and appreciated as much as it is just now. It was a part of the nationalistic agenda to downplay the international aspect of human enterprise. Of course, internationalization and globalization have been intensifying in the last few decades, but it is a question of rise in the quantity and also quality of the old ties between nations. I do think that because of this ongoing process of internationalization, this quote by Bertrand Russell is, in fact, more current than ever before. (This piece was completely worked over at 13th of September, 2011)
http://users.drew.edu/jlenz/brs-about-br.html "As a philosopher, mathematician, educator, social critic and political activist, Russell authored over 70 books and thousands of essays and letters addressing a myriad of topics. Awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950, "Bertie" was a fine literary stylist, one of the foremost logicians ever, and a gadfly for improving the lives of men and women."
by jaskaw @ 03.12.2009 - 23:19:37 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/03/bertrand-russell-on-interdependency-of-humankind-7506326/
Bertrand Russell on preoccupation with possessions

"It is preoccupation with possession, more than anything else, that prevents men from living freely and nobly."
- Bertrand Russell in "Principles of Social Reconstruction" (1917)
My own ideas on the quote: I think that the word "preoccupation" is the key-word here. It is the lack of moderation that is the real problem even here; not the ideas of possession and ownership as themselves. As far as I know, Bertrand Russell was not against the idea of private property as such. He just saw how totally the quest for wealth can preoccupy the minds of men and women. It can really happen to a degree that it makes creating a just society much, much more difficult. This is of course a extremely Epicurean thought. In the very heart of Epicurean thinking there are ideas about achieving a balanced life by controlling ones urges and needs. These ideas are do apply also to our needs concerning the urge to possess new things. I must repeat that in my mind Bertrand Russell is not saying that private ownership is a bad thing as such. I think that he simply says that a total preoccupation with collecting more and more or even preserving existing possessions can burden a person and most of all his or her mind quite unnecessarily. I think that this idea certainly touches a central and also acutely painful nerve in our society. I do not expect this discussion to die out anytime soon. On the other hand I don't expect that it will ever lead to any kind of final conclusion either. However, I sincerely believe that this discussion is sorely needed, as I do think that no single central area of our society should not be taken as granted. In the end, who can truly, for example, say what is the right level of consumption that is needed to keep modern society up and running and which is needed so that this society is able to support all of its members, who are in need of support? (This piece was completely refurbished on 14th of September, 2011)
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/513124/Bertrand-Russell "Bertrand Russell, in full Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell of Kingston Russell, Viscount
Amberley of Amberley and of Ardsalla (born May 18, 1872, Trelleck, Monmouthshire, Wales died Feb. 2, 1970, Penrhyndeudraeth, Merioneth), British philosopher, logician, and social reformer, founding figure in the analytic movement in Anglo-American philosophy, and recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950. Russell s contributions to logic, epistemology, and the philosophy of mathematics established him as one of the foremost philosophers of the 20th century. To the general public, however, he was best known as a campaigner for peace and as a popular writer on social, political, and moral subjects. During a long, productive, and often turbulent life, he published more than 70 books and about 2,000 articles, married four times, became involved in innumerable public controversies, and was honoured and reviled in almost equal measure throughout the world." by jaskaw @ 04.12.2009 - 21:32:26 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/04/bertrand-russell-on-possessions-7511555/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on preoccupation with possessions"

antony rounis [Visitor] http://antony 06.10.2010 @ 08:55 As far as I can explain by my own example, possession fixes our wings on earth. If we want to fly to our type of living we' ve chosen, we have to throw that weight far away. Free life, i suppose, may be within possessions. Many times, these 2 words are contrary. That is the time one have to choose. Life free or like a bee!
Bertrand Russell on free intellect and fanaticism

"One who believes as I do, that free intellect is the chief engine of human progress, cannot but be fundamentally opposed to Bolshevism as much as to the Church of Rome. The hopes which inspire communism are, in the main, as admirable as those instilled by the Sermon on the Mount, but they are held as fanatically and are as likely to do as much harm."
- Bertrand Russell in "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism" (1920)
My own thoughts on the quote: I believe that the level of fanaticism is the crucial thing here. The exact policies and ideologies which the fanatics are furthering are of a secondary importance in this context. In my mind, Bertrand Russell is speaking of the closed mindset of a fanatic of every possible persuasion. In this closed mind only the information that does support ones existing views is accepted and all contradictory evidence is just brushed aside. Most of all the sad fact is, that the true happiness or well-being of other humans is, in fact, all too often less significant for a fanatic than furthering ones extremely strongly held set of ideas. Bertrand Russell did see Soviet communist ideology as a closed system quite like the older religions. In fact, he did often treat the Soviet communism as just a modern form of religion in his writings. It should be pointed out that Bertrand Russell himself continued to adhere to the western tradition of humanistic and democratic socialism to his very end. Bertrand Russell was, of course, looking at a specific point of history and opposing some specific policies. However, I believe this quote can still very well be used as a warning against all fanaticism, whatever is it's source. (This piece was completely refurbished on 15th of September, 2011)
http://users.drew.edu/jlenz/brs-about-br.html "Bertrand Russell was arguably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century and the greatest logician since Aristotle. Analytic philosophy, the dominant philosophy of the twentieth century, owes its existence more to Russell than any other philosopher. And the system of logic developed by Russell and A.N. Whitehead, and based on earlier work by Frege and Peano, finally broke logic out of its Aristotelian straitjacket. He was also one of the century's leading public intellectuals, and won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950 "in
recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought". by jaskaw @ 05.12.2009 - 15:14:51 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/05/bertrand-russell-on-free-intellect-7514927/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on free intellect and fanaticism"

Erkki [Visitor] 06.10.2010 @ 19:37 It was easy for Russell to be critical of the Bolsheviks from a distance. He didn't have to deal with the Whites. When he wrote that, the Civil War had been going on for almost 3 years, with no end in sight. Indeed, the involvement of Britain, France, et al. helped prolong it: where is Russell's criticism of the "fanaticism" of the White Terror or the Western governments' support thereof? To be sure, the Bolsheviks had their fanatics. War and repression breed fanaticism. But the Bolsheviks were far from the worst example. | Show subcomments Itchtakov [Visitor] 07.10.2010 @ 02:42 To be fair, being a more philosopher and thinker than a politician, I don't think he spent his time criticising the Bolsheviks because they were worse, but rather because they were newer and more interesting. After all, Western imperialism had been around for hundreds of years and was I think already widely agreed to be wrong among left-wing circles, whereas no-one quite knew what to make of Soviet communism. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 07.10.2010 @ 08:38 I do believe the thing that did turn Bertrand Russell against Bolsheviks was the wholesale suppression on all critical thinking that was part of their basic way operation. As Bertrand Russell saw critical thinking as the prime engine of human progress, he could not subscribe to a ideology that did systematically suppress the critical analysis of its own premises. He was also a humanist and the often quite unnecessary wholesale slaughters of opponents perpetrated by the Bolsheviks very early on did not endear him to them at all.
Marcus Aurelius on living well

"Where a man can live, he can also live well."
My own thoughts on the quote: I think that striking the right balance in ones own mind is the crucial thing even here. I do not think that this quote is about blindly accepting all the things that destiny throws at us, as some people seemingly tend to read this quote. As I see it, it is just a call for making the best of things when we are for the moment unable to change our circumstances. Just such situations are regrettably quite common in a human life. However, I believe that one can also strive for change without driving oneself to despair because of his or her current circumstances. Of course, on the other hand, just the personally felt feelings of hurt and despair have always been powerful forces for driving change. There is of course the danger of missing the possibility for initiating change in one's circumstances when a window of opportunity finally arises if one takes this accepting ones current circumstances too far. As an old saying goes, it is in the end all about accepting those things one has no power to change and using one's energies for trying to change those things that one actually can change. Most of all the key thing here is of course acquiring the wisdom to see the difference between these two. (This piece was retooled on 16th of September, 2011)
http://www.iep.utm.edu/marcus/
"Marcus Aurelius s reputation as a philosopher rests upon one work, the Meditations. The Meditations take the form of a personal notebook and were probably written while Marcus was on campaign in central Europe, c. AD 171-175. The entries appear to be in no particular order and may simply be in the original order of composition. The repetition of themes and the occasional groups of quotations from other authors (see e.g. Med. 4.46, 11.33-39) add to this impression. Book One, however, is somewhat different from the rest of the text and may well have been written separately (a plan for it may be discerned in Med. 6.48)." by jaskaw @ 05.12.2009 - 18:03:02 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/05/where-a-man-can-live-he-can-also-live-well-7515623/
Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on living well"

Spanito [Visitor] 11.09.2011 @ 18:50 Hei, your blog is really really good and recommendable...thanks a lot, really, hope you keep this awesome job...just to add in a humouristic way and in connection with this quote, since you are finnish, and I am a spanish living in Finland but not quite adapted, Marco Aurelius said that cause quite clearly didnt know Finland ...
Marcus Aurelius on nature and humans

"Nothing happens to anybody which he is not fitted by nature to bear."
My own ideas on the quote: I fear that this is not an easy idea to accept at all. I think that good old Marcus just means here that the human species has evolved to cope with all the things it commonly will encounter in life. Basically just millions and millions of earlier encounters with good and bad things have modeled our species to be what it is just now. Of course, he did not know how twisted things human could invent with time. He could not know of the Gulag or the concentration camps, but even there people endured and survided if they were given half the chance. Marcus Aurelius did not know anything about the modern scientific theory of evolution. However, very similar ideas were floating around also in times of Antiquity. These pre-evolutionary ideas were perhaps not formal scientific ideas in a way we know them, but they were thoughts that were based on just observing the extraordinary variety of myriads of different life forms and on thinking how this all could have happened and wondering why all the different creatures were as they were. The main point here is, as I see it, that if something that humans would have commonly encountered in their daily life would really been too much for humans to bear, there would be no humans left at all. Ergo; we can learn to bear most of the things nature and also humans do throw at us, as they mostly are things that countless other people have learned to cope with before us. There is no kind of divine forces or destiny presupposed in this quote at all. It is all about the very nature of our species. With time we have been changed so that we can cope with at least most of the common features of the world where we live.
We do not need divine help to cope with the difficult situation that do arise in every life, but we can rely on the tools that evolution of our species has given us to survive. We need just to remember that hundreds or thousands of generations of humans have survived with the very same basic skills before us. The proof of all this is, of course, that we all really are here against all odds. (This piece was totally refurbished on 18th of September, 2011)
http://www.nndb.com/people/979/000087718/ "KA Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus Born: 26-Apr-121 AD Birthplace: Rome, Italy Died: 17-Mar-180 AD Location of death: Vindobona Cause of death: unspecified Remains: Cremated, Castel Sant'Angelo, Rome, Italy Gender: Male Race or Ethnicity: White Sexual orientation: Straight Occupation: Royalty, Philosopher Nationality: Ancient Rome Executive summary: Roman Emperor, 161-180 AD" by jaskaw @ 06.12.2009 - 14:53:44 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/06/marcus-aurelius-on-on-humans-and-nature-7520045/
George Orwell on the difference between patriotism and nationalism

"Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By patriotism I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life. A patriot believes this country to be the best place in the world for himself but has no wish to force his ideas on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality." "Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally."
- George Orwell in "Notes on Nationalism" (1945)
My own ideas on the quote: There really comes a point when the quite harmless 'garden variety' of patriotism can turn into something much more nasty, as George Orwell tries to explain in his magnificent essay. In quite similar manner the Christian or even Islamic faith in itself need not to lead to any bad things as such, if it is just taken in small and mild enough doses. However, bad things do all too often appear the moment when beliefs do turn into fanaticism. This fact most certainly applies also to the feelings people have towards their home country. In small enough doses patriotism can be a quite healthy thing, but overdoing it will lead into trouble, as well as overdoing any strong ideology will lead to quite similar trouble. In general it well can be argued that whenever the well-being of an ideology becomes more important than well-being of humans, there is a good reason expect bad things to happen. The world would undoubtedly be a better place without even the milder forms of patriotism, but lets get real here; it is not gonna go away very soon, if ever. However, in my mind the formation of European Union is a great example how erasing the ill effects of nationalism and patriotism really is possible. However, it is no coincidence that this process did happen just in Europe, which has been completely ravaged and devastated by the effects of the worst kind of nationalism two times in a row during the last century. The lessons that were learned from these two World Wars were perhaps the main reason why the national leaders of the European nations were so willing to give up important areas of national independence to form a quite new kind of area of peace. In my mind the European Union was and still is a grand step forward towards achieving real and lasting peace in a continent that has been ravaged by continuous wars from time immemorial. (This piece was completely refurbished on 19th of September, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_orwell "Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 21 January 1950), better known by his pen name George Orwell, was an English author and journalist. His work is marked by keen intelligence and wit, a profound awareness of social injustice, an intense opposition to totalitarianism, a passion for clarity in language, and a belief in democratic socialism. Considered perhaps the twentieth century's best chronicler of English culture, Orwell wrote fiction, polemical journalism, literary criticism and poetry. He is best known for the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (published in 1949) and the satirical novella Animal Farm (1945. Orwell's influence on contemporary culture, popular and political, continues decades after his death." http://www.facebook.com/pages/George-Orwell/117663405816 by jaskaw @ 06.12.2009 - 20:02:06 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/06/george-orwell-on-patriotism-7521607/
Feedback for Post "George Orwell on the difference between patriotism and nationalism"
Term Paper Writing Help [Visitor] 04.01.2011 @ 11:01 Your blog is really helpful for my research.Keep it up.Thanks UK Term Paper Help | Buy Term Paper
George Orwell on money

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not money, I am become as a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not money, I am nothing."
- George Orwell in "Keep the Aspidistra Flying" (1936)
My own thoughts on the quote: George Orwell is in my mind expressing a very universal thought here. It just does not matter who you are, how eloquent you are, how perfect your mind is when you end up for a reason or another in a situation where you do not have any money. In that kind of situation, you are simply nothing for very many people and often they do not want even to know about your very existence. George Orwell really does know extremely well what he is talking about here, as he did have a hard period i his life, when he was really at the bottom. George Orwell was born as Eric Blair, but he did use the pen name George Orwell for all of writing career life. He did originally come from a quite typical British middle class family. He also started a normal middle class career as a police officer in Burma, but dropped out, when he realized what he was really doing in the colonial Burma and also when he decided to become a writer. After coming back from Burma he experienced the life of vagrants and hobos, who were roaming the British countryside at that time in big numbers. He tells about this period in his life in his fine first book called "Down and out in Paris and London" and this period of utter and desperate poverty he experienced has surely strongly influenced this quote. Later on he mostly led life of a typical freelance writer, where money was mostly scarce, as his real success did come very late in life. In fact, he did not much have time to enjoy the financial and critical success of his last masterpieces. 'Animal Farm' was published in 1945 and his best know work or '1984' only in 1949, only a year before his death in 1950. (This piece was completely re-written on 20th of September, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_orwell "Considered perhaps the twentieth century's best chronicler of English culture, Orwell wrote fiction, polemical journalism, literary criticism and poetry. He is best known for the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (published in 1949) and the satirical novella Animal Farm (1945) they have together sold more copies than any two books by any other twentieth-century author. His 1938 book Homage to Catalonia, an account of his experiences as a volunteer on the Republican side during the Spanish Civil War, together with numerous essays on politics, literature, language, and culture, are widely acclaimed." by jaskaw @ 07.12.2009 - 12:23:44
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/07/george-orwell-on-money-7526043/
Thomas Paine on the ownership of earth

"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property."
- Thomas Paine in "Agrarian Justice" (1795 - 1796)
My own thoughts on the quote: There is a profound philosophical level in this statement, if one forgets the problems of taxation that did, in fact, originally inspire this famous piece by Thomas Paine. I personally took this quotation to my heart the very first time I did hear it because I think it also reminds us that we all are, in fact, just at the end borrowing something, when we claim to have ownership over land or water. I believe that we must understand that we need in the end return that borrowed property in good condition to its rightful owners. In the case of land, they are the coming generations, but also humanity and also the ecosystem of the Earth as a whole. We have an obligation to keep land in such a condition that also all coming generations can use it; in that sense, we are not owners, but borrowers. There is a crucial difference in owning things and owning land; we can build new cars and boats if we destroy them. However if we choose to destroy the mother-ship Earth because we just did not care enough of its future, the children of our grandchildren just may have nothing left. We must of course allowed to improve and use land to our own benefit to be able to live decently, but we should remember that we are never the final owners of any part of it. Only after we learn how to do this, can we hope for the ultimate survival of the human race. I must add that I am not talking about taking something away from anybody here. Thomas Paine was not taking away things from people, but giving them new things; namely responsibility for their actions. Thomas Paine did nod dispute the right of the individual to "own" land and also collect the profits that are to be gained from using it, and neither am I. He is only saying that land is different from all other property, as it has not been made by anybody, but has existed before the rise of the mankind, even if men can improve the land by, for example, creating farms and building houses on it.
Ownership of land is a social convention only. This is also one of the main reasons why there has been the so many land-reforms in countries where private property is honored in all other forms. Thomas Paine just states the obvious here. Nobody thinks that one should be allowed to do to one's own children anything that will harm them permanently. Similarly I think that people cannot be allowed to harm permanently even those parts of our common Earth that they do claim to own. Society restricts your right to cause harm to your children, why cannot it restrict your freedom to harm the planet we all live in? This Earth will be here for billions of years in the future also, but it just might be some day devoid of humans, if greedy humans are allowed to make the planet more and more inhabitable because of a short-sighted greed. (This piece was completely overhauled on 21th of September, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_paine "Thomas "Tom" Paine (February 9, 1737 [January 29, 1736 June 8, 1809) was an author, pamphleteer, radical, inventor, intellectual, revolutionary, and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. He became notorious because of The Age of Reason (1793 94), his book that advocates deism, promotes reason and freethinking, argues against institutionalized religion and Christian doctrines. He also wrote the pamphlet Agrarian Justice (1795), discussing the origins of property, and introduced the concept of a guaranteed minimum income." by jaskaw @ 07.12.2009 - 22:01:16 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/07/thomas-paine-on-ownership-of-earth-7529596/
Howard Winters on "we" and "them"

"Civilization is the process in which one gradually increases the number of people included in the term 'we' or 'us' and at the same time decreases those labeled 'you' or 'them' until that category has no one left in it."
- Howard Winters
My own ideas on the quote: Broadening of the sphere of group inclusion that Howard Winters is speaking about here is a clear and unmistakable evolutionary trend, if one just cares to think about it. However, this trend still is one of the less widely observed and most of all accepted general trends in the human history. This just may be because it is not brought about by any single ideology or process, but it is a result of many simultaneous developments and this process does not benefit any single ideology. Most of all, I fear that noticing this important trend does not fit the ideology of very many people, especially of those who are espousing different forms of nationalism. However, noticing things like this is a matter where the discipline of history that is called the 'Big history' can really help. The discipline of 'Big history' tries to see the bigger pictures that are behind individual historical events. It tries to find the deepest trends and changes in human behavior that do ultimately propel along also the more visible changes. The ongoing creation of a new kind of global digital marketplace of ideas and computerized goods has greatly intensified the erosion of national borders and happily also the "us" and "them" -thinking. I see that there is a ongoing simultaneous creation of global tribes, which can already be seen going on in every corner in the world. This process has a tremendous impact on the way the coming generations will see the importance of national borders. This formation of transnational global tribes has been gaining momentum for decades. However, the rise of the Internet has intensified this process tremendously, as now you can really hang out and even "live" on daily basis with your tribe in the Net. This global tribalization is not without its own grave dangers, but the important thing is that it is slowly eating away the lifeblood of the extremist nationalism, which do form a real axis of evil together with the fundamentalist interpretations of the religion.
Extreme nationalism and fundamentalist religions are the last bastion on the dangerous "us" and "them" -thinking. Eroding the basic divisions of humans that have been for so been created along the national borders does inevitably also weaken the base for extremism based on physical divisions of humans. Of course, we will never reach any kind of Utopia that is admittedly hinted in the original quote, as even when old fault lines dividing humans disappear, new ones will arise. However, honestly think that weakening of the power base of extreme nationalism can do only good for humanity as a whole, even if it will not solve all of our problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_history (This piece was completely overhauled at 23th of September, 2011)
http://archaeology.about.com/od/archaeologistsw/g/wintersh.htm "American archaeologist Howard Dalton Winters [1923-1994] was probably most influential in the fleshing out of G.R. Willey's settlement patterns study. Winters argued that the proper way to study a settlement pattern (that is to say, a group of related sites, each with their own role) was as a system, as each part of a working whole. He was also interested in identifying the reasons for the selection of which goods were funneled through trade networks in the past, what the value of these goods were to the people who traded them."
by jaskaw @ 08.12.2009 - 13:47:49 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/08/howard-winters-on-we-and-them-7533105/
Epicurus on possessions and servility

"A free life cannot acquire many possessions, because this is not easy to do without servility to mobs or monarchs."
- Epicurus
My own thoughts on the quote: This is one of the easiest maxims of Epicurus to understand: you must simply choose if you want to collect possessions or if you want to be a truly free person. Of course, this decision is most often done without really noticing that there would even be alternatives available. The weight of tradition and expectations of others do often narrow down ones real range of choices to almost nil at times. Also, not all men or women would ever even want to lead a free life, but are happily serving the mobs in, for example, in Hollywood at their typewriters or directors chairs. They are serving the mobs by trying desperately to second guess what the mobs would like to see tomorrow, what horribly exaggerated catastrophes or morbid tales of rampant irrationality they would like dwell in next. On the other hand, the modern version of "servility to monarchs" is easy to observe in action in a modern society in middle management in every business and corporation all over the world. Few people seem even to understand how a necktie or cravat is a physical sign of servitude that says: "Here is the rope already in my neck, my life is yours if you so wish". Only the real owners and, on the other hand, the men at the ultimate bottom can discard this outward sign of servitude. Those who do not even plan to rise in the corporate ladders can be much more relaxed and are, in fact, more free than those above them. The men in the middle are often highly dependent on the opinions of their superiors, and lose their much of their freedom just because of their eagerness to gain and better positions and though it more possessions. On the other hand, the men at the very bottom of the corporate ladder need often not to constantly show their
servitude; they just need to do their work well, and this can be a different thing altogether. (This piece was completely refreshed on 24th of September, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus "For Epicurus, the purpose of philosophy was to attain the happy, tranquil life, characterized by ataraxia peace and freedom from fear and aponia the absence of pain and by living a self-sufficient life surrounded by friends. He taught that pleasure and pain are the measures of what is good and evil, that death is the end of the body and the soul and should therefore not be feared, that the gods do not reward or punish humans, that the universe is infinite and eternal, and that events in the world are ultimately based on the motions and interactions of atoms moving in empty space." by jaskaw @ 09.12.2009 - 00:25:56 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/08/epicurus-on-possessions-7536915/
Marcus Aurelius on happy life

"Very little is needed to make a happy life."
My own thoughts on the quote: Even though Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic he had a clear fondness for many of the central ideas of the older school of philosophy of Epicureanism and he was certainly very familiar with them. This maxim is of course pure Epicureanism, even if Stoicism was a rival of Epicureanism in the field of philosophies that were actively competing for an audience in the Roman Empire. At the bottom of it, happiness is purely just a state of mind. The true level of happiness does not depend on the economic circumstances, if one just does not let it interfere and affect ones state of mind. Of course, certain basic necessities must definitely always be fulfilled before a human can even really contemplate his or her state of happiness. It is simply extremely difficult to be happy when you are hungry, thirsty or suffering from cold. However, after these very basic necessities are fulfilled, the amount of happiness that, for example, acquiring new things does bring is a purely and simply a mental process. The amount of happiness acquiring new things does bring depends very often more on the relationship between one's expectation and what happens on reality, than on the real value that new things themselves do really bring. Many studies have shown that after a certain level of material well-being is reached, adding more material wealth will not cause any more rise in the feelings of happiness and contentment people. Of course, reaching even a momentary state of happiness in Auschwitz was certainly unbelievably more difficult than it was just a few meters away outside the fence. On the other hand, an unexpected friendly smile
or extra loaf of bread could bring even there a moment of great happiness, who knows? (This piece was completely refurbished on 25th of September, 2011)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcus-aurelius/ "The second century CE Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius was also a Stoic philosopher, and his private Meditations, written in Greek, gives readers a unique opportunity to see how an ancient person (indeed an emperor) might try to live a Stoic life, according to which only virtue is good, only vice is bad, and the things which we busy ourselves with are all indifferent. The difficulties Marcus faces putting Stoicism into practice are philosophical as well as practical, and understanding his efforts increases our philosophical appreciation of Stoicism." by jaskaw @ 09.12.2009 - 14:51:01 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/09/marcus-aurelius-on-happy-life-7539691/
Epicurus on fame and status

"Some men want fame and status, thinking that they would thus make themselves secure against other men. If the life of such men really were secure, they have attained a natural good; if, however, it is insecure, they have not attained the end which by nature's own prompting they originally sought."
- Epicurus (Principal Doctrines 7)
My own ideas on the quote: This Epicurean doctrine merely states that a great fame, a lot of money or even an extremely high social status and power alone cannot make a person ultimately feel safe, if that status is not based by a approval of others. In my mind, Epicurus is not saying that achieving fame and status would be bad things as such. He is just saying that they must be achieved in a way that one can be secure in his mind that this situation can safely continue in the future also. Of course, one should not forget that the higher in the social ladders of society or an organization one climbs, the more dependent on others and the more less free as an individual one also all too often becomes. So, this doctrine is basically saying that a position of status in a society must be achieved in a way that does not antagonize others, if one really seeks a true peace of mind. Of course, not everybody is after such a peace of mind at all, the more so as the fame and status are so often seen as worthy goals as themselves. Careful reading shows that this doctrine is not about the inner feelings of a person him- or herself, but about how the social status of a person is always ultimately decided by other members of the society. I would even claim that Epicurus is saying how an insecure and wrongfully or forcefully achieved social status can cause more pain than the whole thing is really worth. In Epicurean thinking, true mental peace can be achieved only when one is fully accepted by other members of his or her own society. So, an even a very high a social position that is achieved by fear or coercion will not really benefit a person in the long run. It will so easily ultimately lead to mental pain and anxiety.
(This piece was completely reworked on 26th of September, 2011)
http://www.epicurus.net/ "Epicurus (341 270 B.C.) founded one of the major philosophies of ancient Greece, helping to lay the intellectual foundations for modern science and for secular individualism. Many aspects of his thought are still highly relevant some twenty-three centuries after they were first taught in his school in Athens, called the Garden. Epicurus's philosophy combines a physics based on an atomistic materialism with a rational hedonistic ethics that emphasizes moderation of desires and cultivation of friendships. His world-view is an optimistic one that stresses that philosophy can liberate one from fears of death and the supernatural, and can teach us how to find happiness in almost any situation. His practical insights into human psychology, as well as his science-friendly world-view, gives Epicureanism great contemporary significance as well as a venerable role in the intellectual development of Western Civilization." by jaskaw @ 10.12.2009 - 00:01:57 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/09/epicurus-on-fame-and-status-7542696/
Feedback for Post "Epicurus on fame and status"

Zuhal [Visitor] 14.10.2010 @ 21:40 By saying this. Epicurus automatically assumes that reaching a high status and fame is a means to peace of mins and security alone. What if the goal wasn't security or peace of mind? For instance, a man decided that he wants to become a president to serve the people of his country. We all know that this job is far away from achieving peace of mind. I think Epicurus should reconsider his statement!! | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 14.10.2010 @ 21:59 Dear Zuhai, this statement of course applies only if a person is striving to achieve mental peace, as I did fact already point out in my own comment. Not all people at all are searching for anything like it, but if you do, Epicurus says that you should only seek such avenues for advancement in society that are secure, as insecurity is one of the greatest sources of mental stress.
Epicurus on malevolent God

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus (attributed)
My own thoughts about the quote: This famous quotation has been in circulation for a couple of thousands of years, and it has always been accredited to Epicurus. It is not, however, found among the pitifully few surviving fragments of his large and voluminous writings. For example, there are only small fragments left of his 37 volumes of treatise called 'On Nature'. The fact that something is not among his few surviving texts does not preclude the fact that he could have written it. The argument itself is of a type that was favored by the Greek skeptics, and it has been claimed that it may have been wrongly attributed to Epicurus by Lactantius (ca. 240 ca. 320), who was a Christian and regarded Epicurus as an atheist. Lactantius was maybe not far away from the truth in his assessment, as in fact any of the 40 Epicurean Principal Doctrines does not proclaim any kind of need for some kind deity or depend on any kind of divine or supernatural forces. In fact, on several occasions in his central surviving writings Epicurus stresses the need for not succumbing to fearing gods or to fear of death, which are of course cornerstones of all western religions. All the principles of Epicureanism need active involvement only from humans themselves to be fulfilled, and Epicureans cannot rely on any kind of supernatural forces to help them. Epicurus did refer to the idea of a god in some of his writings, but he saw that even if there would be gods, they would not bother humans or would not affect human life on earth in any way. This idea leads to a situation where one in practice needs not to bother himself with the idea of gods at all. This idea does not really in practice differ very much from agnosticism or even atheism.
This famous riddle is still quite valid. All the question asked in have been left quite unanswered during the two and half millennium that has passed since these words were first written down in ancient Greece, where men could utter words like this and live to tell about it. A sorry fact of life is that the rise of extremely dogmatic Christianity made it impossible for over a millennium to even try to ask a question like this. (This piece was completely refurbished on 27th of September, 2011)
http://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/ "Epicurus is one of the major philosophers in the Hellenistic period, the three centuries following the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE (and of Aristotle in 322 BCE). Epicurus taught that the basic constituents of the world are atoms, uncuttable bits of matter, flying through empty space, and he tried to explain all natural phenomena in atomic terms. Epicurus rejected the existence of Platonic forms and an immaterial soul, and he said that the gods have no influence on our lives. Epicurus also thought skepticism was untenable, and that we could gain knowledge of the world relying upon the senses." by jaskaw @ 10.12.2009 - 15:32:54 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/epicurus-on-god-7548491/
Feedback for Post "Epicurus on malevolent God "

Winston Brown [Visitor] http://weightlossgodsway.weebly.com/ 14.12.2009 @ 08:02 God has been helping me lose weight - lately http://weightlossgodsway.weebly.com/ | Show subcomments Jervis Dacia [Visitor] 15.12.2009 @ 03:26 "Is God willing to prevent fat, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh obesity? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? The words of Epicurus may aid you in losing weight, if you can limit the natural but unnecessary desires. Penny C [Visitor] 17.10.2010 @ 01:58 Maybe if you didn't waste so much time in a pew you wouldn't need a god to lose weight. We have to exercise whether we like it or not. Maybe a professional shopper? Don't watch television too much, built in temptation. You make yourself fat and only you can make yourself lose weight. Though honestly that posters is just a spammer. I really find this saying perfect logic and wish I found it years ago. There are so many good causes that are springing up out of pure desperation that I have to say I am very encouraged by the human spirit. Forget the Holy Spirit. How many maniacs used that idea as an excuse to do wrong? How many people used religion to recruit or bring harm to others to make them do what they want them to do? Yeah, sure, God wants you to do this or that. Amazing how many people on this mud ball love to play God? Well a waste of time. When people discover their own abilities and use them to the best that they can be wondrous things really do happen. I am very happy to see everyday the amazing ideas that come to life due to people who just use their imagination for the good. They deserve some praise and here it is. Spend a little more of your free time at least saying, "thank you", to people who really deserve it. You may be the only person who does. People take too much in life for granted. I'm just living a simple life and I don't stress as much. If I want something, I work for it, save for it but always ask myself is it really necessary? Can I put the money to better use? Just things we all need to think about. Those of us who know God isn't taking care of anyone. It is the love and concern of other people. We definitely need a lot more love to go around. A lot more. Start thinking about the plight of others for a change rather than if you can get more of this or that. Share to love.
Bertrand Russell on teapots in orbit

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. 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 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."
- Bertrand Russell in "Is There a God?" (1952).
My own ideas on the quote: This classical case of teapots in orbit has been in use for over half a century now. Sadly, the need to use it over and over again has not gone away. Still, very many religious people seem not to grasp the essence of this story at all. The core problem is that they have enormous difficulty in understanding that the basic claims that underline their religion are just human claims that were originally made by ordinary humans. They just do not want to face the simple fact that all religions are just a refined forms of human ideologies which do quite universally simply claim to be something else. When people have been steeped from their earliest childhood into thinking that some kind of deity has somehow dictated their favorite holy books, they do not necessarily grasp the metaphor that is used here by Bertrand Russell. They often seem just think that Bertrand Russell in speaking of made up things, when their holy books are a quite different thing, as it just is the absolute truth which just is of a divine origin. They have no difficulty with the fact that this claim of divine origin is based solely on the claims that were made in their own holy books themselves in the first place.
They gave often seem to have immense difficulty in understanding that it simply is extremely easy for a person to write texts that just seem to be dictated be a divine force, if he just so wishes for his own purposes. These purposes can be of course be quite noble and commendable, as this pretending to be the voice of a 'God' could be seen as a great tool in advancing things that the writer sees to serve the greater good of his nation or even humanity as a whole. Religions can, of course, be used to convey commendable and noble ideas. The core problem is that in religions these fine ideas are commonly presented as some kind of only and final truth. However, in the extremely complex world of humans there inevitably are many correct answers to most questions, depending on the needs of the current situation. As societies and their needs do inevitably change with time, the religious answers that were invented in different societies thousands of years ago can became even a heavy burden to a modern society. They can eventually become a barrier that prevents the true flourishing and unlocking the true potential available in a society. Theists do not seem also ever to wonder why their god had a habit of dictating long texts to certain groups of herders and small time farmers several thousand of years ago, but has stopped this habit altogether later on. They seem not to wonder why if there would be a god that would want all people to act, think and eat in a certain way. They do not even wonder why should this god should not appear constantly to dozens oreven hundreds of new prophets to make absolutely certain that his will is not corrupted with time? What Bertrand Russell did is to show with his example how the reasoning of the theist is so often based firmly on breath of thin air. (This piece was completely refurbished on 29th of September, 2011)
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1950/russell-bio.html "Russell was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1908, and re-elected a fellow of Trinity College in 1944. He was awarded the Sylvester medal of the Royal Society, 1934, the de Morgan medal of the London Mathematical Society in the same year, the Nobel Prize for Literature, 1950." by jaskaw @ 10.12.2009 - 23:33:14 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/bertrand-russell-on-teapots-in-orbit-7551421/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on teapots in orbit"

Karen [Visitor] 11.12.2009 @ 03:18 Classic Russell. I adore him. Where is the Bertrand Russell of our age? Maybe Dennett. I really think he was underappreciated, even when he was alive. At least now some of us godless beings have brought him out of semi-obscurity. Ib Balicanta [Visitor] 11.12.2009 @ 09:50 He is, undoubtedly the most influential figure in my life. Ashley Moltzan [Visitor] 11.12.2009 @ 23:16 I love this! This man is an inspiration. Amin Farhadi [Visitor] 05.01.2010 @ 20:52 that's so true. I love him and among all the philosophers and writers he's the only one i've never disagreed with YET shahab [Visitor] http://azghalam.blogfa.com 20.10.2010 @ 21:33 Fascinating! I love him! raffan [Visitor] 29.09.2011 @ 13:49 A great man and a fine teapot.
Epicurus on the folly of praying

"It is folly for a man to pray to the gods for that which he can attain by his own power."
- Epicurus (VS, 65)
/>
My own thoughts on the quote: This quote really does not need much commenting, as Epicurus states his ideas in a very straightforward way. Epicurus simply did not believe that pleading to some kind of higher or supernatural powers would help people in their real world problems. He clearly saw that only humans can help themselves with their own actions. Epicurus did not believe that there would be any kind of active divine forces that would affect human life at all, even if there appeared a concept of gods as models of perfect beings in some of his earlier writings. In other words, he is basically just saying in more modern language that "a man got to do what a man got to do" and stop expecting help from quarters from where none is to be expected. Of course, also a theist can well use this quote, as it can be interpreted in a way that prayer is not needed in the cases where humans can help themselves. This quote does not also exclude the cases where humans are powerless, and there is nothing real one can do no more to change the outcome. This kind of interpretation would also serve the goal that Epicurus had in his mind when he wrote this, as even with this interpretation humans would not waste their resources to unnecessary and unfruitful pleading to supernatural forces in situations where they should be directed to real action. Of course, the main purpose of prayer is to give a sense of empowerment to people who feel helpless in the face of events that they do not have any control over. In such a situation praying can give a person a feeling that he or she is going at least something in a situation where there is nothing real to be done, and this can help a person mentally, even if it all is merely a mental illusion.
(This piece was completely refurbished on 30th of September. 2011)
http://www.epicurus.info/ "Epicurus of Smos (341-270 BCE), the Greek garden philosopher, was an ancient sage who left us an enduring message of optimism. His philosophy conveyed the ultimate conviction that individuals can live in serene happiness, fortified by the continual experience of modest pleasures." by jaskaw @ 11.12.2009 - 15:51:58 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/11/epicurus-on-folly-of-prayer-7554789/
Thomas Paine on the debauchery of the Almighty

"What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith." -
- Thomas Paine in "The Age of Reason" (1794)
My own ideas on the quote: Writer and radical reformer Thomas Paine was one of the real Founding Fathers of United States. He was a deist, and he did not support or even approve of any of the formal organized religions of his day. His book "The Age of Reason" is a wholesale condemnation of all organized religion. It is no wonder that publishing it did land Thomas Paine in deep trouble, as it happened in a world where Christian religion was still in a position of quite total mental hegemony. He had a personal notion of some kind of a god-like spirit as the original reason for the existence of the Universe. However, this pantheistic god of Thomas Paine's did not interfere in matters of humans at all. So, it was quite logical for him to denounce the Bible. He just did believe in a totally different concept of god than the one that is presented in the Bible or in the Christian religion. It should be kept in mind that the deistic idea of god has in practice nothing in common with the vengeful and angry Father-God of the Jews and of the Christians. During the latter part of his life,Thomas Paine did oppose all organized forms of religion. One could even say this this opposition did develop into a hatred of dogmatic religious beliefs. However, this fact was generally suppressed in the United States at least for nearly two centuries. There seems to exist many people in the United Stated who do not know have the faintest idea of where he really stood in religious matters at all. Of course, the people in the very vocal American religious right mostly fall into this category. It seems that they are just kept ignorant of the true nature of this remarkable man. Very many of them would undoubtedly be truly shocked if true ideas of this remarkable man would be revealed to them some day. (This piece wan completely refreshed on 1st of October, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism "Deism in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is a creation and has a creator. Furthermore, the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine "Thomas "Tom" Paine (February 9, 1737 June 8, 1809) was an author, pamphleteer, radical, inventor, intellectual, revolutionary, and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States." by jaskaw @ 11.12.2009 - 21:31:47 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/11/thomas-paine-on-the-bible-7557149/
Robert G. Ingersoll on prisons of the mind

"When I became convinced that the universe is natural, that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space. I was free."
- Robert G. Ingersoll in "Why I Am An Agnostic" (1896)
My own thoughts on the quote: This quote hardly needs any explaining. It is simply a description of the feeling of spiritual liberation, when a person realizes that he is not a serf of some divine authority, but bears a personal responsibility for all of his actions. Robert G. Ingersoll was a war veteran from the American Civil War. He rose to the status of a colonel and at the height of his career did become the attorney general of Illinois. He was also a proficient writer and a active politician. According to many sources he did reach as an orator a level where there are still very few competitors. He also had to courage to say what he thought in the American society of 19th century, where publishing this kind of things could still end up one in deep trouble. Robert G. Ingersoll was a skilled and gifted politician. However, he did never seek any higher elected office, even if he was asked and even pleaded to stand for election many times. He knew very well that a person who rejects the organized religions in a way in which he did, would not had been elected even in the United States of his day, at the time before the birth of the modern and most of all vocal religious right. Besides being an opponent of all organized religion, Robert G. Ingersoll was a firm supporter of social justice and equality of all humans. He stood for the downtrodden majority of the Americans in many different issues. He had for his day extremely radical views on slavery and equality of all humans, but also on the hot issue of rights of women. He may have been in a small minority when he did choose his the issues he stood for, but history has
vindicated, in fact, all of his ideas in more level than one. (This piece was completely rewritten on 2th of October, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll "Robert Green "Bob" Ingersoll (August 11, 1833 July 21, 1899) was a Civil War veteran, American political leader, and orator during the Golden Age of Freethought, noted for his broad range of culture and his defense of agnosticism. He was nicknamed "The Great Agnostic." by jaskaw @ 13.12.2009 - 03:17:11 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/13/robert-g-ingersoll-on-prisons-of-mind-7564086/
Marcus Aurelius on living a noble life

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
- Marcus Aurelius (attributed)
My own ideas on the quote: Wikiquote classifies this quote as 'unsourced', as it is not from 'Meditations'. This book is the only surviving literary work that is know with certainty to have been written by the Stoic philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius. It is of course quite possible that he could have uttered these ideas elsewhere, and this source is just lost. In any case, the central idea that is presented here is such that a wise man like Marcus Aurelius could well have presented it. The style also resembles very much that of Marcus Aurelius. We will never know for sure. However, this quote is a fine piece of rational thinking, whoever was its original writer. Marcus Aurelius was in his writings wholly concerned on the impact of human ideas and human activity in our real life. He did not speak about acting or living in a certain way just to please any kind of gods or deities. The Stoic idea of god was one of an original cause; it is the force of life that fills the universe. It was a pantheistic notion.
This Stoic god is not an active participant in life of humans at all, in stark contrast to the god of Abrahamic religions like Judaism, Christianity or Islam. The Stoic idea of a god has, in fact, nothing in common with the Christian god, even if quite confusingly the same word is used for both. Of course, the writer of these few lines is here just basically saying also that one should not burden oneself unnecessarily with abstract ideas. Instead, he insists on concentrating on living a good and just life in the only real life we do have. This quote could be read also as a reminder of how following the regulations that are presented by a religion is not enough to make a person virtuous. The really important thing is living a good and just life, and these two can really be quite different things. What we know for certain is that Marcus Aurelius did believe in the human ability to act in a way which is best for him or her and for the society as a whole, if just enough effort is put into it. (This piece was completely refurbished on 3rd of October, 2011)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/marcuaurelius1.asp "Marcus Aelius Aurelius Antoninus, was born in 121, was adopted by the emperor Antoninus Pius and succeeded him in 161, (as joint emperor with adoptive brother Lucius Verus). He ruled alone from 169. He spent much of his reign in putting down variou rebellions, and was a persecutor of Christians. His fame rest, above all, on his Meditations, a series of reflections, strongly influenced by Epictetus, which represent a Stoic outlook on life. He died in 180 and was succeed by his natural son, thus ending the period of the adoptive emperors." by jaskaw @ 13.12.2009 - 13:46:55 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/13/marcus-aurelius-on-gods-7565403/
Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on living a noble life"

sandor [Visitor] 13.12.2009 @ 17:49 That's a great quote. I haven't read it before. My favourite is: "Love thy neighbour." There's no need to believe in "gods" or "religions" or in an Invisible Superbeing, yet those who do believe in such nonsense seem to be unable to remember those 3 simple words. "Love thy neighbour." End of story. Chris [Visitor] 13.12.2009 @ 20:11 That is exactly how I have always felt. gimmeabreak [Visitor] 13.12.2009 @ 20:31 abstract ideas like science? | Show subcomments Kirk [Visitor] 14.12.2009 @ 00:12 Sure science is abstract - it's a process for discovering and explaining nature. The subject of science -see figure 1 - is natural phenomena. These are real and not abstract. Some of the representations or models may begin as abstract but the goods ones get flesh put on the bones pretty quickly. The supernatural is completely, irrevocably abstract. That's for sure. hiptrigger [Visitor] 13.12.2009 @ 21:05 @ gimmeabreak - 'science' allowed you to leave your idiotic comment (using hardware, software, electronics, networking, metallurgy, chemical engineering, human factors, etc.) As opposed to the abstract idea of god(s) which was been *created* by fearful control freaks a long time ago and is culturally maintained by well, fearful control freaks today. Nick [Visitor] 12.11.2010 @ 00:08 The key word here is "virtue." Where would this virtue for 'living the good life' arrive from?
jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 12.11.2010 @ 00:18 Nick, virtue is simply behavior that is seen as beneficial either to a individual, his family or the society. What is seen as virtuous behavior has changed tremendously in different times and in different cultures, also among the followers a Christian tradition. For example it was for centuries sees as virtuous Christian behavior to kill feeble old women, if one did believe that they were witches.
Bertrand Russell on philosophy and theology

"In science men change their opinions when new knowledge becomes available; but philosophy in the minds of many is assimilated rather to theology than to science."
- Bertrand Russell in Preface to "The Bertrand Russell Dictionary of Mind, Matter and Morality
My own ideas on the quote: Bertrand Russell is definitely on something very big here. There simply are no final truths in philosophy, as well as there are no final truths in no other fields of science and inquiry either. However, some very old philosophical ideas are being presented as some kind of universal 'truths' century after century, generation after generation. Most of all they are all too often presented as something that is beyond critique. Philosophical ideas just can really very easily become something that is treated like theology, as Bertrand Russell reminds here. They all too easily do become something that is taken as given and fixed and whose true origins and real meaning can become quite blurred. In my mind, one should always remember that a true proponent of philosophy must be able to accept the very distinct possibility that even the quite opposite views on the some issue are quite valid as human ideas at the same time. I think that a person with a true philosophical mindset should be able to see that many different ideas can be right in their own way in the same time, often depending just on the viewpoint that used to look at the issue at hand at a given time. The stark fact is that there are no universally accepted current paradigms in philosophy, as there are in many other fields of science. That of course is the way it should be, as philosophy is endlessly querying the contents of the human mind in its never ending quest for a better answer on why we are as we are. (This piece completely refreshed at 4th of October, 2011)
http://www.nndb.com/people/954/000044822/ "Philosopher, mathematician, and nonconformist Bertrand Russell was the grandson of John Russell (1792-1878), who was twice Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Bertrand and his brother were raised by their paternal grandparents after their father's death in 1876. His maternal grandfather, Edward John Stanley (1802-1869), was a long-time member of the House of Commons and served as Postmaster General of the
United Kingdom from 1860-66. His godfather was John Stuart Mill. Russell held two titles: 3rd Earl Russell of Kingston Russell and Viscount Amberley of Amberley and of Ardsalla." by jaskaw @ 14.12.2009 - 14:02:06
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/14/bertrand-russell-on-the-difference-between-philosophy-and-theology-7572023/
Bertrand Russell on vastness and fearful passionless force of non-human things

"I must before I die, find some way to say the essential thing that is in me, that I have never said yet - a thing that is not love or hate or pity or scorn, but the very breath of life, fierce and coming from far away, bringing into human life the vastness and fearful passionless force of non-human things."
- Bertrand Russell in "My Philosophical Development" (1959)
My own ideas on the quote: This quote is extremely personal and intimate thing. It perhaps tells more about Bertrand Russell as a person than it will clarify his philosophy and ideology. Of course, any kind of interpretation of this kind of quote that is made by any other person than Bertrand Russell himself is just a shot in the dark, However, I can not help myself, the more so, as this beautiful quote does always evoke strong emotions in me. Be as it is, I personally have a strong hunch that this quote is about the feelings and emotions that the realizing of the unfathomable vastness of the universe, the incredible and endless variety of the physical world, but also of the unbelievable force of human imagination can bring forward in a person. The 'passionless force' in this quote is (for me, at least) a reminder of that nature in itself does not have purposes, morality or emotions, but they are human inventions that evolution has created in us that do serve us as humans. However, purposes, morality and emotions do serve us well. Aided by these emotions and ideas we have achieved all the little things that we have achieved on this little blue dot that lies unnoticed in a remote corner of the vast and boundless universe. However, I think that we all too easily project our emotions to lifeless objects. We also all too easily tend to see intentions and purposes in things that do not really have intentions or purposes of their own at all. Of course in reality in the end I do not know any more about what this quote is all about than you, my dear reader, do know when you read it yourself. (This piece was completely refreshed on 5th of October, 2011)
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1950/ "The Nobel Prize in Literature 1950 was awarded to Bertrand Russell "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought". by jaskaw @ 14.12.2009 - 23:37:32
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/14/bertrand-russell-on-vastness-and-fearful-passionless-force-of-non-human-thing
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on vastness and fearful passionless force of non-human things"
Robert [Visitor] 23.10.2010 @ 17:16 I think you did a great job of interpreting what Russel may have meant. I was thinking this "passionless force" that he speaks of is the witness within all of us that knows what is intangible to human intelligence, but is remembered after our brief sojourn on earth is over. Thanks
Marcus Aurelius on causes of controversies

"We are too much accustomed to attribute to a single cause that which is the product of several, and the majority of our controversies come from that."
- Marcus Aurelius
My own ideas on the quote: I think that philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius is in the very heart of the matter in this quote. We humans just love simple and easy to understand explanations. We just are extremely eager to jump at easy conclusions, if we are given half a chance to do so. Of course this tendency has a natural evolutionary basis. Making things as easily and with as little hard mental work as possible is generally advantageous to humans. However, I suspect that the millions of years of evolution did not furnish us with all the faculties that we, in fact, need in coping with the tremendous increase in complexity that we do meet even in our daily lives now. The world of hunter-gatherers, sheep-herders and small-time farmers just could have been even a several magnitudes easier place to grasp than the ever-changing, fluid world of modern city-dwellers. The sad fact is that the world is not easy anymore. The explanation that is the most obvious is all too often not the right one, even if we so would like it to be so. The other very unfortunate human tendency is to cling to the answer one has once accepted, even if reality would show that it is a wrong one. We all too often simply discard the evidence that contradicts the things that we have learned earlier.Changing or even challencing one's central ideas on important issues is a extremely hard thing to do. I even fear that
there really are many of those who have never even tried this. When the very basic convictions and ideas are questioned, we see very often see those people who present these new ideas as personal threats to ourselves, even if they would be questioning only some of the ideas that we have learned earlier. In fact, being a 'man of principles' who never changes his views is the overwhelmingly easiest option. The really hard thing to do is to accept even the possibility that you have been wrong in something. For this one needs real courage and will-power. Even the history of philosophy is full of single-minded and one-tracked attempts of trying to explain it all with one all-explaining thesis. Of course, even the most single-minded and simple explanations can make valuable contributions to our thinking, just if one keeps in mind that the a simple final truth simply does not exist in most of the cases. (This piece was completely re-written on 6th of October, 2011)
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/364331/Marcus-Aurelius "Marcus Aurelius, in full Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, original name (until 161 ce) Marcus Annius Verus (born April 26, 121 ce, Rome died March 17, 180, Vindobona [Vienna], or Sirmium, Pannonia), Roman emperor (ce 161 180), best known for his Meditations on Stoic philosophy. Marcus Aurelius has symbolized for many generations in the West the Golden Age of the Roman Empire." by jaskaw @ 15.12.2009 - 16:38:13 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/15/marcus-aurelius-on-causes-of-controversies-7579075/
Bertrand Russell on conquering fear

"Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom."
- Bertrand Russell in "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish" (1943)
My own ideas on the quote: Bertrand Russell is stating an quite obvious fact here. Fear is one of the main sources of hate. On the other hand, hate is a very natural response to fear, as with using the feelings of hate a person can make him- or herself ready to meet and resist the things that are causing the fear in the first place. One quite typically hates the things that one fears. However, all too often this fear grows even if the reasons and origins of fear can in reality be very obscure and are in some cases even totally made-up. Fear is all too often aroused in the simple purpose of furthering ideological or political aims. Those who foster these fears well know that the hate will follow quite automatically, when the needed level of fear just has first been successfully aroused. This mechanism is used for a good measure in creating chauvinist, nationalist fervor, which has had very ugly consequences so many times in human history. Spreading stories of atrocities committed by the 'other' side is a already a standard feature when nations prepare themselves for conflicts, when one's own followers are peppered up for the fight. The flip-side of this strategy is, of course, that just this fervor that is aroused in one's own followers will often cause them to commit true real-life atrocities in response to the propaganda. The circle of evil is then complete, when the 'other' side can reply with its own real atrocities, after which the trustworthiness of the original atrocity-stories is also certified. In the core of the problem are the groundless, ideology-based fears. On the other hand fear is a quite natural human response to stressful situations, but this fear is quite universally misused to further ideological and political aims. (This piece was completely refreshed on 7th of October, 2011)
http://users.drew.edu/jlenz/brs-about-br.html
"Bertrand Russell was arguably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century and the greatest logician since Aristotle. Analytic philosophy, the dominant philosophy of the twentieth century, owes its existence more to Russell than any other philosopher. And the system of logic developed by Russell and A.N. Whitehead, and based on earlier work by Frege and Peano, finally broke logic out of its Aristotelian straitjacket. He was also one of the century's leading public intellectuals, and won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950 "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought". by jaskaw @ 15.12.2009 - 21:21:36 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/15/bertrand-russell-on-fear-7580651/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on conquering fear"

victor muthoka [Visitor] 07.10.2011 @ 11:10 This is brilliant
Epicurus on fearing the celestial and atmospheric phenomena

"If the things that produce the pleasures of profligate men really freed them from fears of the mind concerning celestial and atmospheric phenomena, the fear of death, and the fear of pain; if, further, they taught them to limit their desires, we should never have any fault to find with such persons, for they would then be filled with pleasures from every source and would never have pain of the body or mind, which is what is bad."
- Epicurus (Principal Doctrines, 10)
My own ideas on the quote: The tenth Epicurean doctrine collects some of the ideas that are presented in the earlier Epicurean doctrines into a bigger whole. It does show the very essence of the Epicurean method for achieving mental stability and peace. In fact, Epicureans are saying here that forgetting the religious explanations for earthly phenomena can greatly pacify one's mind. One's mind just can be troubled quite unnecessarily by the religious method of explaining natural phenomena as divine responses to human actions. The mind of a person can be even greatly pacified, when he or she understands that natural phenomena are not punishments for sins committed by humans, but they be can fully explainable in a rational way. Most of all important for Epicureans is to overcome the irrational fear of death that is cultivated by many religions to a maximum effect. Soothing this fear that they are doing their best to foster is an age-old marketing ploy of many religions. Fear of death is of course quite natural for humans, but we can with conscious actions diminish the effect it has on us. On the other hand, the promise of freeing humans from fear of death is one of absolutely central marketing claims of most of all Christianity and Islam. It is, however, unclear how well the promises of eternal life really do alleviate this fear in real life.
For these promises to really work they must be accepted fully and without any kind of doubt. For most people it is quite difficult, or even impossible, to achieve such a certainty on a set of vague promises. However, to be able to retain a faith in these grand promises many people are simply ready to dismiss all contradictory evidence. They can even feel that people who do present any kind of contradictory of evidence are a direct threat for them. However, it is in the end quite easy to understand that what we think or not think of death does not change the inevitability of death in any way. On the other hand, the fear of death really can damage our lives here on earth, if we allow it to take a hold in our minds. As important for Epicureans is developing a sufficient level of self-restraint, so that one does not hurt oneself or others by filling his or her desires. Being able consciously to limit ones wants and desires is the key here, as getting new things does only momentarily fulfill the human wants and needs. In the core of Epicurean thinking is the idea that a new desire for even bigger and shinier things are commonly developed, as soon something ones has desired is acquired. In essence Epicurus says that greater mental peace can be secured by getting away from this vicious circle of want and desire. Summa summarum; the doctrine simply says that getting rid of fear, but also of over-indulgence are the necessary cornerstones for a balanced life and happiness, if one sets his or her goal to achieve them. However, Epicurean did not believe in forcing other people into living according to their ideals. The whole Epicurean thinking and the way of life was about changing oneself, not others. (This piece was completely refreshed on 8th of October, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus "Epicurus explicitly warned against overindulgence because it often leads to pain. For instance, Epicurus warned against pursuing love too ardently. He defended friendships as ramparts for pleasure and denied them any inherent worth. He also believed (contra Aristotle) that death was not to be feared. When a man dies, he does not feel the pain of death because he no longer is and he therefore feels nothing. Therefore, as Epicurus famously said, "death is nothing to us." When we exist death is not, and when death exists we are not. All sensation and consciousness ends with death and therefore in death there is neither pleasure nor pain. The fear of death arises from the belief that in death there is awareness." by jaskaw @ 16.12.2009 - 17:15:56 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/16/epicurus-on-pain-of-body-or-mind-7585183/
Epicurus on living wisely and honorably and justly

"It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and honorably and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and honorably and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking, when, for instance, the man is not able to live wisely, though he lives honorably and justly, it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life."
My own ideas on the quote: There are striking similarities is Epicurean thinking to the earliest and the most original Buddhist school of thought. It has been also suggested that there is a possibility of certain Buddhist influences could have reached Epicurus in his time. Even if there exists no direct evidence of such influence, there are striking similarities in their basic approach to life in complex and evolved societies. On the other hand, I suspect that when one analyzes life in a more evolved and complex human society, one can end up thinking very similarly in different parts of the world at the same time, if the state of development of the societies is similar enough. Humans are after all at the very heart of it very similar products of the same evolutionary processes everywhere, even if cultural developments and cultural artifacts can hide this very basic fact from clear view. The modern Buddhist approach is of course in many ways also very different from the Epicurean world-view. On the other hand, the Buddhist influences that could have reached Epicurus in time must have been very original and early ones. The possible influence are so necessarily from a time when Buddhism was not contaminated with influences from neighboring religions (mostly Hinduism), which did bring more and more of the supernatural elements into Buddhism, which originally was just a form of philosophy quite like Epicureanism. So, they need to from the time before the the layers upon layers of cultural sediments that did eventually come to cover the original ideas in modern Buddhism.
It is extremely easy to forget that the original central ideas of Gautama Buddha did not necessitate the existence of deities or supernatural phenomena of any kind. However, century after century of new layers and most of all of new loans from most of all Hinduism have added new supernatural features to the original quite atheistic Buddhism. In fact, it can be claimed that the original thoughts presented by Gautama Buddha in India were quite similar guides for achieving personal happiness, as were those ideas that were a bit later presented by Epicurus in Greece. One does not need to believe in any kind of deity or gods or even any kind of supernatural forces to be able follow the Epicurean path. In the end it is just all about acquiring a new way for seeing ones own true needs more clearly. This way of seeing things is, in fact, quite similar as the original message of Gautama Buddha also. (This piece was completely re-written on 9th of October, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus "Epicurus is a key figure in the development of science and the scientific method because of his insistence that nothing should be believed, except that which was tested through direct observation and logical deduction. Many of his ideas about nature and physics presaged important scientific concepts of our time. He was a key figure in the Axial Age, the period from 800 BCE to 200 BCE, during which similarly revolutionary thinking appeared in China, India, Iran, the Near East, and Ancient Greece. His statement of the Ethic of Reciprocity as the foundation of ethics is the earliest in Ancient Greece, and he differs from the formulation of utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill by emphasizing the minimization of harm to oneself and others as the way to maximize happiness." by jaskaw @ 17.12.2009 - 00:35:25 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/16/epicurus-on-living-justly-7587276/
Marcus Aurelius on good and evil

"Life is neither good or evil, but only a place for good and evil. "
Marcus Aurelius is presenting a very basic fact of life here. Our lives are not predestined to be a good or a bad ones, even if there are many kinds situations where we can control very little what happens to us. In the end, our lives are what we make of them. However, humans themselves do decide what is classified as 'good' and what is seen as 'bad', but nature itself does not make any such moral judgments. We can always try to make the best of even of the rawest deals that life does throw at us. Of course, one should not forget that we can never have complete control over our own lives. We are also led into doing many things because of pure chance and because of the needs and demands of our current environment. This can also mean that a person can be a vehicle for good, but also and for bad in due to different circumstances and different environments which chance throws at us in life. In my mind there is no absolute 'natural' morality. I personally see that this means that 'good' and 'bad' are things that are always decided by humans themselves according to the needs of their current society. However, the definite ideas of what things and actions are classed as 'good' and what are classed as 'bad' need always to exist. In fact, such definitions have always existed in all known human societies. Only with the very act of constantly defining what is 'good' and 'bad' can we create the basic rules that help us keep our societies in working order, but also to remain good places to live for their members.
(This piece was completely overhauled on 10th of October, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius "While on campaign between 170 and 180, Aurelius wrote his Meditations in Greek as a source for his own guidance and self-improvement. The title of this work was added posthumously originally he entitled his work simply: 'To Myself'. He had a logical mind and his notes were representative of Stoic philosophy and spirituality. Meditations is still revered as a literary monument to a government of service and duty." by jaskaw @ 17.12.2009 - 21:19:13 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/17/marcus-aurelius-on-good-and-evil-7591754/
John Ruskin on consequences of beliefs

"What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is what we do."
- John Ruskin
My ow indeas on the quote: John Ruskin is referring here to the simple fact that things which are going on just in our minds do not really matter to others, if they are never translated into an any kind of real world actions, or if we do not even ever vocalize these thoughts. Only what we really say or write or actually do does really matter to other people. Others are, in fact, always left in the dark about the real motives and reasons for our actions, even when we do talk or act in a certain way. In the real world, other people can make judgments on us based only on things that we say aloud and things that we do. In the end only we do know the real motives for our noble or distasteful actions. The situation is made even more complicated by the fact that we can very easily lie also to ourselves. We just may hide our real motives even from ourselves. I know this all is a very difficult concept indeed to accept for very many of those who are steeped in the Jewish, Christian or Islamic way of thinking. One of the very central tenets of all of these systems of faith is that an impure or immoral thought is the same thing as an impure or immoral action. This is because this way of thinking is a very central part of a grand strategy of these religions, as every single person walking on this earth will have impure and immoral thoughts at some point of their life. These religions can then build a load of unnecessary guilt, that they can exploit to their great advantage. The quite automatic building up of this load of guilt is made possible first and foremost by the extremely stringent sexual code that is inbuilt in all of these Abrahamic religions. No normal person can live his or her life ithout having thoughts of a sexual nature that would not be strictly forbidden by these religions. When a religion makes one believe that even having this kind of thought is a mortal sin and only the religion in question can redeem one from them, these religions have created a fool-proof win-win situation for themselves.
Of course, on the other hand, a good intention is just a good intention if it is not followed by action, be the person in question a good socialist or a fervent Christian. The other side of the coin is that a person can really absolutely honestly believe that he adheres to a religion full of absolute love for ones neighbors, but he can even threaten to kill them just because of their lack of faith in this love for ones neighbors. I would claim that in situations like this things that we claim to believe are of little consequence and the only important thing is what we really do. (This piece wan completely refurbished on 11th of October, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ruskin "John Ruskin (8 February 1819 20 January 1900) was the leading English art critic of the Victorian era, also an art patron, draughtsman, watercolourist, a prominent social thinker and philanthropist. He wrote on subjects ranging from geology to architecture, myth to ornithology, literature to education, and botany to political economy. His writing styles and literary forms were equally varied. Ruskin penned essays and treatises, poetry and lectures, travel guides and manuals, letters and even a fairy tale." by jaskaw @ 18.12.2009 - 12:33:16 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/18/john-ruskin-on-beliefs-and-action-7597250/
Marcus Aurelius on loving those who wrong you

"It is man's peculiar duty to love even those who wrong him."
My own ideas on the quote: For me at least, the central importance of this thought is in reminding how the ability to continue living and interacting with people who you feel to have wronged you at some point of your life is a very important skill for all people who are living in a complex modern society. Nobody really knows where life will take us. The adversary of today can well become the trusted friend of tomorrow. The other side of the coin is of course the extremely human and also common ability to take offense of things that other people do not see as offensive themselves. One can so very easily feel that he or she is even deeply wronged, even if in real life these wrong-doings are quite imagined. This all is of course my own interpretation, but I really do see also this idea in the terse sentence that was created by Marcus Aurelius. Life in modern complex societies is mentally extremely demanding. A multitude of social interactions does create the possibility for friction and conflicts all the time. I would even say that the ability to get over the social conflicts (real and imagined) one encounters is a very basic survival skill in any modern society. I see that Marcus Aurelius is, in fact, just giving here a very basic recipe for success in social arena. I also well understand how this quote can cause a primitive-reaction in people who are familiar with the Christian way of thinking, but who have rejected it. The basic idea here is of course on the surface very similar to the Christian call for 'loving thy enemies', which is, of course, one of the most hypocritical statements in the history even of all religions.
I see the Christian idea as basically just a thing that can give one a comfortable feeling of moral superiority, even if the idea is quite impossible to use in practice. An 'enemy' is normally a person who intentionally wants to hurt you and who will go on doing so in the future also. In practice really loving or even forgiving such people is well nigh impossible, as long as they want to hurt you. I think that the way Marcus Aurelius puts the quite same idea is more about forgiving and forgetting the past individual wrong-doings (imagined or real) of others, as Marcus Aurelius speaks about actions, not classes of humans. The Christian version does put some people in a category of 'enemies' when Marcus Aurelius is talking just about ones relationship to individual actions, which is in my view a quite different thing. I think that Marcus Aurelius is much deeper in the core of the matter. I think also that his idea is one that can really have practical implications also, when the Christian idea is just presenting of an admirable, but in practice non-existing goal. (This piece was completely refurbished on 12th of October, 2011)
http://www.biography.com/people/marcus-aurelius-9192657 "His greatest intellectual interest was Stoicism, a philosophy that emphasized fate, reason, and self-restraint. Discourses, written by a former slave and Stoic philosopher Epictetus, had a great deal of influence over Marcus Aurelius. His serious and hard-working nature was even noticed by Emperor Hadrian." by jaskaw @ 19.12.2009 - 22:10:55 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/19/marcus-aurelius-on-loving-your-enemies-7607681/
Bertrand Russell on the authority of the sacred books

"Deduction from inspired books is the method of arriving at truth employed by jurists, Christians, Mohammedans and Communists. Since deduction as a means of obtaining knowledge collapses when doubt is thrown upon its premises, those who believe in deduction must necessarily be bitter against men who question the authority of the sacred books."
- Bertrand Russell in "The Scientific Outlook" (1931)
My own ideas on the quote: I understand well how it seems even very odd that Bertrand Russell has added jurists to this company. However, the difference between deduction and induction is the thing that is important here and not just the quality of the texts on which people base their deductions. Laws are of course in many ways a different thing than the purely ideologically motivated texts like the Bible or Das Kapital, but the basic idea is deriving the right answers just from the existing texts. Laws are of course created by humans to protect human societies. However, the main thing here is that they are not based on any kind of higher and absolute 'natural law'. A true professional jurist is not really concerned with if a deed is really humanly right or wrong. His main concern is always what the current law says about it. Justice and law have so often been in the course of human history two quite different things. Also the laws that did make Jews second class citizens in the Germany of 1930's were quite valid laws, which were created through a quite ordinary democratic and legal process. The only problem was of course that they were absolutely wrong and as unjust as anything humans can invent can get. A German jurist in the 30's, however, would not commonly have seen this contradiction, as he or she would just be busy deducting the right legal answers from the official versions of the current law. However, there is no judgment of value in the original quote by Bertrand Russell. The quote it is all about the system of deduction, where new things like new court decisions or views on moral issues are derived from existing texts. However, the quote does not say at all that having laws would be a bad thing at all. It is about the way the legal system inevitably always works, as it is the only way it really can work in any advanced human society. Happily, in a democracy at least laws can always be altered if they are found to be unjust by a big enough majority.
However, until they are changed even unjust law do bind the legal system as well as laws that are currently seen as just. There would not be any point in having a rigid legal system in the first place if it would not be so. I do not see at all that Bertrand Russell would be demanding the abolition of the modern system of law. In my mind, he is just pointing out that the way how any legal system inevitably works is by deduction and by using the existing laws as a basis for decisions. Laws are in the end not created inductively by creating theories or 'scientific laws' from observing the phenomena of nature and real world in general, as the modern science is. Legal system and laws are created to fulfill the needs of the current society. They do change when the needs of the society do change, in a quite similar way as science changes when our real knowledge of the world changes. (This piece was completely refurbished on 13th of October, 2011)
by jaskaw @ 24.12.2009 - 10:59:03 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/24/bertrand-russell-on-the-authority-of-sacred-books-7633976/
Thomas Paine on the approval of slavery in religions

"Most shocking of all is alledging the sacred scriptures to favour this wicked practice. One would have thought none but infidel cavillers would endeavour to make them appear contrary to the plain dictates of natural light, and the conscience, in a matter of common Justice and Humanity; which they cannot be."
- Thomas Paine in "African Slavery In America" (1774)
My own ideas on the quote: Thomas Paine is of course talking mostly about Christian holy books here, but also the holy book of Islam has nothing at all against slavery either. In fact, it gives a lot of good advice on how slaves should be treated. Also the Christian Bible is choke full of passages in which the angry god of the Israelites gives his direct support for the tradition of human slavery. Only when the basic humanist ideas of equality of all humans and undeniable human rights took hold in the western Europe and later in America did the Christian churches one after one drop their support for the evil institution of slavery. The spread of basic humanist ideas did bring also many Christians to fight for the abolition of slavery, even if their holy book had nothing against it. However, the change in the zeitgeist or the spirit of time did eventually change also the Christian religions in this respect. It is often forgotten that only the international pressure that was coming from these countries where the humanist ideas of equality had already triumphed made also the Islamic slave-traders stop their horrid commerce in the eastern Africa. It should also be remembered that this happened a long time after the slave trade had been forbidden and effectively stopped in Europe and America. Islamic nations were universally the last ones to ban that evil institution and this always happened because of the pressure coming from the western more secular nations. Slavery is according to many reliable sources, in fact, still widespread in the darker corners of the most backward parts of Islamic world.
Historically, all of the major schools of Islam have traditionally always accepted the institution of slavery. Muhammad and many of his companions bought, sold, freed, and captured slaves.In Islamic law. the topic of slavery is covered at great length. The Qur'an, their holy book, and the hadith or the revered sayings of Muhammad deal with slavery at length. For example, according to Muhammed children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war can become slaves, but not freeborn Muslim. The islamic slavery resulted also in massive importation of slaves into Islamic lands, which involved enormous suffering and loss of life in the capture and transportation of slaves from non-Muslim lands. According to some estimates at least 17 million black Africans were enslaved in Arab slave trade. As recently as in the 1950s, Saudi Arabia's slave population was estimated at 450,000 persons.
(This piece was completely refurbished on 14th of Ocotober, 2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade "The Arab slave trade originated before Islam and lasted more than a millennium. It continues today in some places. Arab traders brought Africans across the Indian Ocean from present-day Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania, South Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia and elsewhere in East Africa to present-day Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Turkey and other parts of the Middle East and South Asia (mainly Pakistan and India). Unlike the trans-Atlantic slave trade to the New World, Arabs supplied African slaves to the Muslim world, which at its peak stretched over three continents from the Atlantic (Morocco, Spain) to India and eastern China." by jaskaw @ 26.12.2009 - 01:01:06 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/25/thomas-paine-on-religious-approval-of-slavery-7641130/
Feedback for Post "Thomas Paine on the approval of slavery in religions "
Ken Burchell [Visitor] http://kenburchell.blogspot.com 14.10.2011 @ 16:43 1). you mean "chock full," not "choke full." 2). the Christian Churches did not one by one drop their support of slavery. The Southern Baptist Church, the largest Protestant denomination in America (and the world?) was created when it separated from other Baptists over the issue of slavery, in SUPPORT of slavery and ultimately seccession. It is still one of the most reactionary denominations on the map.
jonaslaves [Member] 15.10.2011 @ 01:35 I define "slavery" as cheap or free work done by nation won. But all slavery has a reason to "justify" it. For example, if you look at China you will see modern slavery in front of your eyes and it will not shock you, because you live these days and you can clearly see why this happens. That's why we should divide the old testament times of the new testament times, in order to verify the cause of this condition, contextualizing it to make you see, without passion, as if you were these days. .. 1. Old Testament Age: In this period of human history all mankind had a common ethic of how to treat nation won. They had two options: 1. Kill: because they could not live freely with someone who had stolen his nation, making it very, very upset, 2. Slavery: The more compassionate alternative. At this point you should be thinking: But why a Good God allowed Israel to fight and conquer people? Answer: As I said, all humanity worked like that. As a nomadic people, you often find other people in a situation that gives two options to you: 1. fight or 2. let it pass. If the alien chooses the first option and looses the battle, the winner has another two options that I've said before (kill or slavery). So my argument for the old testament goes like this: 1. Slavery was a humankind condition 2. Israel was part of the humankind 3. So Israel made it (with compassion never seen before) "And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt." Dt 10:19 "Do not deprive the foreigner or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge." Dt 24:17 "Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow." Then all the people shall say, 'Amen!'" Dt 27:19 .. 2. New Testament Age: At this age, Christians are the people who were enslaved, and not the opposite, which makes us wonder: why a good God would allow his own people to be enslaved? The answer is: "My kingdom is not of this world if it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders But now my kingdom is not here ..." The true Christian has nothing to do with human institutionalism.
My argument for the New Testament goes like this: 1.The Christians were the enslaved people by the Romans (once most of them where foreing). 2. God is Good and love the Christian (as the other folks). 3. God allows slavery his people that to prove to men that the issue is not his condition on this earth. I'm not sure if I'm right but in my mind it is clear. .. "Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly." 1 Pedro 2:18-23
jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 15.10.2011 @ 12:37 Jonaslaves, the point in a religion like Judaism that it does not claim to be a part of humankind, but of some kind of 'divine' origin. So, for the believers at least, it cannot repserent human ideas and the human condition, but a 'divine' and eternal idea of how humans should behave themselves forever. Human societies and ideas do change, but the problem with all religions that are based on 'holy books' like the Bible is that they do not change. So, even if we accept that in the time of writing of Old Testament slavery was a commonly accepted practice, it was not that anymore in the America of 1850's. There the Biblical support for slavery was used to further a policy when a majority of humans did not support it anymore, as because the rise of humanism and humanistic ideals they had come to accept the equal worth of all humans. Humans had written this horrific old book to justify their own horrible actions and now it was used to justify the continuation of their horrible practices in a world where people had awakend to see the wickedness of this practice.
jonaslaves [Member] 17.10.2011 @ 12:50 ______________________________________________________________________________ Here we go: 1. "the point in a religion like Judaism that it does not claim to be a part of humankind, So, for the believers at least, it cannot repserent [sic] human ideas and the human condition, but a 'divine' and eternal idea of how humans should behave themselves forever."
False. The theology teach us that the Torah has 3 aspects: Civic, Moral and Theological. The civic aspect was specific for Israel while they were living here: These are the statutes and the ordinances which ye shall observe to do in the land which Jehovah, the God of thy fathers, hath given thee to possess it, all THE DAYS THAT YE LIVE UPON THE EARTH. Dt 12:1 The inexorable part of the Scriptures is the Theological part. You can't see the Holly Bible as monoblock. It has didactic separations (old testament, new testament, the Torah, the sapiential books, the prophetical...). 2. "Human societies and ideas do change": Yep...but the human nature doesn't. 3. "So, even if we accept that in the time of writing of Old Testament slavery was a commonly accepted practice, it was not that anymore in the America of 1850's.": I don't know if you noticed that but we are in the new testament age. 4. "Humans had written this horrific old book to justify their own horrible actions and now it was used to justify the continuation of their horrible practices": It is an inductive argumentation. If you take for example Mother Theresa, your these falls down. C.S Lewis at The Problem of Pain teach us that there's no such thing as bad or good without the use that you make of the thing to be classified. Let me explain: A piece of wood is a good stuff if you use that to rescue a drowning person, and can be a bad stuff if after rescue the person you use the wood to beat the same person. An inductive argument is fragile; it can be destroyed with another opposite example (as I did now), so I advice you again to stop those ad hominem and start to study the book that you wanna refute (once you seem to know few about it). Cheers and get better. _______________________________________________________________________________ PS1: If you wanna continue this debate, start to answer point by point of my first post and so continue to this one, as I did with yours and as Mr Vicent Cheung Teach us: not just any complaint is a valid refutation. Just like any sound argument, a refutation must have a conclusion validly deduced from true premises, and that contradicts its opponent's position. V. C PS2: Old is Epicurus, your guru! | Show subcomments jonaslaves [Member] 17.10.2011 @ 17:40 spelling corrections: Istead "your 'these' falls down". You read:" your 'thesis' falls down..." Intead holly: Holy!
Walter Lippmann on dangers of thinking alike

"Where all men think alike, no one thinks very much."
- Walter Lippmann
The suppression of different ways of thinking has been a cardinal sin of all of the strong ideologies, the more so if they have claimed to represent any kind of absolute truth. In the worst cases this ideology is based on mystical or other ways irrational claims that are extremely vulnerable to rational analysis. Christianity, Islam and Communism are very much partners in crime in this respect. Of course, also cults and other minor ideologies are breeding grounds for this narrowing of thinking. However, they tend to have a fraction of the impact that the ideologies working on a state-wide level have had and still have. In Athens of the antiquity, there was no such single overwhelming religious ideology, but a multitude of rival deities and cults. It was perhaps no coincidence that there also was a tremendous outburst of new ideas. In fact, humanity had never seen its like before. Only the rise of the uniform and extremely dogmatic Christianity in Roman Empire did effectively put an end the golden age of philosophy and new thinking. For over a millennium, there was just one allowed ideology one allowed way to think in most of Europe. Accordingly there was extremely little of new thinking, as all men just thought quite alike and the net result was extremely stagnated societies. The power of mentally extremely suffocating Christianity finally receded in the Western Europe in the 17th and 18th century under pressure from the new kind of humanistic and secular forces in society. The result of this opening up was again a veritable influx of fresh new thinking. This also produced an unprecedented level of progress. I would, in fact, boldly claim that just this opening of minds was even the main ingredient for the ultimate success of the modern Western societies over societies where more uniform and dogmatic ideologies did still hold sway. Islamic world was reduced into state of submission by the western powers in the 19th and 20th centuries. I think that this was largely due to the simple fact that the Islamic world had not had a same kind of mental opening as the western world had gone through before. I would also predict that the Islamic world will not catch up with the western world before they have undergone similar breaking of the power of the dogmatic and mentally extremely limiting religion over the minds of people living in the Islamic lands. This is quite possible, of course, even if it does not seem likely just now. (This piece was completely refurbished on 15th of October, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann "Walter Lippmann (23 September 1889 14 December 1974) was an American intellectual, writer, reporter, and political commentator famous for being among the first to introduce the concept of Cold War. Lippmann was twice awarded (1958 and 1962) a Pulitzer Prize for his syndicated newspaper column, Today and Tomorrow. by jaskaw @ 27.12.2009 - 23:36:02 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/27/walter-lippmann-on-thinking-alike-7649181/
Anaxagoras on the idea of ownership

"Men would live exceedingly quiet if these two words, mine and thine, were taken away."
- Anaxagoras (c. 500 BC
428 BC)
My own ideas on the quote: The idea that claimed ownership of things (or humans) is the main source of friction, problems and difficulties in the human societies was not invented by Karl Marx at all. This fact has been known by many thinking men for a very long time, even if the stark fact is that there really is nothing much that we can do to remedy this problem. Our societies just are so strongly based on this idea that has been with us for thousands of years, after this new concept of personally and permanently owning even things like land saw the light in the first agricultural societies. A hunter-gatherer can really own only the things he or she can carry. In stable agricultural societies the land that was cultivated and things needed in cultivating it soon becomes permanent and inherited property. One could also from the beginning fight over the right for the ownership and the problems associated with the idea of ownership did soon also arise. In my mind, Anaxagoras is not saying that it would be possible to abolish the idea of ownership, but he is just noticing the inevitable consequences that come with the idea of ownership. The real job for a philosopher is to notice things that all other people do not really see anymore and hopefully make people also think why things as as they are and could there be other ways for doing things. Of course, one needs a bit of intellectual flexibility to even understand that the idea of permanent and hereditary ownership of things (and people) really is a quite recent human idea. In fact, it can be really difficult to understand that it is not a permanent and inevitable property of those things themselves, but a property of the human mind only. (This piece was completely refurbished on 16th of October, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaxagoras "Anaxagoras (c. 500 BC 428 BC) was a Pre-Socratic Greek philosopher. Born in Clazomenae in Asia Minor, Anaxagoras was the first philosopher to bring philosophy from Ionia to Athens. He attempted to give a scientific account of eclipses, meteors, rainbows, and the sun, which he described as a fiery mass larger than the Peloponnese. According to Diogenes Laertius and Plutarch he fled to Lampsacus due to a backlash against his pupil Pericles." by jaskaw @ 28.12.2009 - 21:44:33 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/28/anaxagoras-on-ownership-7653362/
Diax on wanting things to be true

"Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true."
- Diax
My own ideas on the quote: The grim reality is that very many of the things we choose to believe to be true, we do believe just because of the simple fact that we just so very much would want these things to be true. One needs to be really on the guard to detect this tendency. Comforting and soothing lies are always more tempting and easier to accept than the often all too hard reality. It is, for example, extremely tempting to believe that there is life after death or that all the bad things we have done will be forgiven, if we just choose to believe in a certain religious ideology. PS. It is time for a confession here; I do not have a faintest idea who this Diax is, but the quote would be a good one, even if I had invented it myself. My best guess is that Diax is a fictional character in the Neal Stephenson's science-fiction novel 'Anathem'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathem "Anathem is a speculative fiction novel by Neal Stephenson, published in 2008. Major themes include the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and the philosophical debate between Platonic realism and formalism." by jaskaw @ 30.12.2009 - 21:49:40 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/30/diax-on-beliefs-and-truth-7664404/
Author's friends
marjuski.blogs.fi
marjuski
jonaslaves.blogs.fi jonaslaves
rbennet945.blogs.fi rbennet9.blogs.fi rbennet9-Christmas.blogs.fi rbennet9
atheistbruce.blogs.fi TypicalDutch.blogs.fi angryoldmen.blogs.fi BloodyReligion.blogs.fi HappyChappy.blogs.fi atheistbruce
GratisCogito54.blogs.fi
GratisCogito
AtheistAmerican.blogs.fi AtheistAmerican
marjaliisa.blogs.fi
marjaliisa
grahnlaw.blogs.fi
Grahnlaw
About the author

jaskaw (Jaakko Wallenius), male, 54 years old, Lohja, , speaks Finnish (FI) (Suomenkielinen versio lopussa) I would like to call myself a thinker nowadays, as thinking has been my favorite form of entertainment during the last few years. Perhaps I am finally just starting to the advantage of the mass of information I have collected during the last half century. The practical results of my thinking are to be seen in the Being Human -blog at http://beinghuman.blogs.fi New information has just always been the best form of entertainment for me. My everlasting love for history started at the elementary school at tender age of nine, when I did read the 600 pages of The Pocket World History, admittedly skipping the dull parts about culture... I have studied history, political history, political science and journalism in universities of Turku and Tampere, but have never graduated from neither. A brief but tempestuous political career blew the man prematurely to to wide world from the comforting womb of university. A more steady career in journalism followed and I have been a professional writer and journalist for the past 20 years. At present I live in a small town in a small house with a wife, two not so small teenagers, two middle-sized dogs and 14 fish of various sizes. By day I work as a journalist writing about local economy in our local newspaper. Its a job i have held for the past 20 years. In the evenings and week-ends I blog in my six blogs in two languages and repair the computers of the good citizens of our little town as a private entrepreneur. Uusi ja yllttv tieto on aina ollut minulle ylivoimaisesti parasta viihdett. Rakkaus historiaan syttyi jo kansankouluaikana, mutta viime vuosina melkoisesti aikaa on vienyt mys tietotekniikkaan syventyminen. Opiskelin aikoinaan historiaa, sosiologiaa ja valtio-oppia, mutta lyhyeksi jnyt poliittinen ura vei miehen pian mukanaan. Jo yli 20 vuotta sitten alkoi nykyinen taloustoimittajan ura. Asun pieness omakotitalossa pieness kaupungissa vaimon, kahden koiran, kahden lapsen ja viime laskun mukaan 14 kalan kanssa. Korjailen toimittajan ptyni ohella sivutoimisena yrittjn hyvien kaupunkilaisten tietokoneita.
bittitohtori.blogs.fi uskoitseesi.blogs.fi hsvahti.blogs.fi beinghuman.blogs.fi atheistnews.blogs.fi Own blogs: thelittlebook.blogs.fi ikkunat.blogs.fi dayofreason.blogs.fi jaavatty.blogs.fi odotushuone.blogs.fi
computers, historia, history, humanism, pohdiskelu, thinking, tietokoneet, ateismi, atheism, computers, humanism, humanismi, User tags: lohja, pohdiskelu, thinking, tietokoneet, Interests:
Zip: Street: Email: jaakko.wallenius@gmail.com URL: http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
Pageviews
This page shows the pageviews of your blog. Pageviews total: 8164
Monthly history Month Total Pageviews Total Visitors December 2009 8146 5868 November 2009 18 16
Table of Contents
A Little Book for Humanity...............................................................................................................................1 Philip K. Dick on reality.....................................................................................................................................2 Bertrand Russell on rejecting certainty............................................................................................................5 Ryszard Kapuscinski on achieving goals..........................................................................................................8 Richard Feynman on not fooling oneself........................................................................................................11 Feedback for Post "Richard Feynman on not fooling oneself" ..............................................................14 Bertrand Russell on reason and courage........................................................................................................15 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on reason and courage" ...............................................................18 Molly Ivins on the lack of order in democracy ...............................................................................................19 Feedback for Post "Molly Ivins on the lack of order in democracy" .....................................................22 Thomas Jefferson on the rights of mankind...................................................................................................23 Friedrich Durrenmatt on state as a mythical entity......................................................................................26 George Orwell on truth as a revolutionary act..............................................................................................29 William Hazlitt on love of liberty and love of power.....................................................................................31 Thomas Paine on renouncing reason..............................................................................................................34 Feedback for Post "Thomas Paine on renouncing reason"....................................................................37 Bertrand Russell on virtuous and wicked nations.........................................................................................39 Robert G. Ingersoll on gaining happiness by helping others to be happy..................................................42 Feedback for Post " Robert G. Ingersoll on gaining happiness by helping others to be happy"...........45 Robert Owen on the interests of human race.................................................................................................46 Feedback for Post "Robert Owen on the interests of human race"........................................................49 Steven Weinberg on farce and tragedy of human life...................................................................................50 Jared Diamond on patriotic and religious fanatics ........................................................................................53 Baron May of Oxford on dangers of fundamentalism..................................................................................56 John Stuart Mill on discovering new truths...................................................................................................59 Marcus Aurelius on the needless fear of death..............................................................................................62 Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on the needless fear of death".....................................................65
Table of Contents
Epicurus on the origins of science...................................................................................................................67 Robert Owen on the spirit of universal charity ..............................................................................................70 Bertrand Russell on man as a credulous animal............................................................................................73 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on man as a credulous animal"...................................................76 Mark Twain on justifying traditions...............................................................................................................77 Stephen Weinberg on why good people do bad things..................................................................................80 Feedback for Post "Stephen Weinberg on why good people do bad things" .........................................83 John Stuart Mill on want of ideas..................................................................................................................84 Bertrand Russell on exact science and approximation..................................................................................87 George Orwell on war-propaganda................................................................................................................90 Epicurus on giving credence to myths............................................................................................................93 John Stuart Mill on exercising power over individuals .................................................................................96 Feedback for Post "John Stuart Mill on exercising power over individuals"........................................99 Marcus Aurelius on poverty and crime........................................................................................................100 Robert G. Ingersoll on the tyrant in heaven.................................................................................................103 Bertrand Russell on dogma and natural kindness.......................................................................................106 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on dogma and natural kindness"...............................................109 Marcus Aurelius on giving wealth away.......................................................................................................110 Sinclair Lewis on woes because of the devil.................................................................................................113 . Feedback for Post "Sinclair Lewis on woes because of the devil"......................................................116 Thomas Paine on the institutions of churches..............................................................................................117 Mark Twain on being dead............................................................................................................................120 Feedback for Post "Mark Twain on being dead "................................................................................123 Marcus Aurelius on constant change...........................................................................................................140 Marcus Aurelius on rejecting the sense of injury........................................................................................143 Thomas Paine on securing liberty.................................................................................................................146
ii
Table of Contents
Bertrand Russell on science and philosophy................................................................................................149 Bertrand Russell on love and knowledge......................................................................................................152 Mark Twain on loyalty to petrified opinions ................................................................................................155 Feedback for Post "Mark Twain on loyalty to petrified opinions"......................................................158 Bertrand Russell on authority in science......................................................................................................159 Bertrand Russell on being cocksure..............................................................................................................162 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on being cocksure"...................................................................165 George Orwell on highly civilized human beings trying to kill him ...........................................................166 Feedback for Post "George Orwell on highly civilized human beings trying to kill him"..................168 Bertrand Russell on unnatural advances in civilization ..............................................................................170 George Orwell on the futility of revenge .......................................................................................................173 Feedback for Post "George Orwell on the futility of revenge" ............................................................176 Thomas Paine on owning earth.....................................................................................................................177 Feedback for Post "Thomas Paine on owning earth" ...........................................................................180 Bill Bryson on the unity of all life..................................................................................................................181 Feedback for Post "Bill Bryson on the unity of all life"......................................................................184 Bertrand Russell on abandoning reason.......................................................................................................185 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on abandoning reason".............................................................188 Robert G. Ingersoll on ignorance..................................................................................................................189 George Orwell on atrocities...........................................................................................................................192 Feedback for Post "George Orwell on atrocities"................................................................................195 Bertrand Russell on skepticism and dogma.................................................................................................196 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on skepticism and dogma"........................................................199 Seneca on crimes committed by nations.......................................................................................................200 Feedback for Post "Seneca on crimes committed by nations " ............................................................204 Marcus Aurelius on revoking external pain.................................................................................................205 Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on revoking external pain" ........................................................208 Karl Popper on correcting errors in science................................................................................................209 Richard Feynman on explaining mysteries with gods.................................................................................213 Feedback for Post "Richard Feynman on explaining mysteries with gods"........................................216
iii
Table of Contents
Karl Popper on dangers of Utopias...............................................................................................................218 Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on dangers of Utopias" .....................................................................221 Mark Twain on traditional customs ..............................................................................................................222 Bertrand Russell on the virtue of enduring uncertainty.............................................................................226 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on the virtue of enduring uncertainty ".....................................229 Epicurus on the accumulation of pleasures..................................................................................................230 Feedback for Post "Epicurus on the accumulation of pleasures"........................................................232 Iris Murdoch on how to make things holy....................................................................................................233 Adam Smith on governments defending the rich .........................................................................................236 A.C. Grayling on kindness, compassion, affection and mutuality ..............................................................239 Feedback for Post "A.C. Grayling on kindness, compassion, affection and mutuality".....................242 Marcus Aurelius on finding refuge from trouble .........................................................................................243 Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on finding refuge from trouble"................................................246 A. C. Grayling on whipping up lurid anxieties for money..........................................................................247 Voltaire on dangerous opinions.....................................................................................................................251 Feedback for Post "Voltaire on dangerous opinions"..........................................................................254 Bertrand Russell on birth control.................................................................................................................258 Erich Fromm on greed as a bottomless pit...................................................................................................261 Kurt Vonnegut on death as form of popular entertainment .......................................................................264 Feedback for Post "Kurt Vonnegut on death as form of popular entertainment"................................267 Author's friends..............................................................................................................................................268 About the author.............................................................................................................................................270 Pageviews.........................................................................................................................................................271
iv
Philip K. Dick on reality

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
- Philip K. Dick
My own ideas on the quote: Philip K. Dick is presenting here in a few terse words a very basic and very universal truth. In fact, it is so extremely basic as a truth, that we need somebody to put it in words so that we can really appreciate it. After reading this sentence we may even think that everybody should quite naturally understand its meaning. However, a harsh fact of life is that there seems to be a lot of people who believe that not thinking about something can make it go away. Some people seem even to think that just wishing very hard for something to be true can really make it come true. People have naturally all kinds of reasons for doing this. I suspect that reality is just often too harsh place to be faced without the safety nets that are offered by soothing and comforting sets of beliefs. The other side of the coin is, that even if a belief in a soothing and comforting lie or half-truth does not, in fact, make the reality go away, the need to safeguard and secure those comforting and soothing lies and half-truths can lead into altering our personal view of reality. Such a view is always deep buried in our mind. Through these beliefs we all too often interpret also the things that happen in the real world. Our own understanding how reality is can be changed by beliefs, and we can ultimately act to change reality to suit our beliefs and not the other way around. Because of this process our beliefs can in the end really affect reality, even if these beliefs would originally be based on quite irrational premises. (This piece was fully refurbished on 18th of October, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick "Philip Kindred Dick (December 16, 1928 March 2, 1982) was an American novelist, short story writer and
essayist whose published work is almost entirely in the science fiction genre. Dick explored sociological, political and metaphysical themes in novels dominated by monopolistic corporations, authoritarian governments and altered states. In his later works Dick's thematic focus strongly reflected his personal interest in metaphysics and theology. He often drew upon his own life experiences in addressing the nature of drug abuse, paranoia and schizophrenia, and transcendental experiences in novels such as A Scanner Darkly and VALIS." by jaskaw @ 01.01.2010 - 14:14:50 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/01/reality-is-that-which-when-you-stop-believing-in-it-7672157/
Bertrand Russell on rejecting certainty

"Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality."
- Bertrand Russell
My own ideas on the quote: Bertrand Russell is setting here one of the most difficult tasks any man or woman can face; the need to avoid accepting and nurturing absolute certainties, as only then one can really see all new evidence in a rational and open way. Every single human is, however, so very easily and tempted to think that one has found the only possible answer and only possible solution to any difficult questions in life. Overcoming this very natural human feature is not easy task, and it is not always even possible. However, I think that setting this kind of unreachable goal is part of the way we really can improve the human existence. We can, however, be even very certain of very many things even if we are not absolutely certain that these things are unmovable and eternal truths. In the end, just this is the real difference between a scientific 'truth' and a religious 'truth'. A scientific truth is never absolute, as it can and must be changed, if new and better information is obtained through the process of scientific inquiry. Sadly, the act of obtaining fresh new information has never had a similar effect on religious 'truths', as they are marketed as absolute and final 'truths'. Religions do sell absolute certainty and it is, in fact, one of their most important marketing tools. However, it is a false certainty that is not based on having really the best possible answers, but just on rejecting all other possible answers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS (18 May 1872 2 February 1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic.n 1950, Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought." by jaskaw @ 04.01.2010 - 21:12:56
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/04/bertrand-russell-on-certainty-7692296/
Ryszard Kapuscinski on achieving goals

"Our salvation is in striving to achieve what we know we'll never achieve."
- Ryszard Kapuscinski
My own ideas on the quote: I was nearly overwhelmed by this quote when I first stumbled into it. It presents in one short sentence so much of the things that I personally see as the essence of human enterprise and progress. Firstly, I see that Ryszard Kapuscinski is saying that humans should or even must have higher goals in life. This is a idea with which I wholeheartedly agree. Secondly, in my mind he is saying that just to striving to achieve those goals is the important thing. I honestly think that reaching any kind of meaningful ultimate o final goal in the level of a whole society is well nigh impossible. In the real world goalpost just keep going further and further when we approach them. And this is as it should be, as I think that every time humans have started to imagine that they have reached some kind of ultimate goals in the level of a whole society, the result has been big trouble. Social development and progress have namely usually stagnated because of this kind of illusions. The other dangerous development is that all too easily people who are seen to threaten these already achieved goals are soon seen as dangerous. Defending these imagined ultimate goals can even get to be the primary function of the society. I really think that one can have noble and worthwhile higher goals in life, even if one well knows, as Kapuzinski suggests, that one can never really reach them fully. The goals that people do have will not become null and void because of that knowledge, but I think that they can even become greatly enhanced from accepting this fact. This all is of course also all about rejecting absolutes, which of course are so dear to mathematicians, but unfortunately non-existent in human societies. (This piece was completely refurbished on 20th of October, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryszard_Kapu%C5%9Bci%C5%84ski "Ryszard Kapuciski (March 4, 1932 January 23, 2007) was a Polish journalist and writer whose dispatches in book form brought him a global reputation. Also a photographer and poet, he was born in Pisk now in Belarus in the Kresy Wschodnie or eastern borderlands of the second Polish Republic, into poverty: he would say later that he felt at home in Africa as "food was scarce there too and everyone was also barefoot". Kapuciski himself called his work "literary reportage",and reportage d'auteur.He was one of the top Polish writers most frequently translated into foreign languages." by jaskaw @ 05.01.2010 - 21:26:18 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/05/ryszard-kapuscinski-on-achieving-goals-7698454/
Richard Feynman on not fooling oneself

"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
- Richard Feynman in lecture "What is and What Should be the Role of Scientific Culture in Modern Society"
My own ideas on the quote: In my mind, this quote collects in one sentence much of the contradictions and also of the greatness which are inherent in the general scientific method that is the basis for the modern science. Science wants and tries to be as impersonal as possible, but we must still accept the fact all the things that people do in the real world can become even very personal in the end. When a scientist thinks that he or she has discovered something really new and worthwhile, he or she will inevitably create a personal relationship with that discovery, whatever it is. There is no escaping the fact that science is always a personal thing also. However, the true power of the modern scientific method lies in the fact that these personal feelings do not generally matter very much in the long run. In the end, all scientific findings are put though the grueling test of peer-review and overall scrutiny by the best experts in the given field of expertise. Only after going throug this process new ideas can really be incorporated as part of the scientific explanation of the world. The aim is that all truly important findings are rigorously reviewed by people who are not friends of the originators of the original idea. In fact often they are even their worst competitors in the quest for for scientific glory. This system makes sure that the personal attachment to an idea by the originator of the scientific theory does not matter in the end. Because of this factor science can truly be a vehicle for attaining a much truer and clearer view of the world than any single human being can ever reach alone. However, at the same time all individual scientists are just human beings, with all the failings of the human beings. (This piece was completely overhauled at 21st of October, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman "Richard Phillips Feynman (May 11, 1918 February 15, 1988) was an American physicist known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics and the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, as well as in particle physics (he proposed the parton model). For his contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman, jointly with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965. He developed a widely used pictorial representation scheme for the mathematical expressions governing the behavior of subatomic particles, which later became known as Feynman diagrams. During his lifetime, Feynman became one of the best-known scientists in the world." by jaskaw @ 08.01.2010 - 00:48:19 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/07/richard-feynman-on-not-fooling-oneself-7712099/
Feedback for Post "Richard Feynman on not fooling oneself"

Mike Layfield [Visitor] 08.01.2010 @ 08:51 Great quote! There is a typo in the commentary. second line: "ion" s/b "in".
jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 08.01.2010 @ 10:34 Thanks Mike, its corrected now! Hrothgir [Visitor] 08.01.2010 @ 15:48 I'd add Feynman's comments on Challenger "[... R]eality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
Bertrand Russell on reason and courage

"To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage to proclaim what reason shows to be true."
- Bertrand Russell in "The Prospects of Industrial Civilization" (1923)
My own ideas on the quote: I fear that this idea by Bertrand Russell is very hard to understand wholly, especially as the bad word "faith" creeps into the discussion here. However, I think that the crucial point here is to understand what Bertrand Russell really means by "faith". It is hard really to accept that, for example, air consists of collection of different gases. In the end, you need a certain amount of 'faith' in the fact that science can really give reliable answers to this kind of question. Of course this faith in science can be based on thousands and thousands of well-demonstrated cases where science has proven to be right beyond any reasonable doubt. Still, deep down at the very bottom there is always the issue of "faith". However, I think that the word "trust" would be a much better choice in this case. That trust (or in other words 'faith') is in the case of science built on real world achievements and concrete results that science has had in making our lives easier and explaining the world in meaningful ways. On the other hand, in the case of religions 'faith' is all too often built on just wanting things to be as religions so soothingly claim to be. On the other hand, if we do not think that problems are best solved with rational processes, what do we have? We have a situation where can start accepting all possible things at face value, just because we so dearly want them to be true as is the case with religions. This does not mean at all that humans would be rational creatures, far from it. For me rationality is about even trying to harness our inherent irrationality to a certain degree. The goal could just be that decisions at least in the level of a whole society could be based on rational arguments as much is possible. The aim could just be at least not to base decisions on the level of society, for example, on irrational claims and ancient texts written in strikingly different societies. I fear that humans are in the end quite irrational beings. However, that does not stop us form striving constantly to achieve a greater degree of rationality. Perfect and full rationality is of course quite unattainable, but achieving even a little bit higher degree of rationality in our the decision-making process of our society can only benefit it. (This piece was completely re-written on 22th of October, 2011)
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1950/russell-bio.html "After the first World War broke out, Bertrand Russell took an active part in the No Conscription fellowship and was fined 100 as the author of a leaflet criticizing a sentence of two years on a conscientious objector. His college deprived him of his lectureship in 1916. He was offered a post at Harvard university, but was refused a passport. He intended to give a course of lectures (afterwards published in America as Political Ideals, 1918) but was prevented by the military authorities. In 1918 he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for a pacifistic article he had written in the Tribunal. His Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy (1919) was written in prison." by jaskaw @ 09.01.2010 - 00:53:04 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/08/bertrand-russell-on-reason-and-courage-7718350/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on reason and courage"

bakrds [Visitor] 10.01.2010 @ 19:27 Speaking of irrationality, isn't it both irrational and a wee bit arrogant to assume that Betrand Russel wasn't aware of the connotations of the word 'faith' when he said 'faith in reason'. And what of assuming that your readers are not capable of separating faith in reason from faith in religion? I am sorry if this seems harsh, but I find this assumption a bit insulting. Science is built on faith just as much as religion is, in some ways even more. True, trust is a similar word but does not capture the leap - the 'inspiration' that drives the lifetime of toil and belief it sometimes takes to find the answers in science. Faith is just a word. Why are you afraid to let it stand? | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 10.01.2010 @ 21:15 My comments are in fact based on my earlier publication of this quote in a different context, where some readers were outraged by the fact that Bertrand Russell even dared to use the word "faith" in the context of science. I however really do think that the "faith" Bertrand Russell is speaking of here is not the kind of blind and unblinking "faith" religions are demanding from their followers and I wanted to clear up this fact. dogtraining [Visitor] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1wj71E6nKI 13.08.2011 @ 20:24 thelittlebook.blogs.fi is awsome, bookmarked Dog obedience training
Molly Ivins on the lack of order in democracy

"The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion."
- Molly Ivins
My own ideas on the quote: I think that Molly Ivins is hitting the head of a nail here and hitting it hard. The big problem in democracy for many is that it is often not very easy to predict the outcomes of democratic processes. The hard fact remains that democracy can also fail miserably and produce a lot of wrong and mistaken decisions. However, the really big thing in democracy is that it is the only known form of government that includes an inbuilt and demonstrably workable system of error-correction. It is all too easily forgotten that the only real alternatives to democracy are different forms of totalitarian systems of government. The hard fact is that all totalitarian systems do also necessarily produce quite similar errors of judgment and wrong decisions as a democratic process does. However, these errors can soon get much, much worse, when the feed-back loop is missing completely in a totalitarian system. The big thing why democracy in the end wins over totalitarianism is the process of correcting the mistakes that have already been made. In a democracy the inevitable errors of judgment can be brought up and discussed openly, but in a totalitarian system they can be swept under the rug. In totalitarian systems problems start all too easily piling up, as a ruling elite very often falls into the fallacy that problems that are not talked about do not exist. They can think that simply by controlling how the media reports things they can make problems disappear. Even if you have the most brilliant administrators in the world, they will make ultimately also wrong decisions sometimes, the more so if these decisions are based on warped set of data. As they say in the computer world: "Rubbish in, rubbish out". It does not help if you have the best computer in the world if it is fed with warped data. The other really big thing is that in a democracy a failed government can simply be elected out. However, in totalitarian systems you all too often need violence and raw force to do the same. No government has ever been eternal. I really think that when the change of government can be accomplished without shedding any blood, the society will benefit in a big way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Ivins "Mary Tyler "Molly" Ivins (August 30, 1944 January 31, 2007) was an American newspaper columnist, liberal, political commentator, humorist and author." by jaskaw @ 10.01.2010 - 12:08:27 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/10/molly-ivins-on-confusion-in-democracy-7725856/
Feedback for Post "Molly Ivins on the lack of order in democracy"

Paul Stillman [Visitor] 10.01.2010 @ 22:49 Actually, republicanism is an alternative to democracy and a positive one at that. Our Founding Fathers rightly feared giving too much power to the unwashed masses and created a republic when they drafted the constitution. They created a Chief Executive who was to be selected by an electoral college, a senate that was to be elected by the state legislatures, a House of Representat,ives that was to be elected by the people, and a Judiciary that served for life whose members were nominated by the president with the advice and consent of the people. Today, we have the voters, who frequently pay very little attention to the issues of the day, directly amending their state constitution based on political commercials that appeal to their emotions rather than their intellect. california, the most ungovernable state in the country, grants its voters the power of intiative, referendum, and recall. Consequently, in the 1970's, California amended its constitution with Proposition 13, a measure that permanently affected the way property taxes are raised in the state. Thirty years later, the state is plagued by huge deficits and underfunded schools. If we returned to our republican roots, we would elect people, arguably, who had the time, temperament, and knowledge to make rational decisions for us. Each branch of the federal govt would act as a check and balance on the other two so that no one constituency gained too much power; similarly, the states would act as a check on the powers of the federal govt and vice versa. While the founders didn't create a perfect system, they did create a system that, in my opinion, is preferable to the one that has evolved. We have become a virtual direct democracy where the whims of the majority ride roughshod over the rights of the minority. People who lack the education and knowledge to be decisionmakers threaten our elected officials and frequently prevent them from acting in the best interests of the nation rather than in the interest of the loudest and most vocal faction. What we have become is not what our Founders intended and, frankly, is inferior to what they bestowed on us. We have become a democratic tyranny rather than a republic ala Cicero and Rome. Daniel [Visitor] 11.01.2010 @ 22:23 That's a fair point. The article posits a bit of an "either or" argument without really considering all of the possibilities.
Thomas Jefferson on the rights of mankind

"The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind."
- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Hunter (11 March 1790)
My own ideas on the quote: It can be now hard to remember that the Founding Father Thomas Jefferson was an extremist and a radical in his time. As he went further on the road in becoming a revolutionary he necessarily questioned more and more of the things that had been for centuries taught for generation after generation to be god-given and eternal. This process of radicalization on all fronts was quite inevitable for the whole group of men who did finally lead the fight for American independence. The British government and the ruling Christian state church of Britain were intertwined as one great whole. Renouncing the other one part necessitated rising against also to the other. In fact, the official Anglican Christian Church of that day was just a support arm of the government. Those who rose against the British Government had to stand up against the British state church also. Of course, this process was greatly helped and eased by the fact that a great deal of Americans were religious dissident in the first place. After all, many had emigrated to America just to escape the wrath of the official Anglican church.From this it was much easier to take the next logical step forward. It was easy to move outside the Christian religion altogether and many of the Founding Fathers did really take this step. Thomas Jefferson had no certain religious affiliation, but is widely seen as being a deist, even if he sometimes classed himself as Epicurean. However, Epicureanism is not normally classed as a religion, even if in reality it was a direct competitor of the early Christianity in the Empire of Rome. Epicureanism was a school of philosophy, but rational philosophy in those days often had also the role that now is reserved solely to religions based on supernatural beliefs. On the other hand, deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a some kind of higher force had created the universe.
However, deists do also believe that also that this basic idea can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone. It can be done without a need for either faith, holy books, priests nor any kind of organized religion. Thomas Jefferson saw clearly also the inherent inequality that was inbuilt in the totalitarian feudal form of government and his words ring true to this day. Experience shows that all totalitarian forms of government have in the real world have ended up harming and oppressing some part or parts of the population under their rule. There is no real reason to expect that the totalitarian governments of the future would be any better in this respect. All people can of course never be happy in a democracy either, but we have real world evidence that the median level of contentment will be higher in democracies in the long run. Democracies just are capable of change and development in a way that is mostly unachievable in totalitarian systems, as can well be seen in the modern totalitarian countries like Saudi-Arabia or Iran. PS. There was no Republican party in existence when Thomas Jefferson wrote this quote and the word 'republican' was a synonym for 'democratic'. A republican was then basically just a person who opposed monarchy. (This piece was completely refurbished on 24th of Ocotober, 2011)
by jaskaw @ 11.01.2010 - 23:01:46 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/11/thomas-jefferson-on-democracy-7736911/
Friedrich Durrenmatt on state as a mythical entity

"For people who have no critical acumen, a state is a mythical entity, for those who think critically it is a rational fiction, created by man in order to facilitate human coexistence."
-Friedrich Drrenmatt
There seemingly still does exist a belief that some things just need to be as they are in a society because of some kind of higher or even 'divine' plan. Some people just do not understand that some things are necessary in all societies just because they are needed for assuring the well-being of the inhabitants of that society and to keep the society going. There really are people who think that some things should be labeled as sacred, and they should be left outside any allowed criticism. This can be just because some people do see that certain features of society are so useful for themselves or the society that they must never be allowed to change. Declaring some things 'sacred' can just be a strategy for keeping certain important things out of normal critical scrutiny. There are people who may think that even evaluating and analyzing central social rules and conventions would threaten them outright. It seems that they just could fear that any kind of questioning of the established basic principles of a society may start its downfall. In my mind, Friedrich Drrenmatt is, however, just stating the fact that states and nations are useful tools, but there is nothing sacred or divine in them or their inner workings. Even states are just human creations that are created to serve humans, not the other way around. A great deal of all the things we choose to believe in of course fiction, which we choose to believe because this fiction is so useful to us. Acknowledging that fact is, however, very hard, and it made even harder by the fact that as fiction that is believed hard enough often becomes quite indistinguishable from the reality. (This piece was completely refurbished on 25th of October, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_D%C3%BCrrenmatt "Friedrich Drrenmatt (5 January 1921 14 December 1990) was a Swiss author and dramatist. He was a proponent of epic theatre whose plays reflected the recent experiences of World War II. The politically active author's work included avant-garde dramas, philosophically deep crime novels, and often macabre satire. Drrenmatt was a member of the Gruppe Olten." by jaskaw @ 12.01.2010 - 22:03:18 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/12/for-people-who-have-no-critical-acumen-a-state-is-7743037/
George Orwell on truth as a revolutionary act

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
- George Orwell
It is quite fascinating how often a very simple and basic psychological process happens. When a crucial decision had been made, very soon all evidence starts pointing in ones mind that the decision that was made was the only one possible. Soon there simply is no contradictory information to be even seen anywhere. We do not of course ever notice when this happens, as we just do not see the contradictory evidence anymore and we have no idea that our ideas could even be problematic. On the level of an individual, this is often quite harmless and even necessary process, as otherwise we could be stricken with remorse for ages after every major decision we make. However, on the level of a whole society this process can lead to situations where public view of reality is warped to accommodate the state policies, the official party line, or the views of the official church. This in turn can lead to situations where policies are followed long after they have already turned out to be quite obsolete, and they do not really relate anymore to the current state of development in the society. The once even valuable old ideas can even turn into something harmful or even evil. This can very easily happen when the world and reality have changed, but our perception of it has not because we cling to ideas that were born in a different age and in a different society. In situations like that we sorely need people like George Orwell to raise their voices. (This piece was completely refurbished on 26th of October, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_orwell "Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 21 January 1950), better known by his pen name George Orwell, was an English author and journalist. His work is marked by keen intelligence and wit, a profound awareness of social injustice, an intense opposition to totalitarianism, a passion for clarity in language and a belief in democratic socialism. Considered perhaps the twentieth century's best chronicler of English culture, Orwell wrote fiction, polemical journalism, literary criticism and poetry. He is best known for the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (published in 1949) and the satirical novella Animal Farm (1945) they have together sold more copies than any two books by any other twentieth-century author. His 1938 book Homage to Catalonia, an account of his experiences as a volunteer on the Republican side during the Spanish Civil War, together with numerous essays on politics, literature, language and culture, are widely acclaimed." by jaskaw @ 13.01.2010 - 21:50:39 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/13/george-orwell-on-truth-as-a-revolutionary-act-7749570/
William Hazlitt on love of liberty and love of power

"The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves."
- William Hazlitt
My own ideas on the quote: For me at least this is an extremely strong sentence. It is loaded with many meanings, but the central theme for me is the fact at the core of freedom is responsibility. When a person gives away his or her freedom he or her is also relieved from some of his or her responsibility, as also this responsibility is handed over to the authority controlling your life. This release from responsibility is of course a very tempting preposition for many. It is more so, if one is simultaneously relieved even from the need to think about the motives and reasons for doing things in certain ways. The success of radical Marxism, radical Islam or radical Christianity shows clearly how very many people really desperately want to be liberated from the need to think for themselves. On the other hand freedom and liberty require responsibility, as without a degree of common responsibility freedom simply does not work. When one is not forced to do certain things in a certain way by a authority one must reflect over what are the consequences of one's actions in a quite different. In an authoritarian system somebody else can always be blamed for wanting things to be done in a certain way. The big paradox is that totalitarian system is a for many a very easy place to live. You always know your place and your future in a totalitarian system, but a free society can be personally much, much more demanding place to live in. However, I do see that Hazlitt is saying that a totalitarian system is egoistic, as the ease of life that any single person achieves is in the end accomplished by taking away the freedom of choice from all. (This piece was completely refurbished on 27th of October. 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hazlitt "William Hazlitt (10 April 1778 18 September 1830) was an English writer, remembered for his humanistic essays and literary criticism, and as a grammarian and philosopher. He is now considered one of the great critics and essayists of the English language, placed in the company of Samuel Johnson and George Orwell." by jaskaw @ 14.01.2010 - 20:55:08 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/14/william-hazlitt-on-love-of-liberty-7755865/
Thomas Paine on renouncing reason

"To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead."
- Thomas Paine in the "The American Crisis" (1776)
My own ideas on the quote: This quote needs no explanation as such. The message is as clear as it can get. There is just no point in arguing with a person who lets adherence to a dogma wholly dictate his or her thoughts and ideas. Thomas Paine was not not familiar with the Internet-debates of today. However, anybody even with a passing acquaintance with the world of debates that is raging all the time in thousands of mailing lists, chats and comment-pages will instantly recognizes the type of person that Thomas Paine is speaking about. Thomas Paine seems to be speaking about the people who are splurging out endless streams of dogmatic liturgy that is spiced only with endless quotes from some holy book. Even over 230 years ago it was quite plain to Thomas Paine that there is no point in trying to convince a person who really does not want to listen. The truth all too often lies in the old saying: "You can't teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig." On the other hand giving up the field wholly to people think differently than you is not always necessarily a good strategy either. One cannot also deny the fact that argumentation for just argumentations sake just is sometimes a great pastime. Also, often few other things else can make one's own ideas more clear than trying to figure out ways to convince a stubborn debater who opposes this idea. Even if the other debaters may not be seemingly moved at all with my ideas, the very process of thinking things over once again may be only beneficial to me as a person. So, the debate must continue, but we just should have the patience to remember that a good intellectual debate is an end at itself. It can always be beneficial to us, even if results are nowhere to be seen at the very moment. On the other hand, one can never tell how the ideas that are presented in a debate may affect people's thinking in the long run, if and when they start slowly sinking in. This effect is of course quite impossible to measure, but it just can be there, given of course that we have the patience not to offend and ridicule people who's ideas seem silly to us at the moment. Sad truth just is that a
real debate becomes quite impossible when it degenerates into insults and ad-hominem attacks. (This piece was completely refurbished on 28th of October, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_paine "Thomas "Tom" Paine (February 9, 1737 [O.S. January 29, 1736 June 8, 1809) was an author, pamphleteer, radical, inventor, intellectual, revolutionary, and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States." by jaskaw @ 15.01.2010 - 21:45:25 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/15/thomas-paine-on-renouncing-reason-7762228/
Feedback for Post "Thomas Paine on renouncing reason"

Brenda P [Visitor] 15.01.2010 @ 22:29 This is hilarious and great timing. Thanks. Anders [Visitor] 15.01.2010 @ 23:27 I know the type all too well. This is another good quote; "What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?" -George Orwell James Stripes [Visitor] http://historynotebook.blogspot.com/ 07.11.2010 @ 18:05 The quote in the epigram is inaccurate. You need ellipses to mark omissions. "TO argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture." | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 07.11.2010 @ 21:57 James, you are quite right, but this quote is always presented as the shorter version. In fact the shortened version appears in hundreds of places, when the longer version was extremely difficult to even find, when I checked it out. Thanks for your input, in any case, James. James Stripes [Visitor] http://historynotebook.blogspot.com/ 08.11.2010 @ 03:07 It took me less than two minutes to find the full quote in the e-text of The Crisis, but then I got sucked into Paine's writing and spent the next half hour enjoying his wit. I highly recommend the experience. This quote begins a pamphlet addressed to General Howe in which Paine seeks the appropriate way to honor him for his crimes against Americans. I particularly enjoyed this paragraph: "But how, sir, shall we dispose of you? The invention of a statuary is exhausted, and Sir William is yet unprovided with a monument. America is anxious to bestow her funeral favors upon you, and wishes to do it in a manner that shall distinguish you from all the deceased heroes of the last war. The Egyptian method of embalming is not known to the present age, and hieroglyphical pageantry hath outlived the science of deciphering it. Some other method, therefore, must be thought of to immortalize the new knight of the
windmill and post. Sir William, thanks to his stars, is not oppressed with very delicate ideas. He has no ambition of being wrapped up and handed about in myrrh, aloes and cassia. Less expensive odors will suffice; and it fortunately happens that the simple genius of America has discovered the art of preserving bodies, and embellishing them too, with much greater frugality than the ancients. In balmage, sir, of humble tar, you will be as secure as Pharaoh, and in a hieroglyphic of feathers, rival in finery all the mummies of Egypt." I have the Project Gutenberg text on my iPad, which facilitates searching, but you also can read and search at http://www.ushistory.org/paine/crisis/c-05.htm.
Bertrand Russell on virtuous and wicked nations

"No nation was ever so virtuous as each believes itself, and none was ever so wicked as each believes the other."
- Bertrand Russell in "Justice in War-Time" (1916)
Bertrand Russell points here to the life-blood on jingoistic nationalism. In it one's own nationality is always presented as being something that is inherently better and nobler than others, even if there mostly is no real basis for such a elevation. In this line of thinking the simple accident of birth is transformed into something that has a higher meaning. Of course, there are also even major differences between nations, but the biggest differences are always transient things.They are results of accidental historical processes and unique situations and they do very often simply evaporate as time and history goes by. On the other hand to say that, for example, Germans as a nation would have been somehow wicked because the Nazis were able to take hold of the political power in that country for a decade is not a reasonable thing at all. For a bit over decade, the machinery of the German state was hijacked by a ruthless gang of political psychopaths, who misused that machinery for their own ends. Of course, they persuaded many others to accept their way of thinking. However, just by using the inherent power and legitimacy that is carried with the very idea of the state they simply forced a great deal of their fellow countrymen to take part in their evil and bad deeds. It would, however, be even an absurd thing to say that every German even of the darkest Nazi era would have been somehow turned into something absolutely evil. The nationalistic view of the world, however, inevitably leads into this kind of generalizations. In this model of thinking, members of different nations are seen just as stereotypes and the incredible varieties between individuals that exists in every society are in purpose hidden from view. There is a simple reason for this; to reach a true nationalistic fervor of hating one's neighbors one needs to be able to forget that the other, hated nations are made up of quite similar individuals as your own. On the other hand, accusing some kind of vague 'national character' for the bad deeds of the Nazi state machinery relieves the pressure to analyze what was the real role of the state in all this. I fear that we simple don't want to think the real reasons why the quite normal, law abiding, decent citizens of Germany were so easily lured and ordered into committing all the atrocities the German Nazi state did
eventually commit. Was it only the evil Nazi party that made people do these things? I really think that we need to consider that without the machinery of the state, that had fallen into their hands, they could not have done many of the evil things that they did finally accomplish. If we put the blame on some kind of 'national character' we do not also need to face the terrible possibility that a ruthless enough gang of political psychopaths would succeed again in a thing like Nazis did in some other state. Then we need not to fear the possibility that similar elements can always take over a state machinery if it is geared into absolute obedience for the current regime, whatever that is. (This piece was completely refurbished on 29th of October, 2011)
http://san.beck.org/GPJ24-Russell,Muste.html "During the First World War Russell's pacifism challenged British society. In July 1914 he collected signatures from fellow professors for a statement urging England to remain neutral in the imminent war. When the British were swept into the war and 90% of the population favored the fighting and killing, Russell was horrified and reassessed his views of human nature. In a letter to the London Nation for August 15 he criticized the pride of patriotism which promotes mass murder. Bertrand Russell was not an absolute pacifist. He explained that the use of force is justifiable when it is ordered according to law by a neutral authority for the general good but not when it is primarily for the interest of one of the parties in the quarrel." by jaskaw @ 16.01.2010 - 18:46:01 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/16/bertrand-russell-on-virtuous-and-wicked-nations-7767061/
Robert G. Ingersoll on gaining happiness by helping others to be happy

"The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so."
- Robert G. Ingersoll
My own ideas on the quote: There is very little to add to this quote. It just nails many of the sentiments that are often associated with Epicurean, but also with Stoic philosophy. The secret of happiness is in part in not worrying unnecessarily about the future, as nobody just can not know what it will bring. Worrying about the future will not generally change it for better, but unnecessary worry can, in fact, make it worse. However, Robert G. Ingersoll reminds that personal happiness is not enough, as no man really is an island. A lasting state of happiness can be achieved only when also the people around you are happy too. Helping others can just be the best form of self-help one can engage him- or herself. The thought of 'Carpe diem' ("Seize the day") has a strong presence in the quote. I see it as a call not to wait for another, better day in changing one's life for the better, as the 'tomorrow he will come' -thinking sticks so easily. Robert G. Ingersoll can be rightfully considered as the grandfather of the modern freethinker-movement. He rose to oppose the religious dogmas, which by his day were again having the field wholly for themselves after the hectic days of the American Revolution. It is less known fact that many of the leaders of the American revolution were deists, who rejected the Christian dogmas. However, by the time when Robert G. Ingersoll was active after the American Civil War, the Deism of the founding fathers had more or less evaporated. By his day American society was becoming more and more infatuated by Christian religious ideas again. Robert G. Ingersoll had also a deeply humanistic agenda of caring for others and most of all for caring for those who were not able to take care of themselves. He was a friend of the down-trotten and a friend of the working man in general. Robert G. Ingersoll picked up the torch where Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and other more or less Deistic founding fathers had left it.
He continued even further into a full-blown agnosticism. Robert G. Ingersoll ultimately rejected even the Deistic idea of a god as a vague world-spirit that does not, however, interfere with matters of the mankind. Deists had already rejected the established religions, but Robert G. Ingersoll doubted also the very idea of a god. However, he believed in the inherent goodness embedded in mankind, if it just is allowed to blossom. (This piece was completely refurbished on 30th of October, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll "Robert Green "Bob" Ingersoll (August 11, 1833 July 21, 1899) was a Civil War veteran, American political leader, and orator during the Golden Age of Freethought, noted for his broad range of culture and his defense of agnosticism. He was nicknamed "The Great Agnostic." by jaskaw @ 17.01.2010 - 18:17:17 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/17/robert-g-ingersoll-on-happiness-7773488/
Feedback for Post " Robert G. Ingersoll on gaining happiness by helping others to be happy"
Mikel [Visitor] http://atheistyogi.com 17.01.2010 @ 19:51 Lovely blog! I will check back here often.
Robert Owen on the interests of human race

"Is it not the interest of the human race, that every one should be so taught and placed, that he would find his highest enjoyment to arise from the continued practice of doing all in his power to promote the well-being, and happiness, of every man, woman, and child, without regard to their class, sect, party, country or colour?"
- Robert Owen (1841)
My own ideas on the quote: Robert Owen is a fine example of the people who have risen high over the moral landscape of their own day, but who did not need any kind of supernatural beliefs to guide them in their quest for easing the lot of their neighbors. Robert Owen was a humanist, philanthropist and the founder of the modern co-operative movement. In fact, he was one of the first forerunners of the modern western democratic socialism. He was also a practical man, who did run a successful business. There he did show with his own example that a factory-owner could earn a good living, even if he cared for his workers and took the pain to arrange decent conditions for them. This kind of compassion was absolutely not the norm in the business-world of his days, when factories were often horrible and cruel places of physical torture. Robert Owen developed more and more idealistic ideas in his later days. He was deeply involved in building up idealistic community experiments that did in the end fail miserably. After these failures, he did eventually end up in the rising spiritualist circles of Victorian England, but he always rejected the established religions. Robert Owen always saw that the human race had only itself to rely if it wanted to improve its lot. He also did really believe that the human race really is capable of improvement. It just needs to take matters in its own hands. (This piece was refurbished on 31th of December, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen "Robert Owen (14 May 1771 17 November 1858) was a Welsh social reformer and one of the founders of utopian socialism and the cooperative movement." by jaskaw @ 18.01.2010 - 12:58:52
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/18/robert-owen-on-the-interests-of-human-race-7779141/
Feedback for Post "Robert Owen on the interests of human race"

jose joseph [Visitor] http://www.atheistnews.blogs.fi 18.01.2010 @ 13:33 every human being should live for the good of other fellow beings.othewise what is the meaning in calling one a human being. make money for oneself,eat.defacate,sleep,procreate and die like a dog.it is better such a person doesn't come to this earth.love is the true religion. if there is love in your heart,you cannot hoard when your fellow beings are starving.all organized religions are doing harm to human race.the leaders enslave their felowmen their mental slaves and make them lick the leaders feet. they preach terrorism of hell and damnation.no goodness in their heart.they are the real terrorists.all brothers and sisters of this universe get away from the clutches of these crooks.be simple,love everybody,try to help the needy and enjoy the life. Kalle [Visitor] 08.11.2010 @ 18:54 Although his socialist experiments failed, he at least did not force anybody into them. Unfortunately, later socialists used force and made Owen much forgotten.
Steven Weinberg on farce and tragedy of human life

"The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things which lifts human life a little above the level of farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy."
-Steven Weinberg in "The First Three Minutes" (1993)
My own ideas on the quote: I think that there is incredible beauty and poetry in nature and in our whole universe. There is also an unavoidable and beautiful sense of deep mystery when one looks at the origins and character of our universe. However, I think that with the help of science we can marvel freely at the remaining mysteries of nature with the expectation that there will less and less of really mysterious things with every passing year. It does not really matter for me if I know very well that we do not yet have all answers yet on how our physical world was originally formed. It does not matter if we do even not yet probably know all the laws and processes that have guided its development. Only religions can make preposterous claims of having all the final answers on the origins and the nature of our physical universe, but science can and will never make claims like that. Science is all about accepting the fact that our knowledge will always be limited by what we are, by where we live and how we can observe the universe. Science bows its head humbly on the sight of all if new marvels of the universe it slowly and methodically reveals a bit by bit. Scientists do always know that the answers they can give are just the best answers for the moment, and those coming after them will provide even better, deeper and more magnificent answers. However, looking back what science has already accomplished, we can rest assured that our knowledge will steadily grow, even if it will never be perfect or final. (This piece was completely refurbished on 1st of November, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg "Steven Weinberg (born May 3, 1933) is an American theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate in Physics for his contributions with Abdus Salam and Sheldon Glashow to the unification of the weak force and
electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles." by jaskaw @ 19.01.2010 - 21:25:27 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/19/steven-weinberg-on-farce-and-tragedy-of-human-life-7788821/
Jared Diamond on patriotic and religious fanatics

"Naturally, what makes patriotic and religious fanatics such dangerous opponents is not the deaths of the fanatics themselves, but their willingness to accept the deaths of a fraction of their number in order to annihilate or crush their infidel enemy. Fanaticism in war, of the type that drove recorded Christian and Islamic conquests, was probably unknown on Earth until chiefdoms and especially states emerged within the last 6,000 years."
- Jared Diamond in "Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies"
My own ideas on the quote: Jared Diamond is one of the real big current names in the area of "Big History", or in the the field of history that attempts to find and examine the often quite hidden real big and even universal trends in human evolution and human history. Big History has always been also my own specialty in history, as the big underlying currents of history and especially the undeniable mental transformation of nations or changes in zeitgeist do fascinate me enormously. The wonderful, well written and thoughtful books by Jared Diamond have opened at least my eyes into seeing many such things that I would in some cases may have never seen without him. Jared Diamond has studied many wildly differentiating cultures and very often found surprisingly many themes that are common to them all. The basic reason for this is of course that all humans are basically very alike. It easy to forget that we have started differentiating to in appearance different 'races' quite recently on a larger scale of human evolution. However, the very basic psychology and physiology of the human species has been formed during the millions of years of evolution of our more or less human-like ancestors. The rulebook, however, changed dramatically first with the invention of speech and then even more with the invention of writing. Then one could develop complex ideas that would change the landscape of humanity forever often for the better, but also for the worse. I think that this is the big change to which Jared Diamond is referring in this quote. One could even claim that only after creation of society-wide ideologies (like nationalism and religions) did humans really stop fighting for their own survival or recreation only. A man just wanting to live a bit better life maybe also on expense of the defeated does necessarily benefit
from utterly destroying his opponent, but a man wanting to promote an ideology may do just that, even if this deed does not benefit him personally, but only his ideology. The theory of memes of course explains his behavior, as a very strong meme like a religion can overrun even the most very basic human instinct; the instinct for personal survival. (This piece was completely refurbished on 2nd of November, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond "Jared Mason Diamond (born September 10, 1937) is an American scientist and author whose work draws from a variety of fields. He is currently Professor of Geography and Physiology at UCLA. He is best known for the award-winning popular science books The Third Chimpanzee, Guns, Germs, and Steel, and Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed." by jaskaw @ 20.01.2010 - 23:26:34 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/20/jared-diamond-on-patriotic-and-religious-fanatics-7843687/
Baron May of Oxford on dangers of fundamentalism

"Punishment was much more effective if it came from some all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful deity that controls the world, rather than from an individual. In such systems, there is unquestioning respect for authority. Faith trumps evidence. But if indeed this is broadly the explanation for how co-operative behaviour has evolved and been maintained in human societies, it could be very bad news. Because although such authoritarian systems seem to be good at preserving social coherence and an orderly society, they are, by the same token, not good at adapting to change. The rise of fundamentalism, not just in the Muslim world but in the United States, and within the Catholic church, could actually make global co-operation more difficult at a time when an unprecedented level of teamwork was needed."
- Robert May, Baron May of Oxford
My own ideas on the quote: Religions were created to fulfill a clear, existing need in ancient societies. They were needed to create a new kind of mental bond between the members of the new emerging state-like communities. These new communities began to emerge after the innovation of agriculture made it possible to support a armed ruling class, who could live on the surplus that was produced by others. This same surplus was of course used to support also the new religious elite that allied itself with the armed ruling class. These new societies needed new things that would bond together people who would often even never meet and did not often even speak the same language, but were often united only by the fact that they had common rulers. The emerging new kind of national religion was the social glue that was needed to bind these new warrior states together. The need for a new kind of social glue got even stronger after the stronger communities had started taking over weaker ones and the idea of a modern state was invented. This kind of bonding did serve these early societies very well. A very real problem is that they got to be too good in their job. Religions became closed systems or change-resistant memes, which got better and better at creating intensive group cohesion and defining borders between different groups of people. However, they did soon turn out to
be a real a problem in sitautions where co-operation with strangers was needed, but only because of religion the 'true believers' could be accepted as equals. Now, in a globalized world where everybody is dependant on what other people, the kind of tribalism that is triggered by the old religions is all too often a real liability not an advantage at all anymore. (This piece was refurbished on 3rd of November, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_May,_Baron_May_of_Oxford "Robert McCredie May, Baron May of Oxford, OM, AC, PRS (born 8 January 1938) is an Australian scientist who has been Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, President of the Royal Society, and a Professor at Sydney and Princeton. He now holds joint professorships at Oxford, and Imperial College London." by jaskaw @ 21.01.2010 - 20:24:11 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/21/baron-may-of-oxford-on-danger-of-fundamentalism-7848701/
John Stuart Mill on discovering new truths

"There is always need of persons not only to discover new truths, and point out when what were once truths are true no longer, but also to commence new practices, and set the example of more enlightened conduct, and better taste and sense in human life."
- John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty" (1859)
My own ideas on the quote: Philosopher John Stuart Mill was a child of the Age of Enlightenment. He personally rejected all established religions as false but admitted their usefulness for the society in certain situations. However, he saw that clinging to any kind of unmovable dogma would be always dangerous. It would inevitable became a hinder for advancement and development of new ideas in s society. He saw that also societies need to evolve, and he believed that also the religions should evolve along with the societies in which they do exist. By his time, the old extremely dogmatic forms of Christianity were already fast losing ground in the Western Europe. On the rise was a new kind of modern Christianity, that had been immersed in and much changed by the ideas of secular humanism. In the Anglican church, that had only a little earlier been a bastion of opposition to all kind of change in the society, there emerged the vibrant new anti-slavery movement. This movement in the end did put the end to slavery in the whole of British Empire. This opposition to slavery did did not arise because in Christianity there would have been any kind of inbuilt opposition to slavery. On the contrary, all Christian churches had had nothing at all against slavery in all its forms for a millennium and a half. This change did happen because the new humanistic ideas of equality of all men did gain ground in the society. This change did happen because certain prominent members of the church were changed by the new, humanistic ideas and ultimately they did change the direction of their church also. This change did not happen because of Christian tradition, but in spite of it. This example shows clearly how even religions can be forced into change when societies around them change enough, given of course that they are not in the position to prevent the change in the first place. The latter was the case in medieval Europe and in the modern Islamic world. In them the extremely strong position of the religion all too often precluded new ideas from even entering and emerging in a society.
(This piece was completely refurbished on 4th of November, 2011) 7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill "John Stuart Mill (20 May 1806 8 May 1873) was a British philosopher, economist and civil servant. An influential contributor to social theory, political theory, and political economy, his conception of liberty justified the freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state control. He was a proponent of utilitarianism, an ethical theory developed by Jeremy Bentham. Hoping to remedy the problems found in an inductive approach to science, such as confirmation bias, he clearly set forth the premises of falsification as the key component in the scientific method. Mill was also a Member of Parliament and an important figure in liberal political philosophy." by jaskaw @ 22.01.2010 - 20:35:03 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/22/john-stuart-mill-on-discovering-new-truths-7854956/
Marcus Aurelius on the needless fear of death

"He who fears death either fears to lose all sensation or fears new sensations. In reality, you will either feel nothing at all, and therefore nothing evil, or else, if you can feel any sensations, you will be a new creature, and so will not have ceased to have life."
- Marcus Aurelius In "Meditations"
My own thoughts on the quote: The irrational fear of death has always been one of the main selling points of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), as giving at least a false hope of something after death seems to give great comfort to many people. Too many are after all not able to deal with this inevitable part of life even if is a necessary part of the life cycle of all living creatures. We commonly assume that human species is the only species that spends time pondering about its own death, even if in reality we do not know if other advanced species do have ideas of their own about death or not. The ability to think about the end of our life is the price we pay for the highly developed intellectual machinery we do have at our disposal. Thanks to this ability we can do a lot of things that even other primates are unable to do, but as said, there is a price even in this. One of the most basic instincts that any living thing must have is avoiding things and situations that can be lethal to it. The instinct for survival has been perfected by evolution, as those with strongest aversion to death have survived better than others. This natural and necessarily (often very strong) instinct is highly important in ensuring personal survival as long as it is possible. However, when it is overdone it may lead to a situation where even the idea of the inevitable death becomes too difficult to handle.
This situation is used to the maximum by the Abrahamic religions, who benefit greatly from the heightening of this fear of death. Marcus Aurelius is, in fact, attacking one of the central pillars of Christianity, when he reminds that in the end there is really nothing to be afraid in death. However, like a true agnostic he covers all bases with the last sentence. This does not, however, necessarily mean that he would himself have believed in this kind transformation of the soul to a new creature as is implied in the last sentence of the quote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius "Marcus Aurelius (Latin: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus; 26 April 121 17 March 180 AD), was Roman Emperor from 161 to 180 AD. Marcus Aurelius' Stoic tome Meditations, written in Greek while on campaign between 170 and 180, is still revered as a literary monument to a philosophy of service and duty, describing how to find and preserve equanimity in the midst of conflict by following nature as a source of guidance and inspiration." by jaskaw @ 23.01.2010 - 22:38:44 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/23/marcus-aurelius-on-death-7861315/
Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on the needless fear of death"

Julianne G [Visitor] 15.03.2010 @ 15:35 This is a simple truth, really. However most people choose to believe in soothing lies over troubling and ambiguous truths. It is not this or that, but how we handle these truths, that defines our psychological independence from society and our integrity of character.. Julianne Ross [Visitor] 10.11.2010 @ 18:12 Since the "truth" of this issue is difficult to prove, I'm reluctant to dismiss metaphors and mythology I don't agree with as lies. I am concerned about the fervor of those who accept metaphors as reality, but fear there is little that can be done to calm the fears of those people. But my having called thes lies "metaphors/mythology" is likely equally offensive to those people.
jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 10.11.2010 @ 20:53 I am of course not fully free of the fear of death, as I think that no man can ever get rid of it completely even with the Christian ideas of eternal life. There always is the nagging question; what if you are wrong? However, I do think that after thinking over the view by Marcus Aurelius and Epicurus, I have understood in a much clearer way that worrying will just make things worse. Remember Epicurus in this blog http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/epicurus-on-death-7480720/: "Death is nothing to us; for that which has been dissolved into its elements experiences no sensations, and that which has no sensation is nothing to us." - Epicurus (Principal Doctrine number 2)" James [Visitor] 05.11.2011 @ 13:13 The fear of death is fully rational, and the Abrahamic religions merely preference the second of Marcus's options over the first, due to a rational belief in the soul. The constant attacks on religion on these forums really are simply not justified by reason - in all probability, they are probably the moanings of rebellion of someone who was unhappily brought up in a religion. Try letting reason, not emotion, dictate the content of the posts. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 05.11.2011 @ 13:43 James, the will to avoid death is as a rational thing as a thing can get, but spending your living days pondering what could happen after you die is definitely not. Have you considered the possibility that the whole apparatus of religions could have been built on irrational basis and taking the rational way will inevitably lead you on a crash-course with them?
I personally have not had any kind of religious upbringing and the study of science and philosophy on a later adult age have just lead me to taking a stand in these issues. For decades I did not just care, which is quite typical situation here in Finland, but when I started taking science and philosophy more seriously I was soon forced to admit that to promote rationality one needs to expose irrationality too.
Epicurus on the origins of science

"If we had never been troubled by celestial and atmospheric phenomena, nor by fears about death, nor by our ignorance of the limits of pains and desires, we should have had no need of natural science."
- Epicurus (Principal doctrines, 11)
/> My own thoughts on the quote: This Epicurean Principal Doctrine is not about morality or philosophy as many of the other 39 of the 40 Epicurean Principal Doctrines are. It is an explanation for the very human thirst for knowledge and in the end also for the birth of modern science. In my mind, Epicurus is simply saying that fear of unknown does motivate people to find things out. On the other hand, really understanding why things do really happen in the world does give a person also more real peace of mind. I think that Epicureans are also saying in this doctrine that if we accept the religious explanations for the things around us, we would not need no more explaining and we would not need to have science in the first place. If we simply accept the explanations religions do give us, we have no reason the find out the real causes for natural phenomena. This was also case under the rule of the medieval Christian church. Natural sciences were quite completely ignored for a whole millennium. This sorry state of affairs continued until the rise of Renaissance and new humanistic thinking opened new avenues for science also. Epicurus did live in a time before the birth of the modern world religions, but even the Ancient Greek religion was for a great deal born out the need to explain the things that did not yet have on natural explanation at that time. However, this role of religion as a place-holder for a question mark was much more marked in the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths. These religions do still boldly profess to know the final answers to most of the big questions concerning the
nature of humanity and our universe, even if those answers in the real world are mostly just legends, mystical stories and even wild guesses. Only with the rise of the modern science did we start getting real answers to questions of our own origins and the real nature of our universe. (This piece was refurbished on 6th of November, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus "Epicurus (Ancient Greek: , Epikouros, "ally, comrade"; 341 BCE 270 BCE) was an ancient Greek philosopher and the founder of the school of philosophy called Epicureanism. Only a few fragments and letters remain of Epicurus's 300 written works. Much of what is known about Epicurean philosophy derives from later followers and commentators." by jaskaw @ 24.01.2010 - 22:28:56 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/24/epicurus-on-need-of-natural-science-7867068/
Robert Owen on the spirit of universal charity

"I was forced, through seeing the error of their foundation, to abandon all belief in every religion which had been taught to man. But my religious feelings were immediately replaced by the spirit of universal charity not for a sect, or a party, or for a country or a colour but for the human race, and with a real and ardent desire to do good."
- Robert Owen in his autobiography (1857)
My own ideas on the quote: Robert Owen was a certified good person. He did spend his whole life and in the end even his personal fortune in trying to develop more humane ways to organize production of goods and in trying to create a more human model for a good society. I don't think that all of his earlier achievements as a philanthropist would have been were negated by the fact that towards the very end of his life he did become entangled with all kinds of spiritualists and mystics also. He was a philanthropist of the first class, but he did good things because he wanted himself to be a good person and saw real value in making other peoples lives easier. He was not a good person because he would have thought that doing good things would somehow be rewarded to him, even in some kind of afterlife. In fact, I think that such goodness that exists just in the hope of some kind of personal reward is not real goodness. It is just another eve if more refined form of selfishness, even though even a faked goodness is of course often better than no goodness at all. It may be hard to remember that Robert Owen did live in a society where the life of ordinary men and women had no real worth. The idea of providing at least somewhat equal opportunities and rights for all humans in a society was still a new and quite revolutionary thing. In fact, these dangerous ideas were accepted only in the most radical and also often the most irreligious parts of the British society and Robert Owen was one of these radicals. Robert Owen did show by his personal example that the willingness and eagerness to help ones fellow humans can be motivated solely by the devotion to the humanistic ideals and pure unselfish love for mankind. (This piece was refurbished on 7th of November, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen "Robert Owen (14 May 1771 17 November 1858) was a Welsh social reformer and one of the founders of utopian socialism and the cooperative movement."
by jaskaw @ 25.01.2010 - 23:10:15 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/25/robert-owen-on-spirit-of-universal-charity-7873636/
Bertrand Russell on man as a credulous animal

"Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good ground for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones."
- Bertrand Russell in "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish," in "Unpopular Essays" (1950)
My own ideas on the quote: One of the most important original functions of religions was to give even some kind of an explanation to things that simply could not be truly explained at that time. Early religions offered a way to explain why world and nature behaved the way they did behave when no other explanations were readily available. Of course, religions also served as tools for upholding social rules and building up social cohesion. Their most important role was, however, in securing the power of ruling elites and the then current type of feudal ownership and government. Their role as explanation-giver was only one factor behind their success in taking over whole societies and later even continents, but on a level of individual it was without doubt an important one. As humanity progressed there, however, emerged real scientific explanations for most of the things that had been explained with the aid of religions in the past. This process slowly ate away one of the crucial founding blocks of religions. Soon religions had two different survival strategies open to them. They could either deny the importance of the new scientific findings or they could adapt to a new world that was being built around them with the aid of science. Some religions did ultimately learn to live with the fact that there finally existed real knowledge of things that had earlier been explained by them. The western protestant Christian state-churches of Europe did mostly opt for the course of accepting the new role of science. Slowly but firmly they developed into a new kind of social and cultural organizations that concentrated on giving solace and certainty for people living in a world full of uncertainty. However, mainstream Islam and the many Christian fundamentalist revival movements did chose the path of confrontation with science. I fear that even the main reason for choosing this difficult route was that they did not want to give up any of power the religions used to have, when they were the sole givers of answers. The route chosen by the mainstream western protestant churches did also mean their ending up in the sidelines in the power-structures of the modern western societies.
All religious leaders could not simply swallow this bitter pill and they would rather choose a confrontation with science. They were helped by the very common unwillingness in the scientific world to confront them. I fear that all too many members of the world of science did think that the less of the conflict between fundamentalist religions and modern science was talked about, the better for science. (This piece was completely refurbished on 8th of November, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS (18 May 1872 philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic." http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bertrand-Russell/86711477873 by jaskaw @ 27.01.2010 - 22:53:13
2 February 1970) was a Welsh
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/27/bertrand-russell-on-man-as-a-credulous-animal-7887131/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on man as a credulous animal"

jpfib [Member] 28.01.2010 @ 18:06 every organised religion perpetrates one or other kind of terrorism.they are created for the leaders and their cronies.they terrorise feloowmen with hell and damnation. they proclaim they hold the keys of the kingdom.who are ready to lick their feet will be allowed to enter the heaven.they are the sole custodians of god.they hate each other and compete for positions among themselves. one religion preach hatred against the other.love is the true religion.love every other being, human or otherwise.if there is true love one cannot fill one's stomach when his fellowbeing is starving.here all religious leaders make money in the name of charity.they committed and committing all kinds of crime.then theyuse money and power to get away from law and punishment.in india two priests and a nn killed another nun for witnessing their sexual misdeeds and using money and power to get away from the clutches of law.this is the religion.get away from all theses wicked people.love is the true religion.if there is love you canot compel your fellowmen to accept your views and make them your slaves. love expects nothing back. Ken [Visitor] 12.11.2010 @ 15:21 Love is just one emotion of many and is hardly a cure for whatever "ails" humanity.
Mark Twain on justifying traditions

"Often the less there is to justify a traditional custom the harder it is to get rid it."
- Mark Twain in "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" (1876)
My own ideas on the quote: Author Mark Twain (or Samuel Langhorne Clemens in real life) was a skeptic all his life and he did became an agnostic and even an atheist in his later years. It is not very commonly known, as this fact was a tightly kept secret that was guarded jealously by his family for a long time. Keeping this secret was made much easier by the fact that Mark Twain did not want to endanger the well-being of his family with coming out in the open in his own lifetime. A person coming out in these matters was simply asking for trouble in his time. Majority of his various writings that criticize religions were kept behind locks for decades before the family secret was finally spilled out. There is even reason to believe that some of the most explosive writings are still under wraps. In my mind, Mark Twain is in this quote referring to an extraordinary ability inherent in all societies to keep up traditions whose real meaning is not very clear to anyone. However, the force of tradition is one of the strongest social forces there is. These traditions are all too often upheld, even if nobody really knows what are the benefits they will give to the society. One of the main beneficiaries of this very human failing has of course always been religion. Once a religion has gotten the upper hand in any society, the immense force of tradition has made upholding its power an incredibly easier task than the original acquiring of the position of power in a society was. Judaism is of course a main example of this extraordinary and inexplainable force of tradition. For very many of the more secular Jews, their Jewishness consists simply of mechanical repetition of certain acts in given moments of the year, but the reason why these acts really are seen as necessary is never questioned. It seems that for very many Jewishness is just a harmless collection of customs and traditions, but there is also a more negative side to all this.
These traditions are used to create a strong sense of community among all followers of Jewish traditions, that the fundamentalist and ultra-conservative forces among Jewish community have learned to use to their great advantage. This happens even if in real terms they often have extraordinarily little in common with the more secular forms of Jewishness. (This piece was refurbished on 9th of November, 2011)
lt1=_blank&bc1=000000&IS2=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=ajatuksiaolem-21&o=2&p=8&l=as1& style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_twain "Samuel Langhorne Clemens (November 30, 1835 April 21, 1910), better known by his pen name Mark Twain, was an American author and humorist. He is most noted for his novels, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876), and its sequel, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885), the latter often called "the Great American Novel." by jaskaw @ 29.01.2010 - 00:19:50 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/28/mark-twain-on-traditions-7894321/
Stephen Weinberg on why good people do bad things

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil that takes religion."
- Stephen Weinberg in "A Designer Universe?"
My own ideas on the quote: This quote by Nobel laureate Stephen Weinberg is already a classic among freethinking and atheist circles. The quote is of course so popular because it contains an immense truth. There is always even a majority of people in any society that are good and and well-mannered under all normal circumstances. These people are very often drawn to religions as they seem to secure order and certainty in a world seemingly full of chaos in uncertainty. On the other hand, in every society there are sociopaths, psychopaths and people who just don't fit in the society. They will very easily end up outside the socially acceptable mode of behavior notwithstanding what is the ruling religion in any given society. One could even argue that the stricter codes of conduct are in a society, the more people will end up hitting the walls of allowed behavior. The main point that Stephen Weinberg makes here, however, is that the religious dogma has in innumerable cases caused good, peace-loving and law-abiding citizens to attack, torment and kill their quite similar good, peace-loving law-abiding neighbors. They have done it just because they have believed in a wrong kind of religious dogma or worst of all have had no dogma at all. The saddest part of course is that these good fathers and husbands have throughout the history been lauded as champions of the faith. They are all too often rewarded handsomely by the society, when they kill and maim people just because they harbor wrong kinds of thoughts. (This piece was completely refurbished on 10th of November, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Weinberg "Steven Weinberg (born May 3, 1933) is an American theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate in Physics for
his contributions with Abdus Salam and Sheldon Glashow to the unification of the weak force and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles." by jaskaw @ 29.01.2010 - 21:27:11 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/29/stephen-weinberg-on-good-and-evil-7899963/
Feedback for Post "Stephen Weinberg on why good people do bad things"
Adelaide Dupont [Visitor] http://duponthumanite.livejournal.com 30.01.2010 @ 05:08 For good people to do evil, it takes passion + ideology. Passion blinds us to 'wrong' thoughts and ideology excuses them. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 01.02.2010 @ 23:41 You are quite right Adelaide, in the name of passionately felt communist ideology there has been done even more harm in numerical terms than in the name of religions. PS. Gmail has for a while gotten these messages for comments in my blogs in the spam-folder and I did not know of your comments. That is the reason for the late reply, sorry.
John Stuart Mill on want of ideas

"God is a word to express, not our ideas, but the want of them."
- John Stuart Mill
My own ideas on the quote: A great quote can include in one sentence ideas that can take a whole book to explain. For me, this classical quote by John Stuart Mill is one of those things that put a whole section of human endeavor under a new kind of light. John Stuart Mill is highlighting the fact that a very important function of the religions has always been giving explanations to things that have had no real explanation. Religion has, in fact, very often been just a substitute for a question mark, as the answers provided by religions have simply been better than no kind of answer at all. Of course, this function is still present, even if the mysteries in our physical environment do not need religious explanations in a similar way than 2000 years ago. Science has finally provided us with some real answers and removed the need for using the substitutes that used to be provided by the religions. There will, however, always remain some metaphysical questions that will never have a clear cut answer, like "Why are we here" and "What is the meaning of life". Science will never provide answers to questions like this, as they are basically ideological questions. Answers to questions like this are based on values and not on bare facts alone, as there are no "truths" for questions like this, but answers are really often chosen according to their efficiency in giving comfort. Religions are seemingly good at giving answers to these deepest metaphysical question. However when these answers are put under a closer scrutiny it is all too often revealed that they just seem to be real answers. In fact, they are just wishful thinking and smokescreens that can hide a lack of any real and meaningful answers. However, the religions are not only sources that can give good answers to metaphysical questions. The history of philosophy is a tale of the brightest minds of their day in search for meaningful answers to very similar questions. Philosophers have also found many good and even magnificent answers, but the difference is that they are not presented as final and unswerving dogma as similar answers are presented in religious connexions. Modern secular humanism is based on these philosophical ideas.It does provide a good set of answers for of
the all major ethical questions that are commonly troubling people. However, they are not final truths. They are just the best answers we can give, if our answers need to be based on the knowledge we really do have. (This piece was refurbished on 11th of November, 2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill "John Stuart Mill (20 May 1806 8 May 1873) was a British philosopher, economist and civil servant. An influential contributor to social theory, political theory, and political economy, his conception of liberty justified the freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state control." by jaskaw @ 30.01.2010 - 15:38:08 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/30/john-stuart-mill-on-want-of-ideas-7904002/
Bertrand Russell on exact science and approximation

"Although this may seem a paradox, all exact science is dominated by the idea of approximation. When a man tells you that he knows the exact truth about anything, you are safe in inferring that he is an inexact man."
My own ideas on the quote: The idea in this quote may seem even odd at first glance, as we have very often learned to see science as something very exact and rigid. A fact of life is that the current central findings of science are often presented as some kind of absolute truths for the school-children at least. This is the case, even if this kind of thinking is exactly the opposite of the true scientific method. True science does not have any final truths, as there just must always be the ability to take every single scientific fact and theory under new scrutiny. There always must exist also the possibility to modify and correct it, if it then proves to be wrong in some way. For example, also the current theory of gravity must be corrected, if we get new information on its nature. This can well happen even if this theory has been quite unchanged and unchallenged for a very long time. Science gives good, great and even magnificent answers about the most important questions concerning human life and the universe, but they are never final and unchanging answers. As Bertrand Russell says, science is art of approximation that is based on available facts. As the facts change, must the answers given by science change too. Of course, a degree of rigidity is inbuilt in this system. To change any of the more well-established scientific findings one needs really to have compelling new evidence. Getting them accepted can be a tedious and long job. This inbuilt inertia, however, makes sure that the central scientific explanations do not change in a whim of a single genius for example. The international scientific community makes thorough checks on all new ideas before they are universally accepted. However, Bertrand Russell is here referring to those who claim to have found exact and final answers to the big questions concerning, for example, the nature of life and the universe. They are, however, normally not scientists at all, but followers of different kinds of ideologies that claim to know the 'final truth', which is of course different in every single ideology.
(This piece was refurbished on 12th of November, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS[1] (18 May 1872 Welsh philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic." by jaskaw @ 31.01.2010 - 22:10:36 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/31/bertrand-russell-on-exact-truth-7912715/
2 February 1970) was a
George Orwell on war-propaganda

"One of the most horrible features of war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting."
- George Orwell in "Homage to Catalonia" (1938)
My own thoughts on the quote: George Orwell was a strange kind of pacifist. He was a man who had fought as a volunteer in a bitter civil war that was really none of his business. He was also seriously wounded while fighting in the trenches for a cause that in the end was not his at all. George Orwell or Eric Blair was, however, an ardent believer of democratic socialism. It was his idealism that got him into the Spanish civil war and into fighting for the Republican government. Thus government was just then only started turning into a totalitarian regime that it later did became. In Spain he fought alongside the Spanish anarchist. He did share with them also the later violent attacks of the communists, when they finally turned against their earlier allies. His experience in Spain made George Orwell lose all his illusions on totalitarian communist systems, but he did never lose his faith in democratic, western form of social democracy. He was even stranger kind of pacifist, as he always supported wholeheartedly the fight against the Nazi Germany. He did, however, never lose the will and ability to question the basic question of why aggression and wars are openly promoted and accepted in human societies. It is very difficult for many to understand that one can support fighting the actual forces of evil, but at the same time question if fighting wars really is an inevitable part of humanity. However, one can really ask if mankind could some day evolve to a stage where also the state-sponsored violence becomes a disgrace. In such a evolved society those who would be promoting it would be treated as common criminals, as are those who promote slavery now, that was the accepted social norm for tens of thousands of years. Thinking along these lines is of course a laughable sign of naive idealism on this day and hour, when states are main perpetrators of violence all over the world. Even Jesus of the Christians did not, however, question the morality of the system of slavery. Similarly, the state-sponsored version of violence is still in a position where nobody questions its morality. This is of course result of centuries after centuries of continuous and heavy bombardment of indoctrination for accepting the states right to apply violence when the leaders of a state see a political need for it. Even questioning this right means standing outside the boundaries of a socially accepted behavior at the moment. The sad fact is that universal acceptance of state-sponsored violence will continue as long until a large enough group of people will see that this thing needs to end. However, also slavery did finally come to an end when groups of dedicated people took to their hearts and minds wholeheartedly to fight for its end. Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world. Indeed is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead (This piece was heavily edited on 13th of November, 2011)
by jaskaw @ 01.02.2010 - 23:26:42 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/01/george-orwell-on-war-propaganda-7920141/
Epicurus on giving credence to myths

"It is impossible for someone to dispel his fears about the most important matters if he doesn't know the nature of the universe but still gives some credence to myths. So without the study of nature there is no enjoyment of pure pleasure."
- Epicurus (Principal Doctrine 12)
My own ideas on the quote: The 12th Epicurean Principal Doctrine really does not need any explaining. It just is clear as a bell. Epicureans thought that humans do need real knowledge of their physical world, nature and the universe and even the most comforting myths just are not enough. Epicureans thought that only when we truly understand the true character of nature and its phenomena, we can also really enjoy them fully. Epicureanism did develop into a very religion-like movement in the open marketplace of ideas that Roman Empire really was for hundreds of years. That all did change with the rise to power of the new dogmatic religion called Christianity. It is surprisingly often forgotten that Christianity did eventually mercilessly suppress and destroy all other religions and schools of philosophy like Epicureanism and Stoicism. They just got in its way after it had gotten a good hold of the power structure of the Roman Empire. Epicureanism was, in fact, seen as a dangerous foe by the early Christians. I think that the big difference was that Epicureanism was based solidly on reason and reasoning, when Christianity was anchored on strongly emotionally laden things like fear of death and promises of eternal life that was of course based on promoting that very fear in the first place. Rationally minded people did very often prefer Epicureanism to the strange mysticism of East that Christianity represented in its core, as long as they were free to choose. Unlike most religions Epicureanism did, however, not have any explanation of its own for nature of our physical universe, as Epicureans relied wholly on science to provide one. The really grand thing is that when
this explanation is based on science, it can be allowed to develop and change with the development and expansion of our knowledge. This fact alone does put Epicureanism in league of its own among the wild variety of religion-like movements that have been spotted on the planet Earth so far. (This piece was completely refurbished on 14th of November, 2011) http://www.facebook.com/pages/Epicurus/79493658728
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus "Epicurus (341 BCE 270 BCE) was an ancient Greek philosopher and the founder of the school of philosophy called Epicureanism. Only a few fragments and letters remain of Epicurus's 300 written works. Much of what is known about Epicurean philosophy derives from later followers and commentators." by jaskaw @ 02.02.2010 - 23:54:18 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/02/epicurus-on-myths-and-pleasure-7928564/
John Stuart Mill on exercising power over individuals

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."
My own ideas on the quote: This thought by John Stuart Mill is surely one of the most quoted things he ever wrote. At the same time it is one of the most disputed of his ideas at this very moment. Many of ideas which John Stuart Mill was propagating in his time at the early 19th century have been quite universally accepted in western democratic societies, as John Stuart Mill was a most of all champion of the liberty of the individual. Maximizing the freedom of the individual was accepted as one of the goals for a good society in the western part of world a long time ago. This freedom of the individual is still one of the core values in western democracies, but there are more and more limitations to it. The current trend is that the health of an individual is not considered a person's a private matter anymore. In fact, it is more and more seen as an issue where society can take even strong action to protect and save a person from his or her own lifestyle if it is seen to have any kind of health hazard. This is of course based on a view according to which the society knows better than the individual what is best for him. Most of all that society can decide what the goals in an individuals life must be. Maximizing the longevity of all possible members of a society has been raised to a position of main goal in life in many western societies. Slowly all sectors of our society have been drawn to serve this ultimate purpose. Of course, society always restricts the rights of the individual, but the issue is where is the final line drawn. This quote by John Stuart Mill just might be a red cloth for many people who have dedicated their lives into making other people live as they want and see fit. The real issue just now is if society can intervene in a person's life also when no immediate harm is done and no other people are affected in any way.
The big question just now is if a society is really allowed to intervene in people's lives just to make sure they do live a bit longer? (This piece was completely refurbished on 15th of November, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill by jaskaw @ 04.02.2010 - 23:12:45 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/04/that-the-only-purpose-for-which-power-can-be-rightfully-7942823/
Feedback for Post "John Stuart Mill on exercising power over individuals"
clay barham [Visitor] 05.02.2010 @ 22:36 Mill was OK for an elite, but looked down upon the less useful. America began in 1620 based on individual freedom and the rule of law for all people, which at that time the law was the Geneva Bible. America grew around individual interests, the family and even the closest community, as described by John C Calhoun cited in The Changing Face of Democrats on Amazon and claysamerica.com. We were never based, as Obama said, on community interests being more important than are individual interests, which reflects a Rousseau-Marx ideal which has never worked, which also is closer to Mill than would be Jefferson and Madison. I'd suggest staying away from Old World idealists and concentrate on our own who actually experienced what America was like. claysamerica.com
Marcus Aurelius on poverty and crime

"Poverty is the mother of crime."
- Marcus Aurelius
My own ideas on the quote: It is quite amazing how this very basic idea is so very easily forgotten. There just are so many reasons why the moral failure of the individual is so easily presented as the only real cause for crime we need. Of course the individual always retains the sole responsibility for his actions, but understanding the reasons why individuals do retort to crime differently in different societies could be a major step forward in finding ways really to curb crime. We can already statistically show without any doubt that there is always less crime in affluent societies that do share their wealth more evenly than in societies that do not share their wealth. There just so often is a strikingly lower level of crime in those societies in which at least some part of the accumulated wealth is shared among the whole population. Crime is normally on a quite different level in those societies which do not have any kind of mechanisms for balancing the inequality that is inevitably created by the basic structure of a modern economy. The sociopaths and psychopaths are of course present in every society. A crime-free society is simply impossible. But the poverty that is forced on individuals by economic and social circumstances is always one of the main reasons why also mentally quite stable people do resort to crime. Of course, there are also self-inflicted addictions that do make people unable to make a honest living, but in society with some level of social security in place even them are less easily drawn into life in crime than in societies with no security in place. In more just societies people simply have less incentive to turn to crime when they can support themselves with other means. Crime is in the end for most normal people the last resort when all other means of support
do fail. In the true spirit of Marcus Aurelius one could even say that sharing at least some of the accumulated wealth in a society more evenly is the best method of crime prevention that there exists. There will undoubtedly be crime as long as humanity exists. However, clear evidence does show that the we can affect level and most of all level of violence that is carried with it by creating societies which are seen as just by at least majority of its members. The only thing we can really do is try to keep the damage that is caused by this inevitable situation to a minimum. However, I think that this is much easier task in a just than in an unjust society. (This piece was rewritten on 16th of November, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius "Marcus Aurelius (Latin: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus; 26 April 121 17 March 180 AD), was Roman Emperor from 161 to 180 AD. He was the last of the "Five Good Emperors", and is also considered one of the most important Stoic philosophers. Marcus Aurelius' Stoic tome Meditations, written in Greek while on campaign between 170 and 180, is still revered as a literary monument to a philosophy of service and duty, describing how to find and preserve equanimity in the midst of conflict by following nature as a source of guidance and inspiration." by jaskaw @ 05.02.2010 - 21:23:33 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/05/marcus-aurelius-on-crime-7949161/
Robert G. Ingersoll on the tyrant in heaven

"We are satisfied that there can be but little liberty on earth while men worship a tyrant in heaven."
- Robert Green Ingersoll in "The Gods" (1872)
My own ideas on the quote: Robert G. Ingersoll's remark is still quite current today. This is true, even if during the last 150 years there has been the rise of a quite a new kind of Christianity. It has been changed by the absorption of the secular humanistic ideas to an extent that it is, in fact, a brand new religion. The current mainstream Protestant Christianity that is best reprerented by the Protestant European state churches has abandoned the ethos of totalitarian feudal societies that was for nearly two thousand years at the very core of Christianity. Judaism and its sibling Christianity were originally born in totalitarian feudal societies. Christianity was during its centuries in power fine-engineered into a tool for controlling population in totalitarian feudal societies. Robert G. Ingersoll is in my mind referring to the basic structure of Christianity. There is an omnipotent totalitarian ruler that must be obeyed without questioning him in any way, This ideas was naturally copied from the power structure of the totalitarian feudal societies. However, a similar huge development as the one seen in the Protestant Christianity has not taken place in the old-fashioned Catholic or Orthodox versions of the Christian faith and most of all it is almost totally lacking in Islam. Also, most of the radically fundamentalist versions of Christianity (like Pentecostalism) are in the same category as Islam in this sense. In the late 19th century and early part of the 20th century, the main governing principles of the western societies began to rely on the basic ideas of secular humanism and egalitarianism. This change was so profound that in the end even the Protestant Christianity was forced to adopt these new ideas to stay in touch with the changing society This process of change in the Protestant Christianity was not instantaneous, but a long process, where the old core dogmas were quietly dropped. Many old dogmas were relegated to sidelines, when they did not fit in with the tremendous rise of scientific
knowledge and the new rise of rational argumentation as a basis for real decision-making in society. Of course, at the same time also the Roman Catholic Church was changing, but in it the process has been left halfway, partly because the safeguarding the power structure of the church has been seen as its most import goal. This state of affairs has led to a situation where the Catholic Church is already, in fact, quite out of touch with the real needs of modern western societies. More and more people are also awaking to this fact, as societies change, but the adherence to old-fashioned dogma is keeping the Catholic Church at a status of no development. Similar fate has befallen Islam. In fact, the difference between the core values of western democracies and even the mainstream Islamic thinking has been growing during the last decades, as western societies have become more and more tolerant and rationality-based, but Islam has seen no development at all in this core issue. (This piece was refurbished on 17th of November, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll "Robert Green "Bob" Ingersoll (August 11, 1833 July 21, 1899) was a Civil War veteran, American political leader, and orator during the Golden Age of Freethought, noted for his broad range of culture. by jaskaw @ 07.02.2010 - 01:01:47 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/06/robert-g-ingeroll-on-tyrant-in-heaven-7959841/
Bertrand Russell on dogma and natural kindness

"Dogma demands authority, rather than intelligent thought, as the source of opinion; it requires persecution of heretics and hostility to unbelievers; it asks of its disciples that they should inhibit natural kindness in favor of systematic hatred."
- Bertrand Russell
My own ideas on the quote: One of the biggest contradictions in all of the modern Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) is that at the same time when they profess to bring the message of kindness and goodness into the world, in reality they have also too often been even major sources of aggression, hatred and strife at the same time. The reason for this apparent disparity is the simple fact that kindness and goodness are generally mainly reserved for those who adhere to the exactly same version of the religion in question. All other people can seen even as dangerous, strange and in ultimate cases lacking in any kind of human value. In practice, the charity these religions seem to propagate can be extended to all people only if all other people would accept the rule of "the only true religion". So, in principle these religions are bringing the message of goodness and non-violence to the world, but these good attributes are in reality reserved for those who agree to accept the over-lordship and the whole dogma of the religion. This double standard leads to a situation where followers of a religion can sincerely think that their religion is really bringing the message of goodness and kindness to the world. At the very same time the followers of that same religion can be acting extremely cruelly and unmercifully towards other people. I'm afraid that they are simply all too often quite unable to understand how people who are inspired by their religion really do behave outside the immediate circle of true believers to which they do belong. This can even lead to a situation where the professed dogma of non-violence can be spread with extreme cruelty and violence. The history of both Christianity and Islam all too amply testify this. The grand tradition of western humanistic thinking carries with it a core a thought of universal humanity that must be extended to every human being. Especially many modern western Protestant versions of Christianity have accepted this very basic humanistic concept of universal human value and dignity, but in many old-fashioned versions of Christianity and
in Islam this idea of universal humanity is still sorely missing. In fact, when one scratches the surface of some the most modern versions of Christianity, the same ideas of religiously motivated inclusion and exclusion are present even there. Especially the missionary work is often cited as selfless good work. This happens even if it principally aims to recruiting new people to accept the religious dogma. It could be even claimed that most of the "selfless" good work that are done by the religious organizations have the hidden agenda of propagating the religious dogma. The real aim is simply to draw people into the circle of "us" from the circle of "them" by making them accept the religious dogma. The work that is done by religious organizations could be classed as truly selfless only in those cases where the religious message is not brought at all up at the connection of the work. However, there simply just are no religious organizations that would not involve propagating their dogma in their works of charity. (This piece was refurbished on 18th of November, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS (18 May 1872 2 February 1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic." by jaskaw @ 07.02.2010 - 21:55:03 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/07/bertrand-russell-on-dogma-and-natural-kindness-7964897/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on dogma and natural kindness"

Pat [Visitor] 09.02.2010 @ 00:15 Well said.....& right to the point! Love this site, & thanks so much for some great reading!!! shahid siddiqui [Visitor] 22.03.2010 @ 06:37 Man has two aspects of his psyche. The Virtuous or sympathetic and the devilish or the selfish. All the religions of the world stress on love, peace and harmony, unfortunately, the selfish aspect of Man's psyche negate these good aspects of religion and contorts the true face of faith and religion by projecting extremism and bigotry. All the great philosophers of the world like Russell advocated tolerance, moderation and sympathy, but its a pity the material oriented world interferres and nullify all these cherished ideals and make this world an inferno. SHAHID SIDDIQUI GOVT. MURRAY COLLEGE, SIALKOT. PAKISTAN. Mark Leavenworth [Visitor] 18.11.2011 @ 17:21 Maybe not too many Christians on here, but I enjoy your posts and views and I hope to add a word from my view to help in your honest quest. The Abrahamic faiths are based on the faith to build a personal relationship between an individual and Our Creator. Churches and religions are groups. You can't judge the value of your own effort to develop a personal relationship with your (our) Creator on the basis of proof or evidence of individual behavior as judged by yourself, much less by the histories or acts of religions and church officials. You must look with your heart to the possibility the God is very real, very close, very loving, and very interested in developing a close personal relationship with YOU through whatever means are available. For me that is reading scripture, prayer, and looking for Jesus Christ in the course of life. But where is God calling you? How could you show your willingness to believe and to have hope and faith in Him? What are your thoughts about Him (He knows them)? Are they thoughts of resentment at having been created and loved, are they thoughts of hurt, or thoughts of a desire to find Him, to hope that He actually IS and Loves YOU? It's a choice made in thought, word and deed every moment of everyday. It's not a choice of logic and reason, but a living (continual) choice of the heart. Religions mean very little to God in comparison to His love for YOU! | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 18.11.2011 @ 17:43 Is this a bit selfish approach, Mark? The only important thing are the good vibes that you personally get from this religion. It does not matter if this religion has caused immense suffering for other people in the past and is still a major cause of division in many societies.
Marcus Aurelius on giving wealth away

"The only wealth which you will keep forever is the wealth you have given away."
My own ideas on the quote: The basic idea in this quote is, of course, quite simple. You can lose always lose your material wealth quite instantly because of an accident of nature or because of manipulations of mischievous men. Then you can have nothing but the memory of the riches left, but if you have done nothing worthwhile with that wealth, there is not much even to remember. However, I would go a degree deeper on the basis of this famous quote. Personally I do not see it only as a call for individual philanthropy, but also as a call for sharing. I do not see that problems of unequal distribution of wealth that are embedded in all modern economic systems could be corrected by personal acts of generosity, but only by a more systematic sharing of the accumulated wealth. I live in Scandinavia, where we have a long practice of creating equality through taxation and supporting also the weakest members of the society at their lowest points in life. A fact of life is that after a certain point in the rise of income the added income is not used to satisfy real personal needs anymore. It is is commonly invested into unneeded objects of status or just put into safekeeping. I think that the rich people of Scandinavia have lost nothing that they would really need when they have accepted the higher level of taxation in the past. In fact, they have gained tremendously in security and safety of the society they do live in. The rich people in Mexico, for example, give a tremendously smaller part of their income to the state.
However, they pay the price for that by living in a society where they are under constant threat of highly violent crime and social unrest, which are on the other hand quite rare in Scandinavia. Of course, there are other very important factors too, but in general one could say that sharing of the wealth creates more stable and more safe societies. By giving voluntarily away some of their wealth, the rich people in Scandinavia have not just assured that they can really enjoy the fruits of their investments in peace in their own lifetimes, but that their children will be able to do it, as well. In the true spirit of Marcus Aurelius, I would say that by giving to others, they are gaining something that is retained also after their own physical demise. (This piece was refurbished on 19th of November, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius "Marcus Aurelius (Latin: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus; 26 April 121 17 March 180 AD), was Roman Emperor from 161 to 180 AD. Marcus Aurelius' Stoic tome Meditations, written in Greek while on campaign between 170 and 180, is still revered as a literary monument to a philosophy of service and duty, describing how to find and preserve equanimity in the midst of conflict by following nature as a source of guidance and inspiration." by jaskaw @ 08.02.2010 - 22:34:58 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/08/marcus-aurelius-on-giving-and-wealth-7971298/
Sinclair Lewis on woes because of the devil

"The theory that India and Africa have woes because they are not Christianized, but that Christianized Bangor and Des Moines have woes because the devil, a being obviously more potent than omnipotent God, sneaks around counteracting the work of Baptist preachers."
Sinclair Lewis in novel "Elmer Gantry" (1927)
My own ideas on the quote: I personally have nothing in particular against Christianity. I even value its more enlightened versions over many of the other current religions. Especially many of the modern Protestant versions of Christianity have changed with the changes in the society around them to a much greater extent than, for example, the Catholic Church or Islam have been able to do. I have, however, an issue with intellectual honesty. I see the presenting of missionary work just as selfless good work as a major display of intellectual dishonesty. In the end, the chief motivation driving these people just might be spreading the dogma of their adopted religion and not selfless idea of easing the lot of other people. I fear that these 'good works' might just be a by-product of this higher end. They just could also form a mask behind which these organizations can work undisturbed in their quest for rooting out local traditions and often the whole local age-old way of life. The worst part is that they all too often spread the western values. However they do not provide any kind of means for living by the new values. There is normally nothing that is done by the missionaries to boost the local economy, even if new medicines and schooling are provided. Of course, many individuals who take part in the missionary work aree motivated by pure and selfless motives also. However, the denial of the value of local customs and their way of live and the wholesale importing of foreign values and customs from a quite different society done by these eager, often ignorant and naive people is not always a "good deed" at all, as so many of them seem to assume. A fundamental problem with the missionary work is that Catholic and fundamentalist Protestant missionary effort is also one of the major causes for the current population explosion. In the end this explosion is threatening the futrure of many developing nations at this very moment.
Spreading these religions makes population control nearly impossible in the main areas of their influence. In fact, at times they just could not be helping at all the societies they claim to help when they spread their dogma of rejecting all means of population control. This is done in a situation where the population explosion is badly damaging these nations. The worst thing is that population is spiraling out of control in a situation where the local economy does not provide the means to support this growing population. The situation is made only worse by advances in health care, as they do guarantee that more and more people are going to live to reproduce more, but the easy and readily available means to limit this population growth are not used thanks also to the work of the missionaries. In the end, the missionaries because of the spreading of their dogmas on reproduction must be held as in part responsible for the hunger catastrophes and deaths that await many of the developing countries in the future, if the current trend in population growth is not stopped in time. (This piece was refurbished on 20th of November. 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Lewis "Harry Sinclair Lewis (February 7, 1885 January 10, 1951) was an American novelist, short-story writer, and playwright. In 1930, he became the first writer from the United States to be awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, "for his vigorous and graphic art of description and his ability to create, with wit and humor, new types of characters." His works are known for their insightful and critical views of American society and capitalist values, as well as for their strong characterizations of modern working women." by jaskaw @ 09.02.2010 - 23:21:48 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/09/sinclair-lewis-on-woes-because-the-devil-7978338/
Feedback for Post "Sinclair Lewis on woes because of the devil"

Hector [Visitor] 10.03.2011 @ 00:33 i get into countless argument with religious people about this, one common statement they have made to me is, just be good to other and to charity work, just for the sake of good, and i still tell them i don't buy into your statement of being good, if at the end you have an agenda.... thanks for you thought on this one
Thomas Paine on the institutions of churches

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
- Thomas Paine in "The Age of Reason" (1793)
My own ideas on the quote: Most modern religions have been changing even immensely from the times of Thomas Paine. This has happened mainly because the societies around them have changed also. In the time of Thomas Paine so open and unashamed coalition of the rulers and local religions has in our time largely been either broken or watered down. At least it has been hidden from the direct view. In Thomas Paine's time, the state-religions were extremely important parts of the machinery that did keep the totalitarian feudal societies in a state no change. It did a lot to help in keeping the absolute rulers of that day in power. Religions were extremely important tools in keeping up the feudal rule, as they effectively denied even the possibility of ever questioning the existing social order, as it just was according to them divinely ordained, and thats that. Now, in countries where there are no feudal rulers anymore, also religions do not have similar functions any more, even if they still are markedly conservative and change-resisting forces everywhere. In countries like Saudi-Arabia religion,however, still retains its role as the central support arm of the feudal rulers. The words of Thomas Paine do still well apply in these countries. As this example clearly shows it is wrong to speak of religions as one big unmovable lump, as all major religions have changed and evolved tremendously through ages. For example, Islam was in its birth an aggressively expansionist and violent religion in a quite different way than the early Christianity was. It can be hard to remember now that Christianity made converts for the first couple of hundred years of its existence by persuasion alone. However, anybody reading Koran knows that Islam was spread by the sword from day one, and it has always been the religion supporting the rulers and ruling class. Muhammad was an absolute feudal ruler among the original little flock of believers. He and his followers personally subdued with the utmost violence neighboring tribes and later even cities like Mecca.
Christianity was on the other hand conceived as a religion of the meek and downtrodden and not as a tool of government at all. However, after its adherents gained absolute power in Rome, it too was very soon changed and developed into a powerful tool of government. After that it did not shy even from the use of utmost violence to defend itself and its sponsors position of power. The nature of Christianity as organized religion changed immensely and irreversibly. The original humble and caring message was, however, also retained as a fig leaf that did hide from view the immense new power structure of the new Catholic Church. This former religion of peace and loving care was transformed in a few centuries to an originator of persecution and violence. These things were perpetrated on a level that mankind had not witnessed before. In the meantime, Islam was leaving its expansive phase. The acts of violence that were committed to spread that ideology were soon much more rarer than those done in the name of new expansionist and extremely violent version of Christianity of that same time. In the past few decades, Islamist extremists have again drawn into light the violent and bloody legacy of the early Muslims. One must remember that these early Islamists did conquer a large portion of the Earth with violent and aggressive wars of conquest. Most of all, both Christianity and Islam do work even today on two quite different levels. There is the level of an individual believer, who can still choose to believe in the original message of kindness and love. Then there is the higher level of organized religion, where quite different and morality does apply and where the use of even extreme violence to defend and also spread the original message of love and kindness is allowed and is even seen a quite moral thing to do. (This piece was refurbished on 21th of November, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_paine "Thomas "Tom" Paine (February 9, 1737 [O.S. January 29, 1736 June 8, 1809) was an English author, pamphleteer, radical, inventor, intellectual, revolutionary, and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States." by jaskaw @ 10.02.2010 - 22:21:43 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/10/thomas-paine-on-national-institutions-of-churches-7984259/
Mark Twain on being dead

"I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit."
- Mark Twain
My own ideas on the quote: One of the oddest and surprisingly also one of the most resilient human ideas mankind has harbored is that human life would not have a clear ending in the end of physical life. This happens even if life has a very clearly defined moment of beginning at the moment of conception. This odd situation has been generally explained by the fact that when we die physically, we continue to live on in the minds of those who have known us or even come to know our ideas. This presence that persists in the minds of others can very easily grow into a feeling of the person being really still there or even present in some level. The foregone generations are either worshiped or feared in most of the older and animistic forms of religiosity. However, we know for sure that the Egyptians developed ideas of some kind of non-physical part of a person remaining after death. This happened over 5 000 years ago. These ideas were transmitted into the Judaic traditions, which contains a quite surprising amount of ideas that are of Egyptian origin. Jews did develop these ideas further. However, the idea of a immortal soul was not such a central tenet at all in that older faith, as it was only in Christianity where it was developed fully. The early developers of Christianity did turn these beliefs into one of its main marketing strategies, as they extremely boldly promised eternal life in heaven for those (but for only those, of course!) who accepted fully and unquestioningly their newly-fangled religion. This new religion was a collection of most of the then current religions mixed with the some of the most popular philosophical ideas of that time, but I do think that just this bold promise of personal immortality was one of the major reason for its ultimate success. Mark Twain is here pointing out to a simple fact that Christianity has never tried to answer; if we have an eternal soul, where is it before we are born?
Modern biology of course has a ready answer for that. Our genes will go on as long as our lineage continues, which makes our genes if not immortal, but extremely durable at least in practice. Biology explains how the mixture of genetic information stored in genes of a mother and a father does create a brand new person in every conception. It also explains how in every birth a new kind of person is created, as even same genes do mix differently in every conception. A new child has the features of its predecessors, but he or she can also have new and unique ones because a similar mixture of genes has never been in existence before. This process produces the real, biological near-immortality. We see ourselves in our children and our grand-children and their children as long as humanity lingers on in the face of the earth. The memory of a person can of course last for millenniums also, if he, for example, happens to create important works of art, or is an important political or military figure. However, all of us can think how our life's work does leave a smaller or bigger mark in the grand flow of life on earth. In that way, we all are immortal. (This piece was completely refurbished on 22th of November, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_twain "Samuel Langhorne Clemens (November 30, 1835 April 21, 1910), better known by his pen name Mark Twain, was an American author and humorist. He is most noted for his novels, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876), and its sequel, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885), the latter often called "the Great American Novel." by jaskaw @ 12.02.2010 - 22:49:27 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/12/mark-twain-on-being-dead-7997223/
Feedback for Post "Mark Twain on being dead "

Durathror [Visitor] 16.02.2010 @ 18:06 What is rationality? It is all about thinking in the box, a box so small and so narrow it only expands with science. Science is like the primate that has discovered that fire may be transported. He is so proud of his discovery that he forgets where the fire came from but thinks he created it himself. Knowledge breeds yet further ignorance and arrogance. Arrogance denies truth and harvests more boxes to think in. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 16.02.2010 @ 20:08 Dear Durathror, what is your choice for believing in reality, as science in fact is just a explanation of our reality? It has been said that reality is that which does not go away when you stop believing in it. Are you thinking about accepting a explanation of the world offered by some religion over the scientific one? You should remember that religious explanations are in theory always fixed and unmovable, when the scientific answer develops and moves constantly towards a better understanding of our species and our universe. Of course the religions also experience considerable evolution over time, even if they always hate to admit it, as they always profess to offer the original and pure truth. The basic thing is that the scientific explanation will never be final and one cannot say where it will end, but a religion always forms a rigid box which has very firm sides, top and bottom. Occasionally the bottom however falls away and the religion develops into a new one with brand new final truths and final explanations of our universe. Durathror [Visitor] 17.02.2010 @ 12:02 Our reality? Yours may be somewhat different to mine I suspect. For me science is another sense that God has given us. Nothing more than this. The end game will be played out when you die and the truth discovered in all its reality once and for all, or not, as you suspect is the case. You are simply attempting to define religion in scientific terms, which naturally makes it rather limited or 'within the box' To be frank there is little point in discussing this further (but its fun to do so). I do not think Christianity has evolved in its essential message, at all. Its rites may change, the commandments have not. The Anglican church struggles with aspects of political correctness and the ordination of women and practising homosexuals for example but the essentially the same. Islam has not changed, buddhism has not changed. (Please correct me if I am wrong). I would never describe Christianity as box like or limited in its view of life or science. Quite the contrary, it was once in fear of science (for obvious reasons) but it now lapse up new discoveries with great excitement albeit with a caution that not all science is good science! To describe Human yearning for the spirit (as well as the here and now) as narrow minded, I suggest is simply wrong. I imagine that what confuses the earth bound here, is the limitations set by religious laws, ie the fear of offending a God. If one cannot do what one pleases, if one is not ones own God so to speak, then this is considered being bound by chains. Freedom is what it comes down to perhaps, if there were true freedom it would have a price. I believe that we chose that freedom, somehow, somewhere and our life of suffering on the earth is the price we paid. Well you can keep it my friend, i'm off to find another kind of freedom, one founded in God. | Show subcomments
jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 17.02.2010 @ 12:45 Dear Durathor, your reality is just the same as mine, but you seem to prefer see it through a distorting lens of a religious ideology. There is nothing much I can do about that, but to wish you all the best on the path you have chosen for yourself. It does not bother me at all that some people believe in different things than I (even if these beliefs are quite funny and bizarre at times), but I reserve for myself the right to look at also these beliefs also critically and let voluntary readers to read these ponderings if they want to. Have you a problem with that? It's however rather funny how you don't admit the evolution of your pet religion, but in the next chapter tell how it has changed in very fundamental ways because the society around it has changed. Durathror [Visitor] 18.02.2010 @ 21:38 What fundamental changes, do please explain? The Catholic church has not changed at all, it has refined various things that is all. If I have missed something fundamental please advise? I do not find your beliefs peculiar, i find your views narrow and can see no possible reason why people should be quite so vehement in their unbelief. It is not logical. How can you be so dogmatic when there are great scientists and theologians all around you, who feel they have no choice but to reach the conclusion that there is intelligent design, a God? Perhaps you are suffering depression and do not know it? I certainly do not have a problem with you however, just find it amusing. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 18.02.2010 @ 23:16 Do you really think that the Church of 5th or 10th century is the same as the current Catholic Church? How much have you really studied real history that has not been written by zealots of your peculiar faith? Mostly they have of course dropped the most coarse things, as burning witches and heretics, but did you know that funny idea of The Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus as late as on 8 December 1854. So this thing has been a required belief for Catholics for only under 150 years. Did you know that papal infallibility was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870 as a result of unification of Italy that robbed the Pope of his earthly kingdom. I do marvel at you having the nerve to accuse of narrow-mindedness of people who do generally look very openly same way on all human ideologies, as human inventions that need to be studied and analyzed as interesting and important social phenomena, when I do have strong reasons to believe that you have chosen one very narrow-minded and extremely closed religious ideology that you adhere to. As for your other question, this is a small sample of philosophers, authors and scientists who have refused the theistic explanations wholly or to a great degree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nontheists_%28philosophy%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nontheists_%28authors%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nontheists_%28science_and_technology%29 Durathror [Visitor] 19.02.2010 @ 23:02
These are deep theological questions that the church has had to tackle but so what? They are not fundamental problems. Do scientists not also re evaluate and change their conclusions in many areas? Frankly so bloody what!? Wikipedia? Come on, you can do better than that, surely! I was waiting for the old chestnuts and you did not fail to please, burnings etc etc. Yes, indeed nothing is perfect on earth, especially people. Oh, apart for Atheists of course, they are innocents, you may throw the first stone my dear chap!
jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 21.02.2010 @ 00:23 Dear Durathon, I must say that your babbling does not really deserve an answer as there is nothing of any substance to answer, but one thing bothers me immensely. It is people who belittle Wikipedia, which is one of the greatest inventions of our time. It slowly collects the essence of human knowledge for everybody to see and study. The most fantastic thing about it is that does it not because somebody wants to earn money by selling books to others, but because there are people who love knowledge so much that they are willing to work for free to provide the immense gift of human knowledge to others. That is something that I say is true work of charity. This work is done because of a true love of all humanity, not because these people want to sell a certain kind of ideology to others. In a recent survey Wikipedia has less errors than Encyclopedia Britannica and do you know what; these errors are constantly corrected in real time, as in EB the same errors can linger on for decades on the shelves of a library. Many articles in Wikipedia are written by the best experts in their field and most important of all, the best experts in all fields are more and more turning into it in search of knowledge and the mistakes in it are corrected with more and more expertise, as the Wikipedia grows and matures. However, I do happen to know that there are people who in fact hate knowledge, as selling baseless beliefs is always harder to people who have real knowledge of the origins and development of human species, of the workings of our little blue planet and of the true nature of our vast and endless universe. In may may astonish people in more advanced European countries at least, but there really are people why think that the stories in the beginning of older part of the holy book of Judaism and Christianity are truer than the existing and firmly established scientific explanations. These people do very easily hate every source of scientific knowledge and these people quite universally also hate Wikipedia. Durathror [Visitor] 21.02.2010 @ 16:55 Knowledge without God is meaningless. It is the desire for lists of carefully chosen facts (of human failings or gaps in historical certainty) that Atheists love to throw at people with faith, it is the substance of the physical plain, the silt in the crystal clear waters of wisdom. Wiki is frequently updated by frauds and psuedo experts, not very trustworthy. There are those who consider science to be the new religion, they also have come no closer to disproving God, for all their knowledge. Do you really think that the theory of evolution somehow discredits the bible? The creation story is a story written for simple folk, its order is accurate, its detail is lacking but not important or indeed relevant. So Darwin seems to have the details, so what? Knowledge on its own is dangerous, it can deceive us into thinking it provides the truth. Science has discovered much but opened up even more questions, it is proving itself utterly inadequate to final answers, the more it gazes into its crystal testicals, why are you so sure that you know the mind of God, or have solved the end game riddle? Seven days to God is the same as seven days to man? Does it really matter? Is this part of the question of Humanity, the symbolism or apparent discrepencies picked up by Pedants? The bible is not something that has been created in a few days by a bunch of nutters, it is a voice of humanity over the great ages supported by historial facts. It is utterly authentic, it is war, tragedy, death, revelation and a route to salvation and yes I
believe at times and throughout - the voice of God through Man. Man and God relationship is there for all to see, not a perfect relationship but just like a parent/child struggle. The growing disrespect for God in our age, is like a spoilt teenager, like the prodigal son. The Bible is a series of witness statements distorted in time no doubt but carrying essential material that points to the coming of Christ (another historical fact). It is something that serious scholars would not dream of dismissing. It has a beginning, a middle and the most dramatic end imaginable. Why have scientists not been able to prove Christ did not actually rise again? The silence is deafening! Your knowlege of the beginnings are simply compartments with lists and dates, you have no more knowledge of why the big bang and what it is expanding into, what CAUSED it, then man did in the Old Testament - of how man developed awareness and came out of the trees or indeed why life developed in this way... If you want to be pedantic however, there are still good theories why Darwins theory of evolution may not be accurate afterall.
jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 21.02.2010 @ 22:13 Dear Durathon, I can just say that we have nothing to talk about here any more. If you think this way, you are in so deep in the darkness of the pride of not knowing, but just believing what you are told by founders of your faith, that I cannot think how can I can never reach out for you there. I fear that I can never really even understand how a thinking person can end up in a such a state. You are simply seemingly not living in the same reality or even on the same planet as I am. The private little universe of your pet faith has rules of its own that need only faith to work and no evidence can ever shake them. Carvaka [Visitor] 21.02.2010 @ 23:35 if we have a eternal soul, where is it before we are born? Moreover, if this eternal soul is incorporeal, by what mechanism does it imbue a corporeal being at conception? And I think that begs the question, what the heck is it made of if it incorporeal? If it's made of something doesn't that mean it is corporeal? @Durathror: Jaskaw being pedantic? Hardly. I wonder why Jaskaw didn't sink his teeth into some of the obvious logical fallacies committed by Durathon. Such as this gem that shifts the burden of proof: "Why have scientists not been able to prove Christ did not actually rise again? The silence is deafening!"
Why has nobody been able to prove the existence of the one and only celestial tea pot? Oh, how the silence is deafening! Durathror [Visitor] 27.02.2010 @ 21:25 Poor people. No, once again children, we are not talking tea pots here ok? but GOD/CHRIST/witness statements/history; the origins of the Universe, from absolutely NOTHING...; the inability of science to provide anything other than more questions; (just one of the many rational arguments, I am sure you have carefully avoided thinking about them too much - that scholars seriously consider, when thinking about intelligent design (true scholars and not the Jackasses of this world - sorry Jaskaw I mean).
Thanks Carvaka for the input, I deliberately search the sites that attract Atheists, it amuses me, they tend to be so very full of Atheists - always a challenge (cough cough). If we have an eternal soul where is it etc... Good question, hey you are catching on... Eternal soul, to me suggests it will last for eternity once God has brought it into being. The rational (for Jackasses sake) for a soul, you like ancient Greek philosophers Jackass, try this one for size (sorry but Tatian was converted - he chose to convert by the way, believe it or not he made up his own mind!): http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0608.htm Have a look at this link, its also very good and you might learn something. http://y-jesus.com/jesusdoc_1.php
jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 28.02.2010 @ 19:14 Dear Durathon, the thing that bothers me most in religions is the fact that do profess to supply final answers to questions like how our universe was born, as we really have no way of knowing it as things yet stand. I well understand that credulous people are drawn to these authoritative sounding explanations, as they can put their mind at ease and stop thinking about thing that are too difficult to handle for them. This promise of a final answer is just too good thing for many and they are careful not to think how these religions have really got their answers. They do not want to think and accept the inevitable fact that ordinary men have written these holy books of all religions, as they seem to provide answers to the BIG questions that bother them too much. However sadly they are just illusions created by ancient men on the other hand just to satisfy their thirst for explanations and on the other hand to build a base for a mind-control system they were building up also to feed a new emerging class of priests, who did not want to toil in the fields anymore and preferred to be fed by others believing in their stories. Durathror [Visitor] 01.03.2010 @ 11:46 You clearly haven't thought about this or looked at the link I suggested above. These are not ramblings (well some very possibly) but based on a historical premise, of witnesses and documentational evidence that has provided people with hope and - yes - some very real possibilities for salvation and a God being. You cannot just put God or Christ or the thirst for the 'other' to a few old peoples' delusions, thought about while on drugs or suffering the effects of famine. Yes documents and letters (say Pauls for example) were indeed written by people, Christ was a person, prince Siddharta was a person... What were you hoping for, Aliens? 'However sadly they are just illusions created by ancient men on the other hand, just to satisfy their thirst for explanations and on the other hand to build a base for a mind-control system...' My dear chap, you have mentioned this before, your rather worrying assumption that everything is a plot to draw you in! 'Mind-control' Wow! Heavy stuff! Perhaps they were Aliens, I should have seen it all along! How astute of you! Christ, an Alien? I would like to go to His planet I must say! As for these damn useless priests (abusers all!), they should be imprisoned for: A. allowing themselves to be brainwashed and B, for being a drain on society. Come on!? Have you ever really thought about the hardship involved in being a good priest? The years of study, no, not just propaganda (a word you might choose) but also versed in all the usual anti-propaganda they have to put up from those who do not believe, they have to be wise as serpents. They bring great comfort to people and they represent (or most try to) the apostolic traditions, going back to the first priests, the disciples.
The above site I gave you is written by scholars (probably aliens) who can answer your questions (or brainwash you - beware!) better then I possibly could. Hooray, Spring is here!! Joy to all those who believe and who are called to His supper. Sorry if I was too aggressive in my blogs by the way, you are right I must tone down my lanquage at times.
jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 01.03.2010 @ 12:25 You are hitting the nail here; "Christ was a person". I do not really doubt the possibility that there could have been a person called Jesus in the Galilee, but I have never believed for a single second that any of the supernatural stories told about him would be true. I do not believe that he was a "son of god" or that he would have risen from the dead. I simply believe that these stories were made up long after his death as marketing tools for the the faith, that did choose this Jesus-guy as its emblem. You know, not a single one of these supernatural stories has any other evidence than these texts themselves, even if the existence of this man called Jesus has some backing. The fact that a person called Jesus has existed however does not mean at all that these supernatural stories invented much later would be true at any level. Tom Hamilton [Visitor] 03.03.2010 @ 00:04 Well here we enter the area called rational instinct, at least that is the way I feel about it. As a person with a police background I would say that witness statements from people like Theopholus, Paul, the apostles and countless other simple - yet also some very high brow figures, - should have had anything to gain from making up the Christ story. What makes you think these stories were made up later and why exactly would they have been made up? Logically the apostles would have quietly dissapeared into the undergrowth with shame and fear, but they did not. What happened to them, that made them fill the history books with their martyrdom and suffering, why on earth would simple folk take on the might of Rome? (Taken from a web site) 'A major part of the New Testament is the apostle Pauls 13 letters to young churches and individuals. Pauls letters, dated between the mid 40s and the mid 60s (12 to 33 years after Christ), constitute the earliest witnesses to Jesus life and teaching. Will Durant wrote of the historical importance of Pauls letters, The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in the flesh. 'But is it True? In books, magazines, and TV documentaries, the Jesus Seminar suggests the Gospels were written as late as a.d. 130 to 150 by unknown authors. If those later dates are correct, there would be a gap of approximately 100 years from Christs death (scholars put Jesus death between a.d. 30 and 33). And since all the eyewitnesses would have been dead, the Gospels could only have been written by unknown, fraudulent authors. So, what evidence do we have concerning when the Gospel accounts of Jesus were really written? The consensus of most scholars is that the Gospels were written by the apostles during the first century. They cite several reasons that we will review later in this article. For now, however, note that three primary forms of evidence appear to build a solid case for their conclusions:
* early documents from heretics such as Marcion and the school of Valentinus citing New Testament books, themes, and passages (See Mona Lisas Smirk) * numerous writings of early Christian sources, such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp * discovered copies of Gospel fragments carbon-dated as early as 117 A.D.' ...and so it goes on. A very good web site. http://y-jesus.com/jesusdoc_3.php Many cleverer folk then you have decided that there is something here that is worthy of more research. If, and this is a perfectly logical and rational IF - the stories are true it turns your life upside down rather. Well it would do if you had started off only believing in the here and now (I mean who is to say that ANYTHING we read in History is true, if you go down your road my friend. I can think of areas where history has been re-written and lied about but for more obvious reasons then anything simple fishermen would have been able to offer you).
jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 03.03.2010 @ 00:53 Dear Tom, has it never occurred to you that every single one of the people in the area of Christian "Bible studies" are out there to find evidence for their beliefs? They do discards routinely those ideas that do not support their faith and do routinely exaggerate all the hints and small clues that could be interpreted as supporting their claims. There is incredible amount of money available for these studies that do differ from the true science in one extremely crucial point; the result is always well known before the study begins. There are so very good reasons to discard their testimony as immensely partial on both ideological and financial grounds. In fact in these "Bible studies" there is a huge library of claims that rest on other similar claims or interpretations and one can forge immensely good looking chains of argument on thin air drawn from the thousands of similar useless ideologically motivated "studies" of the past. Tom Hamilton [Visitor] 04.03.2010 @ 22:02 Dear Tom, has it never occurred to you that every single one of the people in the area of Christian "Bible studies" are out there to find evidence for their beliefs? Nonsense! Or do you mean people like yourself perhaps? | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 04.03.2010 @ 22:11 It has seemingly never occurred why the Christian scholars do the same studies year after year do the same things over and over again; because they need the money, that is to be had from the very generous supporters of these studies and also to turn away the gnawing fear that there just must may not be nothing there. After all these generations on the work and millions of pages of learned study there is not a single piece of hard evidence and there will of course never be, as if there is nothing in the first place, it can never be found, even if you spend millions of man-hours searching for it. Tom Hamilton [Visitor] 04.03.2010 @ 22:44
You might as well say every Jew is out to find evidence to justify their paranoia. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 04.03.2010 @ 23:09 I would not. The things that happened to Jews in WWII are well documented and there is ample evidence for them in thousands of document, books and photos. For the original Christian story there is one book written by people who had a new religion to sell in the hotly contested religious marketplace of the Roman empire. The stark truth still is that there is and has never been any other other evidence for any of the alleged supernatural things this Jesus-fellow is claimed to have been part of. Durathror [Visitor] 04.03.2010 @ 22:49 'may not be nothing there'. Now you are into double negatives. I agree visitor... Why haven't we heard of you before Jaskaw? To challenge so many scholars and historians etc, you are truly wasted here in this sad little blog. Bye! May God in his compassion forgive you your blindness and your ignorance and forgive me for my arrogance. Durathror [Visitor] 06.03.2010 @ 12:01 ...Oh, by the way, (I just can't keep away can I!), you will find that despite the promise of riches, most are not wealthier in mortal terms. The vast majority of believers are the poor, both in spirit and wealth. The church has become wealthy but because both poor and rich GIVE money, wealth detracts from the spiritual path. Peter, for example was a fisherman, he was crucified upside down and had nothing to gain from dying. This was not an act that was designed to feed his family. To think of the evidence for Christ as 'one book' is I am afraid simply wrong but clearly no amount of information, historical or otherwise will pursuade you otherwise will it? I make no apologies for taking again from the web: Theologian R. C. Sproul puts it this way: The claim of resurrection is vital to Christianity. If Christ has been raised from the dead by God, then He has the credentials and certification that no other religious leader possesses. Buddha is dead. Mohammad is dead. Moses is dead. Confucius is dead. But, according toChristianity, Christ is alive.2 Many skeptics have attempted to disprove the resurrection. Josh McDowell was one such skeptic who spent more than seven hundred hours researching the evidence for the resurrection. McDowell stated this regarding the importance of the resurrection: I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted upon the minds of men, OR it is the most fantastic fact of history.3 But not everyone is willing to fairly examine the evidence. Bertrand Russell admits his take on Jesus was not concerned with historical facts.4 Historian Joseph Campbell, without citing evidence, calmly told his PBS
television audience that the resurrection of Jesus is not a factual event.5 Other scholars, such as John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, agree with him.6 None of these skeptics present any evidence for their views. .... Durathror [Visitor] 06.03.2010 @ 12:02 True skeptics, as opposed to cynics, are interested in evidence. In a Skeptic magazine editorial entitled What Is a Skeptic? the following definition is given: Skepticism is the application of reason to any and all ideasno sacred cows allowed. In other words skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are skeptical, we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.7 Unlike Russell and Crossan, many true skeptics have investigated the evidence for Jesus resurrection. In this article we will hear from some of them and see how they analyzed the evidence for what is perhaps the most important question in the history of the human race: Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Self-Prophecy In advance of his death, Jesus told his disciples that he would be betrayed, arrested, and crucified and that he would come back to life three days later. Thats a strange plan! What was behind it? Jesus was no entertainer willing to perform for others on demand; instead, he promised that his death and resurrection would prove to people (if their minds and hearts were open) that he was indeed the Messiah. Bible scholar Wilbur Smith remarked about Jesus: When he said that He himself would rise again from the dead, the third day after He was crucified, He said something that only a fool would dare say, if He expected longer the devotion of any disciplesunless He was sure He was going to rise. No founder of any world religion known to men ever dared say a thing like that.8 In other words, since Jesus had clearly told his disciples that he would rise again after his death, failure to keep that promise would expose him as a fraud. But were getting ahead of ourselves. How did Jesus die before he (if he did) rose again? A Horrific Death and Then. . . ? Durathror [Visitor] 06.03.2010 @ 12:02 You know what Jesus' last hours of earthly life were like if you watched the movie by road warrior/brave heart Mel Gibson. If you missed parts of The Passion of the Christ because you were shielding your eyes (it would have been easier to simply shoot the movie with a red filter on the camera), just flip to the back pages of any Gospel in your New Testament to find out what you missed. As Jesus predicted, he was betrayed by one of his own disciples, Judas Iscariot, and was arrested. In a mock trial under the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, he was convicted of treason and condemned to die on a wooden cross. Prior to being nailed to the cross, Jesus was brutally beaten with a Roman cat-o-nine-tails, a whip with bits of bone and metal that would rip flesh. He was punched repeatedly, kicked, and spit upon. Then, using mallets, the Roman executioners pounded the heavy wrought-iron nails into Jesus' wrists and feet. Finally they dropped the cross in a hole in the ground between two other crosses bearing convicted thieves.
Jesus hung there for approximately six hours. Then, at 3:00 in the afternoonthat is, at exactly the same time the Passover lamb was being sacrificed as a sin offering (a little symbolism there, you think?)Jesus cried out, It is finished (in Aramaic), and died. Suddenly the sky went dark and an earthquake shook the land.9 Pilate wanted verification that Jesus was dead before allowing his crucified body to be buried. So a Roman guard thrust a spear into Jesus' side. The mixture of blood and water that flowed out was a clear indication that Jesus was dead. Jesus' body was then taken down from the cross and buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb. Roman guards next sealed the tomb, and secured it with a 24-hour watch. Durathror [Visitor] 06.03.2010 @ 12:03 Meanwhile, Jesus' disciples were in shock. Dr. J. P. Moreland explains how devastated and confused they were after Jesus death on the cross. They no longer had confidence that Jesus had been sent by God. They also had been taught that God would not let his Messiah suffer death. So they dispersed. The Jesus movement was all but stopped in its tracks.10 All hope was vanquished. Rome and the Jewish leaders had prevailedor so it seemed. Something Happened But it wasn't the end. The Jesus movement did not disappear (obviously), and in fact Christianity exists today as the world's largest religion. Therefore, weve got to know what happened after Jesus body was taken down from the cross and laid in the tomb. In a New York Times article, Peter Steinfels cites the startling events that occurred three days after Jesus' death: Shortly after Jesus was executed, his followers were suddenly galvanized from a baffled and cowering group into people whose message about a living Jesus and a coming kingdom, preached at the risk of their lives, eventually changed an empire. Something happened. But exactly what?11 That's the question we have to answer with an investigation into the facts. There are only five plausible explanations for Jesus' alleged resurrection, as portrayed in the New Testament: 1. Jesus didn't really die on the cross. 2. The resurrection was a conspiracy. 3. The disciples were hallucinating. 4. The account is legendary. 5. It really happened. Let's work our way through these options and see which one best fits the facts. Was Jesus Dead? Durathror [Visitor] 06.03.2010 @ 12:03 Marley was deader than a doornail, of that there was no doubt. So begins Charles Dickenss A Christmas Carol, the author not wanting anyone to be mistaken as to the supernatural character of what is soon to take place. In the same way, before we take on the role of CSI and piece together evidence for a resurrection, we must first establish that there was, in fact, a corpse. After all, occasionally the newspapers will report on some corpse in a morgue who was found stirring and recovered. Could something like that have happened with Jesus?
Some have proposed that Jesus lived through the crucifixion and was revived by the cool, damp air in the tombWhoa, how long was I out for? But that theory doesnt seem to square with the medical evidence. An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association explains why this so-called swoon theory is untenable: Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicated that Jesus was dead. The spear, thrust between His right ribs, probably perforated not only the right lung, but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured His death.12 But skepticism of this verdict may be in order, as this case has been cold for 2,000 years. At the very least, we need a second opinion. One place to find that is in the reports of non-Christian historians from around the time when Jesus lived. Three of these historians mentioned the death of Jesus. * Lucian (c.120after 180 A.D. referred to Jesus as a crucified sophist (philosopher).13 * Josephus (c.37c.100 A.D.) wrote, At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of amazing deeds. When Pilate condemned him to the cross, the leading men among us, having accused him, those who loved him did not cease to do so.14 * Tacitus (c. 56c.120 A.D.) wrote, Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty at the hands of our procurator, Pontius Pilate.15 This is a bit like going into the archives and finding that on one spring day in the first century, The Jerusalem Post ran a front-page story saying that Jesus was crucified and dead. Not bad detective work, and fairly conclusive. In fact, there is no historical account from Christians, Romans, or Jews that disputes either Jesus death or his burial. Even Crossan, a skeptic of the resurrection, agrees that Jesus really lived and died. That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.16 In light of such evidence, we seem to be on good grounds for dismissing the first of our five options. Jesus was clearly dead, of that there was no doubt. The Matter of An Empty Tomb No serious historian really doubts Jesus was dead when he was taken down from the cross. However, many have questioned how Jesus body disappeared from the tomb. English journalist, Dr. Frank Morison. initially thought the resurrection was either a myth or a hoax, and he began research to write a book refuting it.17 The book became famous but for reasons other than its original intent, as well see. Morison began by attempting to solve the case of the empty tomb. The tomb belonged to a member of the Sanhedrin Council, Joseph of Arimathea. In Israel at that time, to be on the council was to be a rock star. Everyone knew who was on the council. Joseph must have been a real person. Otherwise, the Jewish leaders would have exposed the story as a fraud in their attempt to disprove the resurrection. Also, Josephs tomb would have been at a well-known location and easily identifiable, so any thoughts of Jesus being lost in the graveyard would need to be dismissed. Morison wondered why Jesus enemies would have allowed the empty tomb myth to persist if it wasnt true. The discovery of Jesus body would have instantly killed the entire plot. And what is known historically of Jesus enemies is that they accused Jesus disciples of stealing the body, an accusation clearly predicated on a shared belief that the tomb was empty. Durathror [Visitor] 06.03.2010 @ 12:04 Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, similarly stated, If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been
discovered that would disprove this statement.18 The Jewish leaders were stunned, and accused the disciples of stealing Jesus body. But the Romans had assigned a 24-hour watch at the tomb with a trained guard unit (from 4 to 12 soldiers). Morison asked, How could these professionals have let Jesus body be vandalized? It would have been impossible for anyone to have slipped by the Roman guards and to have moved a two-ton stone. Yet the stone was moved away and the body of Jesus was missing. If Jesus body was anywhere to be found, his enemies would have quickly exposed the resurrection as a fraud. Tom Anderson, former president of the California Trial Lawyers Association, summarizes the strength of this argument: "With an event so well publicized, dont you think that its reasonable that one historian, one eye witness, one antagonist would record for all time that he had seen Christs body? The silence of history is deafening when it comes to the testimony against the resurrection."19 So, with no body of evidence, and with a known tomb clearly empty, Morison accepted the evidence as solid that Jesus body had somehow disappeared from the tomb. Grave Robbing? As Morison continued his investigation, he began to examine the motives of Jesus followers. Maybe the supposed resurrection was actually a stolen body. But if so, how does one account for all the reported appearances of a resurrected Jesus? Historian Paul Johnson, in History of the Jews, wrote, What mattered was not the circumstances of his death but the fact that he was widely and obstinately believed, by an expanding circle of people, to have risen again.20 The tomb was indeed empty. But it wasnt the mere absence of a body that could have galvanized Jesus followers (especially if they had been the ones who had stolen it). Something extraordinary must have happened, for the followers of Jesus ceased mourning, ceased hiding, and began fearlessly proclaiming that they had seen Jesus alive. Each eyewitness account reports that Jesus suddenly appeared bodily to his followers, the women first. Morison wondered why conspirators would make women central to its plot. In the first century, women had virtually no rights, personhood, or status. If the plot was to succeed, Morison reasoned, the conspirators would have portrayed men, not women, as the first to see Jesus alive. And yet we hear that women touched him, spoke with him, and were the first to find the empty tomb. Later, according to the eyewitness accounts, all the disciples saw Jesus on more than ten separate occasions. They wrote that he showed them his hands and feet and told them to touch him. And he reportedly ate with them and later appeared alive to more than 500 followers on one occasion. Legal scholar John Warwick Montgomery stated, In 56 A.D. [the Apostle Paul wrote that over 500 people had seen the risen Jesus and that most of them were still alive (1 Corinthians 15:6ff.). It passes the bounds of credibility that the early Christians could have manufactured such a tale and then preached it among those who might easily have refuted it simply by producing the body of Jesus.21 Durathror [Visitor] 06.03.2010 @ 12:05 Bible scholars Geisler and Turek agree. If the Resurrection had not occurred, why would the Apostle Paul give such a list of supposed eyewitnesses? He would immediately lose all credibility with his Corinthian readers by lying so blatantly.22
Peter told a crowd in Caesarea why he and the other disciples were so convinced Jesus was alive. We apostles are witnesses of all he did throughout Israel and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by crucifying him, but God raised him to life three days later.We were those who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. (Acts 10:39-41) British Bible scholar Michael Green remarked, The appearances of Jesus are as well authenticated as anything in antiquity. There can be no rational doubt that they occurred. Consistent to the End As if the eyewitness reports were not enough to challenge Morisons skepticism, he was also baffled by the disciples behavior. A fact of history that has stumped historians, psychologists, and skeptics alike is that these 11 former cowards were suddenly willing to suffer humiliation, torture, and death. All but one of Jesus disciples were slain as martyrs. Would they have done so much for a lie, knowing they had taken the body? The Islamic martyrs on September 11 proved that some will die for a false cause they believe in. Yet to be a willing martyr for a known lie is insanity. As Paul Little wrote, Men will die for what they believe to be true, though it may actually be false. They do not, however, die for what they know is a lie.24 Jesus disciples behaved in a manner consistent with a genuine belief that their leader was alive. No one has adequately explained why the disciples would have been willing to die for a known lie. But even if they all conspired to lie about Jesus resurrection, how could they have kept the conspiracy going for decades without at least one of them selling out for money or position? Moreland wrote, Those who lie for personal gain do not stick together very long, especially when hardship decreases the benefits.25 Former hatchet man of the Nixon administration, Chuck Colson, implicated in the Watergate scandal, pointed out the difficulty of several people maintaining a lie for an extended period of time. "I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, and then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it werent true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the worldand they couldnt keep a lie for three weeks. Youre telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible."26 Something happened that changed everything for these men and women. Morison acknowledged, Whoever comes to this problem has sooner or later to confront a fact that cannot be explained away. This fact is that a profound conviction came to the little group of peoplea change that attests to the fact that Jesus had risen from the grave. Were the Disciples Hallucinating? People still think they see a fat, gray-haired Elvis darting into Dunkin Donuts. And then there are those who believe they spent last night with aliens in the mother ship being subjected to unspeakable testing. Sometimes certain people can see things they want to, things that arent really there. And thats why some have claimed that the disciples were so distraught over the crucifixion that their desire to see Jesus alive caused mass hallucination. Plausible? Psychologist Gary Collins, former president of the American Association of Christian Counselors, was asked about the possibility that hallucinations were behind the disciples radically changed behavior. Collins remarked, Hallucinations are individual occurrences. By their very nature, only one person can see a given hallucination at a time. They certainly arent something which can be seen by a group of people.28
Hallucination is not even a remote possibility, according to psychologist Thomas J. Thorburn. It is absolutely inconceivable that five hundred persons, of average soundness of mind should experience all kinds of sensuous impressionsvisual, auditory, tactualand that all these experiences should rest entirely upon hallucination.29 Furthermore, in the psychology of hallucinations, the person would need to be in a frame of mind where they so wished to see that person that their mind contrives it. Two major leaders of the early church, James and Paul, both encountered a resurrected Jesus, neither expecting, or hoping for the pleasure. The Apostle Paul, in fact led the earliest persecutions of Christians, and his conversion remains inexplicable except for his own testimony that Jesus appeared to him, resurrected. From Lie to Legend Some unconvinced skeptics attribute the resurrection story to a legend that began with one or more persons lying or thinking they saw the resurrected Jesus. Over time, the legend would have grown and been embellished as it was passed around. In this theory, Jesus resurrection is on a par with King Arthurs round table, little Georgie Washingtons inability to tell a lie, and the promise that Social Security will be solvent when we need it. But there are three major problems with that theory. 1. Legends rarely develop while multiple eyewitnesses are alive to refute them. One historian of ancient Rome and Greece, A. N. Sherwin-White, argued that the resurrection news spread too soon and too quickly for it to have been a legend. 30 2. Legends develop by oral tradition and dont come with contemporary historical documents that can be verified. Yet the Gospels were written within three decades of the resurrection.31 3. The legend theory doesnt adequately explain either the fact of the empty tomb or the historically verified conviction of the apostles that Jesus was alive.32 Why Did Christianity Win? Morison was bewildered by the fact that a tiny insignificant movement was able to prevail over the cunning grip of the Jewish establishment, as well as the might of Rome. Why did it win, in the face of all those odds against it? He wrote, Within twenty years, the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish church. In less than fifty years it had begun to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire. When we have said everything that can be said we stand confronted with the greatest mystery of all. Why did it win?33 By all rights, Christianity should have died out at the cross when the disciples fled for their lives. But the apostles went on to establish a growing Christian movement. J. N. D. Anderson wrote, Think of the psychological absurdity of picturing a little band of defeated cowards cowering in an upper room one day and a few days later transformed into a company that no persecution could silenceand then attempting to attribute this dramatic change to nothing more convincing than a miserable fabrication. That simply wouldnt make sense.34 Many scholars believe (in the words of an ancient commentator) that the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church. Historian Will Durant observed, Caesar and Christ had met in the arena and Christ had won.35 A Surprise Conclusion With myth, hallucination, and a flawed autopsy ruled out, with incontrovertible evidence for an empty tomb, with a substantial body of eyewitnesses to his reappearance, and with the inexplicable transformation and impact upon the world of those who claimed to have seen him, Morison became convinced that his preconceived bias against Jesus Christs resurrection had been wrong. He began writing a different
bookentitled Who Moved the Stone?to detail his new conclusions. Morison simply followed the trail of evidence, clue by clue, until the truth of the case seemed clear to him. His surprise was that the evidence led to a belief in the resurrection. In his first chapter, The Book That Refused to Be Written, this former skeptic explained how the evidence convinced him that Jesus resurrection was an actual historical event. It was as though a man set out to cross a forest by a familiar and well-beaten track and came out suddenly where he did not expect to come out.36 Morison is not alone. Countless other skeptics have examined the evidence for Jesus resurrection, and accepted it as the most astounding fact in all of human history. But the resurrection of Jesus Christ raises the question: What does the fact that Jesus defeated death have to do with my life? The answer to that question is what New Testament Christianity is all about.
jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 07.03.2010 @ 23:09 Phoof; you must have had a hard time cutting and pasting all this stuff, dear Durathon; a original idea of your own would of course be welcome also now and then, but then in the world of Christian dogma original ideas are definitely frowned upon... All these fine gentlemen you cite however face the same dilemma; they want to have evidence for their faith, as they want to be reasonable men and believe in real things and not in some made up myths. The basic fact is however still the same; there is nothing else than the stories in the Bible to back the claims of the Christians, and there has never been nothing else. These gentlemen try different approaches to cover for this gaping hole, but the end result remains the same. You are quite welcome to believe in these naive illusions, but what I don't like is misquoting and misunderstanding people like Bertrand Russell, who did not accept the Christian myths for a single second during his entire adult life. He was btw. one of the finest minds I know of and I think you should read this fine essay by him: "Why I Am Not A Christian" by Bertrand Russell in http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html Durathror [Visitor] 10.03.2010 @ 19:28 Original ideas? Where were yours? These gentleman, do you actually know anything about them? Seems to me they were looking for evidence and found it. You simply ignore it. What is your dogma then, if I may ask? You keep mentioning B.Russell! Is he your bible by any chance? And what are the myths you are talking about? WAKE UP! SMELL THE GRASS! ITS UNDER YOU NOSE! I have read quite enough of BR and others of his ilk to know how shallow and how short their chosen path actually is. They have chosen a path and thats fine. Your conclusions however on what I have so carefully cut and pasted for you, are frankly the clearest indication yet that if a feast were placed before you, you would still convince yourself you were eating pig swill! | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 10.03.2010 @ 22:25 There is only a small problem with all your "evidence". It is evidence of deep faith and of wanting to be certain only. Life is too short to take these things one by one, but they all share the same bias; they all are based on wishful thinking that glues over the glaring omissions.
The thing that Christianity was born after the death of the originator of the cult is not a proof of his resurrection in any way, but it tells how good story was created to explain away the demise of the original cult-figure. This story was a work of literary and psychological genius, to have this effect, even if most of it was borrowed from the mythology of other then current religions. A classical example of self-deception going on here is the Josephus thing; if one reads the passage of Josephus with open mind, one sees immediately that he is just telling what has been told to him by some wild-eyed followers of this Jesus-guy. He clearly has never seen or met him and does not have anything other than hearsay to tell; this kind of evidence would be thrown out of any court anywhere in the world. Durathror [Visitor] 13.03.2010 @ 14:15 'It is evidence of deep faith and of wanting to be certain only.' Faith and evidence are not related things. The evidence is found, by those, like yourself, enquiring minds (not really like yourself, as you do not have an enquiring mind), who never had any faith in the first place. You cannot dismiss everyone with evidence, following lengthy enq's, as fools. This is precisely what you are doing. 'Life is too short to take these things one by one, but they all share the same bias; they all are based on wishful thinking that glues over the glaring omissions.' Indeed life is short, but thousands of years have not prevented the voice of Him from shouting like thunder (sorry to be emotive, I know its not your thing). There are indeed omissions I grant you, just as there are within science and say, Darwins theory of evolution or AGW (Anthro. warming etc); the origins of the universe etc. 'The thing that Christianity was born after the death of the originator of the cult is not a proof of his resurrection in any way, but it tells how good story was created to explain away the demise of the original cult-figure.' This clumsy paragraph of yours shows me that you have only skimmed the 'evidence' and using the very wishful thinking you assume in all those 'cult' members you ridicule, you dismiss it all out of hand, almost in panic. To think of Christianity as a cult is simply frantic and bitter criticism illustrating (once again) complete ignorance and shallowness. A cult is usually a small religious group, imposing excessive control over its members. I do not see any of this control at all. It is primarily a gentle religion and renowned for its liberal attitudes and infact rather undisciplined exponents. The feast days and joy the forgiveness and the inclusiveness etc, belie what you claim to be a sort of dangerous cult! Yeah, sure we have had exceptions like Waco in the USA and evil individuals dressed up as priests etc. This (if you believe in evil) is what one expects from the human dark side now and again. This is not a religion of totalitarianism or hate. 'This story was a work of literary and psychological genius' 'Back to the grind stone...' I mutter to myself... Who wrote this story (gospels) and why? I would like an answer please? (Feel free to make up any reason you like, it does not have to be based on any historical evidence or thoughtful, even logical assumptions based on the existing facts, or by any respected figures within the historical and theological realms...). 'borrowed from the other mythology of other then current religions' Firstly you are possibly refering to the Old Testament and the religion of the Jews. What do you mean 'borrowed'? What was borrowed exactly and what other religions are you refering to here? Can you be more specific please?
There are many witnesses some of whom have not met Christ (like Paul), there are outsiders of historical importance who speak of Christ and his followers. You have to look at the whole picture, not just pick up on individual, choice morsels that suit you! The subject is huge and deserves thorough investigation. 'wild-eyed followers of this Jesus-guy.' Your pathetic assumptions are frankly not worth this! If you took the trouble to take the most basic texts and letters of say St Paul or actually read the gospels carefully, you will see that these people are anything BUT wild eyed or mad. This remark, more than any other, marks you out as rather wild eyed yourself. No, this matter of the Jesus 'thing' would not be thrown out of any court, again, more nonsense! You really must stop assuming you are the only psuedo intellectual who sees 'the' truth, or is somehow capable of rational thought processes! It has stood the test of many experts and lawyers, believe me, many actual lawyers strangely enough... (But they are all fools of course, you are the only person who does not need a crutch in life, wow! what a guy! A pity your picture does not do your powerful aura justice) Got to go... son needs the computer for work.... Robin [Visitor] 30.03.2010 @ 15:42 I find both of your comments very interesting and both have valid points. Your are very passionate about your convictions and your backgrounds and knowledge far exceed mine.... but I have a simple observation: many of religions' "rules" are good-hearted, and many make no sense. Many humans do as they were raised, so if born a Christian, remain a Christian, born a Muslim, remain a Muslim, etc. We need to be open-minded. There is a similarity between religious people and atheist people: both are quite sure they "know" there IS something after death or there is NOT. We all have egos - these sometimes interfere with our ability to carefully consider all viewpoints. Let's all worship the golden rule, keep an open mind and open heart, do our best to not live in fear and do good while we are here. PEACE Term Paper Writing Help [Visitor] 04.01.2011 @ 12:02 Your blog is really helpful for my research.Keep it up.Thanks UK Term Paper Help | Buy Term Paper
Marcus Aurelius on constant change

"Observe constantly that all things take place by change, and accustom thyself to consider that the nature of the Universe loves nothing so much as to change the things which are, and to make new things like them."
My own ideas on the quote: The main point of this quote is to remind how extremely important thing change is, even if we tend to see things as they are just at the present moment. It still is a very important thing to utter aloud this idea. After all, too many people still believe that permanence and resisting change is the natural order of things. I must add that some religious people have always seen that Marcus Aurelius is speaking of Universe as some kind of divine force, but I strongly disagree. Men did just express things like this in this way in Marcus Aurelius' times. I see that the expression "Nature of the Universe" just means that our universe just has certain universal qualities that find their expression in different events of our physical world. Of course I can understand why many theists have mistakenly inserted automatically "God" into the place of "Universe" in this quote for nearly two thousand years. I see, however, that this quote says nothing of the ultimate causes why things work the way they do work and is just referring on how the basic structure of the Universe appears to humans. I believe that good old Marcus did not think that "nature" would have a "will" or "mind" of its own, but he is in a poetic way just referring to how the mechanism of our universe does work. One should remember that Marcus Aurelius was always a rationalist first and foremost. This is true even if his ideas on the deep nature of our Universe can also be interpreted as a form of Deism or pantheism. However, Deism or Pantheism have never really had anything to do with any of the existing religions, as it is just an idea of the original cause and order of things.
In Deism, there is no concept of any kind of personal god, eternal life or eternal punishment and there are, in fact, no gods that would be interfering in human affairs at all. Deism or pantheism is in reality not a religion as we normally do understand a religion, as it has no holy books, no rituals and no priests. It is just a feeling that one needs to have an answer to a very basic question; why does this Universe of ours exist and how has it home to into being? Of course, the other viable option is to say that we have a lot of good and even satisfactory scientific answers to these questions, but we do not have final answers and maybe never will. Just perhaps we just should learn to live with the idea that there can be questions that we do not have definite and final answers, even if we have good and even excellent ideas of why things are as they are and these answers are getting better every day. However, we should not fall into false hubris of claiming to have all the answers we need as the religions are so eager to proclaim. (This piece was refurbished on 23th of November,2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius "Marcus Aurelius (Latin: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus;[1][notes 1] 26 April 121 17 March 180 AD), was Roman Emperor from 161 to 180 AD. He ruled with Lucius Verus as co-emperor from 161 until Verus' death in 169. He was the last of the "Five Good Emperors", and is also considered one of the most important Stoic philosophers. Marcus Aurelius' Stoic tome Meditations, written in Greek while on campaign between 170 and 180, is still revered as a literary monument to a philosophy of service and duty, describing how to find and preserve equanimity in the midst of conflict by following nature as a source of guidance and inspiration." by jaskaw @ 13.02.2010 - 14:10:51 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/13/marcus-aurelius-on-change-7999969/
Marcus Aurelius on rejecting the sense of injury

"Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears."
My own thoughts on the quote: There are naturally also such mental injuries that are so deep that you just cannot make them disappear from your mind whatever you do. However, in my mind Marcus Aurelius is right in stating that the less you dwell in your own mental injuries, the better you will inevitably feel in the long run. He is not speaking about the physical injuries. He speaks here about the mental injuries which are very often far more serious that physical ones, the more so as they often much more difficult to heal. Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic and central to the Stoic way of life was to accept with dignity also the bad cards the life sometimes deals and make the best out of also bad situations, the more so as you never know when the tide will turn. However, the problem with all philosophy is very often that it is spoken in absolutes, as is the case here; Marcus Aurelius is not saying that you 'probably' or 'possibly' can do this, but states his idea as a fact of life. The problem here is that even this idea is in the real world applicable only just in certain situations. On the other hand, this principle is a goal that one can always strive for, as striving for this goal can help even if it never really reached. A fact of life is that people often take a stand on this idea on similar absolute level as the original idea is presented. However, you can vastly improve your life without really reaching the goals you did originally set up. This can be done just by even trying to reach some kind of a greater goal. This process of improvement is the main thing here, not attaining any kind of fixed goals.
Of course, one can never promise that all mental injuries will just disappear, if you just forget them. However, I do not think that Marcus Aurelius is even claiming that, but that he is just setting here a goal on which one can aim for. I know that this may sound like a religious concept for some, but I think that it is a form of very pure form of philosophy, where one tries to find ideas that can help a people in their daily lives. The line between philosophy and religion is of course very thin and has been often crossed both ways. Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic. Stoicism is normally classed as philosophy, but one can well take it as a religion also, even if it lacks infallible holy books, priests, superstitious beliefs or formal organizational structure that we lately have come to see the things that do characterize a religion. Similarly also Epicureanism can well be used to replace religions, even if there is nothing supernatural in it, as the whole thing is based on human reasoning on how to achieve the best possible life by aiming to have a rational control over ones needs and wants. Christians hated and despised Epicurans as they used reason to combat their superstitions and myths. Epicureans were largely atheists or at least agnostics, but Stoics did have pantheistic ideas of a universal spirit, that can well be interpreted also as the Universe and Nature only. The thing is about a rational advice. It is based on rational thoughts on how at least trying to control ones negative emotions can increase human happiness. The whole thing has nothing whatsoever to do with any kinds 'gods' or even supernatural entities of any kind. Marcus Aurelius just draws a logical conclusion on the premises of the very human and rational Stoc thinking. Stoics can of course well be accused of an irrational belief in human rationality and the ability of humans to handle rationally also their emotions. (This piece was refurbished on 24th of November, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius "Marcus Aurelius (26 April 121 17 March 180 AD), was Roman Emperor from 161 to 180 AD. Marcus Aurelius' Stoic tome Meditations, written in Greek while on campaign between 170 and 180, is still revered as a literary monument to a philosophy of service and duty, describing how to find and preserve equanimity in the midst of conflict by following nature as a source of guidance and inspiration." by jaskaw @ 14.02.2010 - 18:22:10 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/14/marcus-aurelius-on-rejecting-the-sense-of-injury-8006696/
Thomas Paine on securing liberty

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
- Thomas Paine in "Dissertation on First Principles of Government (1791)
My own thoughts on the quote: The most difficult task facing any democracy is how to respond to those who do threaten the existence of democracy. We have in good memory the sorry example of Germany in the 30's. There the enemies of freedom did take over a major industrial nation largely by using the tools that are provided by the democratic system itself. Of course they did eventually break this system in a very early stage of their march into power. Thomas Paine did not have that somber precedent before him, but I still think that he was right. I think that democracy must be protected by means that are provided by the democratic process itself. Otherwise, we might still end up in a totalitarian system. Protecting democracy with undemocratic means will always undermine it, and in the end slowly eat democracy away. The very basic question here is why should anybody defend a democracy that is not a democracy anymore? This question must be answered by all those who are considering eroding the freedoms and rights of citizens in a democratic country in the name of defending that democracy. I think that we simply must take the risk of losing some battles to win the war. A fact of life is that the enemies of democracy love nothing more than a situation where their actions will erode democracy from the inside. The enemies of liberty will clap their hands when there is nothing real left to differentiate democracies and totalitarian systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_paine "Thomas "Tom" Paine (February 9, 1737 [O.S. January 29, 1736 June 8, 1809) was an English author, pamphleteer, radical, inventor, intellectual, revolutionary, and one of the Founding Fathers of the United
States. Born in Thetford, in the English county of Norfolk, Paine emigrated to the British American colonies in 1774 in time to participate in the American Revolution. His principal contributions were the powerful, widely read pamphlet Common Sense (1776), that advocated colonial America's independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain, and The American Crisis (1776 1783), a pro-revolutionary pamphlet series. "Common Sense" was so influential that John Adams said, "Without the pen of the author of 'Common Sense,' the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain. by jaskaw @ 21.02.2010 - 22:49:08 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/21/thomas-paine-on-securing-liberty-8050111/
Bertrand Russell on science and philosophy

"In science men change their opinions when new knowledge becomes available; but philosophy in the minds of many is assimilated rather to theology than to science."
- Bertrand Russell in the preface to "The Bertrand Russell Dictionary of Mind, Matter and Morals" (1952) edited by Lester E. Denonn.
My own ideas on the quote: Bertrand Russell had a great insight into both science and philosophy, as he was a very famous name in both fields already during his long and extremely productive career. In this quote he is simply pointing out a fundamental difference between those two disciplines. Science is always in search for a better answer. There never will be any kind of final scientific truth of anything. There are excellent and extremely stable scientific facts and findings, but a very basic concept in modern science is that even the most established facts and findings must be replaced with new ones, if our knowledge is somehow increased so that these fact and findings do become obsolete. One can, however, normally easily point out which scientific hypotheses or theory is the accepted scientific 'truth' at any given moment. It is always the idea which is accepted by the majority of the best possible experts of any given field, even if also it will change if new and better 'truth' is found out to exist. On the other hand, in philosophy there has never been and will never be such consensus of opinion. Philosophy outside the field of formal logic is not dealing in hard facts, but it is about ideas and even more about human comprehension of those ideas. So, there can never be a 'true' philosophy in a way as there is a scientific 'truth'. In general accepting one philosophical idea does not prevent one from accepting also other even very different philosophical ideas, the more so, as these ideas can just be different manifestations of the same original ideas. Of course, also in the field of philosophy there are people who think that they have found some kind of final truth. However, these people do often mix the fixed religious and theological ideas with philosophy. The stark fact is that, in the end, only religions can promise final and unmovable truths, outside the field of mathematics this is. Science will never claim to have found out the final and unmovable truth on anything. If it does that, it is not science any more and becomes more like a religion with their fixed final truths. In the end, the hard core of science is not about facts at all, but about the constant, relentless applying of scientific method. This continuous search for new truths has already produced results that have transformed our world beyond recognition. This development has happened in just a few hundred years under which time the modern scientific search for
new truths has been going on. (This piece was completely refurbished on 26th of November, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS (18 May 1872 2 February 1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic. His work has had a considerable influence on logic, mathematics, set theory, linguistics, computer science (see type theory and type system), and philosophy, especially philosophy of language, epistemology, and metaphysics." by jaskaw @ 22.02.2010 - 22:28:19 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/22/bertrand-russell-on-science-and-philosophy-8056288/
Bertrand Russell on love and knowledge

"The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge."
- Bertrand Russell in "What I Believe" (1925)
My own ideas on the quote: A very familiar claim that is often made by religious people is that their religion is the main or even the only real source of love and caring. Religious people seem to be afraid of losing the feelings of love and affection that they have come to associate with their particular brand of religion. This happens as they are constantly and systematically led to believe that love and passion they feel towards other people are there only because of their religion. On the other hand, the reality just might be that strong religious attachment just often happens to interest people who are loving and caring persons to start with, at least in a modern society. It just might be that the real source of their caring and loving feelings just could be within themselves; they just could project their true personality through the religious framework. Bertrand Russell was a non-believer all his life, but he was an extremely passionate person who had reserves of love for the whole of humanity. He did work all his life for the causes he saw as vehicles for forwarding the good of the whole humanity, and not just the good of his fellow believers or to forward the cause of his own nation. However, he was not guided in his love of humanity by ancient religious dogmas. He was guided by the knowledge that he had acquired on the evolution, history and current state of the society he did live in. He did also change many of his opinions several times during his lifetime, when he saw that he had been acting under insufficient or wrong information earlier. However, the passion and love for humanity and most of all knowledge did guide his life to the very last days. (This piece was refurbished 27th of November, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS(18 May 1872 philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic."
2 February 1970) was a British
by jaskaw @ 26.02.2010 - 00:31:15 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/25/bertrand-russell-on-good-life-8075401/
Mark Twain on loyalty to petrified opinions

"Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world will." and never
- Mark Twain in a paper delivered in Hartford (l884). This quote is engraved on Twain's bust in the National Hall of Fame.
My own ideas on the quote: Mark Twain was as free a soul as one really could be in the United Stated in the late 1800's. However, only towards the end of his life he very cautiously publicly aired his exceptionally strong opinions about the established order of the society, but especially his strong negative opinions about the organized religions. However, he was always aware of the dangers that the strong nonconformist private opinions can pose for a writer, who is largely depending on the good will of the buying public. As also his family wanted to keep this side of him secret after his death, most of his critical pondering have seen the light of the day only during the later part of the 20th century. Some are even seeing the light of the day at these very days, as Mark Twain did stipulate in his will that most sensitive of his writings could be published only 100 years after his death. The process of publishing his final autobiography is still going on, and only the first part of it has seen the light thus far. As it stands, Mark Twain was a progressive and a pragmatist, who believed that the world would be a better place is reason would be allowed to guide human life. In my mind Mark Twain reminds in this quote how strong and unchanging traditions, ideas and ideologies (for example religions) are forces that can work against any kind of change in a society. They are normally conservative forces that did, for example, also help to preserve the worst parts of the medieval feudal societies also in a time when it was time for it to give way to more modern forms of government, when the economic and social progress of the societies did already demand change. (This piece was refurbished on 28th of November, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_twain "Samuel Langhorne Clemens (November 30, 1835 April 21, 1910), better known by his pen name Mark Twain, was an American author and humorist. He is most noted for his novels, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876), and its sequel, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885), the latter often called "the Great American Novel." by jaskaw @ 28.02.2010 - 23:32:17 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/28/mark-twain-on-loyalty-to-petrified-opinions-8091822/
Feedback for Post "Mark Twain on loyalty to petrified opinions"

NS [Visitor] 29.11.2010 @ 17:39 Nice quote!!!! David Antonucci [Visitor] http://tahoefacts.com 28.11.2011 @ 19:22 From the book, "Fairest Picture -- Mark Twain at Lake Tahoe" Mark Twain once wryly remarked, Often, the less there is to justify a traditional custom, the harder it is to get rid of it. One can add to this another of Twains incisive observations, "Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world and never will." Both quotes are dense with meaning and sensibility. In the general sense, they reinforce the view that a long-held belief, irrespective of justification or rationality, is an impediment to progress, new ideas and expansion of knowledge. He probably had in mind the larger notions of society, religion and governance as he contemplated the inflexibility of human nature. The same concept applies at the micro level to the various Mark Twain-Lake Tahoe myths that have embedded themselves in the ethos of the region.
Bertrand Russell on authority in science

"The most essential characteristic of scientific technique is that it proceeds from experiment, not from tradition. The experimental habit of mind is a difficult one for most people to maintain; indeed, the science of one generation has already become the tradition of the next."
My own ideas on the quote: The idea that Bertrand Russell here calls the 'scientific technique' is of course now better known as the 'scientific method'. It is the groundwork on which all real modern science is based on. It guarantees that the wrong guesses and wrong interpretations that are inevitable also in scientific work will be eliminated given due time. This happens when all findings must be analyzed and valued by the best experts on a given field before they are generally accepted. However, the danger of relying on force of authority is present also in science, when scientist start taking the work of previous scientists as something that one does not dare to touch. A scientific finding can also achieve a status where nobody questions its validity anymore. This kind of development can seriously hamper the true advancement of scientific knowledge. Happily these bottlenecks are mostly just temporary things. The very basic premise of science does not lay in force of authority, but, in fact, in questioning it. One can be quite certain that as long as the scientific method is truly honored in science, bad science will be eventually discarded, even if can take time. Only if true scientific method is rejected, there is a real danger of science becoming like a religion with Final Truths of its own. (This piece was refurbished on 29th of November, 2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS(18 May 1872 2 February 1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic. His work has had a considerable influence on logic, mathematics, set theory, linguistics, computer science (see type theory and type system), and philosophy, especially philosophy of language, epistemology, and metaphysics." by jaskaw @ 07.03.2010 - 23:58:43 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/03/07/the-most-essential-characteristic-of-scientific-technique-is-that-it-8135027/
Bertrand Russell on being cocksure

"The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. Even those of the intelligent who believe that they have a nostrum are too individualistic to combine with other intelligent men from whom they differ on minor points. This was not always the case. "
- Bertrand Russell in "The Triumph of Stupidity" (1933) in "Mortals and Others: Bertrand Russell's American Essays", 1931-1935
My own ideas on the quote: One of real downsides of understanding that there just might be no real absolute and final truths is having to admit the relative and fleeting nature of all knowledge. One can achieve tremendous insight on the basic nature of our world and universe when one does understand that in practice all things can be seen at least from two sides. I think that we have achieved a lot when we simply understand that even all of the most solid looking things can change given enough time. Most of all our perception of them can change even fundamentally. However, you very easily end up as seemingly feeble and undecided compared to people who do not see things in this enlightened way and who believe in the existence of final and unmovable truths. It is an undeniable fact of life that a person who believes in very simple and unmoving truths can act in a much more straightforward manner than a person who does see the real complexity behind it all. What more people believing in simple and straightforward explanations can find it much easier to convince other people of their views, as people in general just love to have simple and easy to adopt truths. The validity and real truth-value of these 'truths' is very often a secondary importance, as many people will always choose soothing and empowering lies over troubling and ambiguous truths without giving another thought. I think that the greatest challenge for all scientists and rational thinkers is to present difficult and many-sided issues in a way that do, on the other hand, retain the real ambiguity of our universe and still show a firm and easy to follow a line of thought. That is a challenge not many have risen to accept, but I must say that I think that Bertrand Russell definitely is one of them. (This piece was refurbished on 30th of November, 2011)
by jaskaw @ 11.03.2010 - 00:34:31 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/03/10/bertrand-russell-on-8154169/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on being cocksure"

Richard Prins [Visitor] http://richardprins.com 30.11.2010 @ 22:54 Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. ~ Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man The second part of Russell's quote seems to attest to what is known as "the herding of cats". PS: There's an error in the "intelligence" tag. Dr matt [Visitor] http://www.matthewfields.net 02.12.2011 @ 00:27 Soothingness is often not the touchstone, but rather the perceived sincerity, passion, and authority of the speaker.
George Orwell on highly civilized human beings trying to kill him

"As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me. They do not feel any enmity against me as an individual, nor I against them. They are only doing their duty , as the saying goes. Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted law-abiding men who would never dream of committing murder in private life."
- George Orwell in "The Lion and the Unicorn" (1941), Part I: "England Your England"
My own ideas on the quote: One of the most difficult issues that is facing any thinking person is what to think of the system of controlled state violence that is normally called war. In his or her heart every human being instinctively knows that war must be wrong, as arbitrarily killing other people is wrong in all cultures on the earth. On the other hand, defending oneself, one's family and birthplace must be always allowed, as the ruffians would take over the world otherwise. Many intelligent and wise people go around the issue completely if they live in peaceful times. George Orwell did live through one of the worst nightmares humanity has had to face thus far and he could not afford such luxury. George Orwell did have clear pacifist tendencies, but he was also a staunch supporter of liberty, democracy and social justice and he was ready to defend these ideals when they were attacked. He did not hesitate one second to join the fight the rising forces of Fascism and Nazism. He did, in fact, volunteer to fight in the Spanish civil war and he was badly wounded in that war. He did also support the British war-effort against the Nazis whole-heartedly. The first big question this quote does rise in my mind is about the absolute authority of the state. This authority can always be used to make quite peaceful, law-abiding and friendly fathers, uncles and sons to attack other peaceful, law-abiding and friendly fathers, uncles and sons, if just the leaders of a country do so wish. The second question raised by this quote is about the need to dehumanize the enemy, which is a very important part of every war. George Orwell reminds us of the basic absurdity of the situation. He reminds us that also those men high above in their airplanes are still human beings. They were just ordered by the authority of the state to do things they would never even dream of doing otherwise. His basic pacifism and strong humanism shine wonderfully through in this magnificent quote. It takes real courage to remind in a situation like this that one's enemies are still human beings. They are humans as individuals even if the machinery of state in their home country has been taken over by one of the meanest, hardest and inhuman ideologies that have ever existed on the face of the earth. (This piece was completely refurbished on 1th of December, 2011)
by jaskaw @ 17.03.2010 - 00:08:07 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/03/16/george-orwell-on-higly-civilized-human-beings-trying-to-kill-him-8189746/
Feedback for Post "George Orwell on highly civilized human beings trying to kill him"
Trimegistus [Visitor] 17.03.2010 @ 01:14 But what about the complementary case of highly UN-civilized human beings trying to kill you? How can one possibly "dehumanize" someone willing to hijack a planeload of passengers in order to destroy a building full of office workers? Or plant a bomb in a Baghdad marketplace simply to sow misery and chaos? It's all very well to muse abou thow "the state" makes men into killers, but what about men who kill perfectly viciously without any flag or uniform? Seems like sometimes, some fellows just need killing. xavier [Visitor] 17.03.2010 @ 03:35 Trimegistus: Your points are valid from a logical and certainly an emotional perspective, but I challenge you to dig a little deeper. Orwell had a lot to say about the perversity and oppression of religion as well as statist oppression; it just wasn't part of this particular anecdote. Religion has inspired some pretty dreadful behavior, from the Crusades to the Inquisition to suicide bombing and other 'terrorist' acts. But Orwell's point about the human being in the airplane still applies, because the individual blowing himself up on a bus is quite obviously assured of the righteousness of his act -- assured enough, even, to destroy himself in the process. Our Western definition of 'civilized' may be put to strain in declaring that such a person committed their act out of a deep sense of conviction, and it may be a conviction to principles we would consider barbaric, but it is still a conviction nonetheless. The terrorist, like the Nazi bombardier, surely loves his family and his culture -- and is, like the Nazi, entwined in an apparatus that deceives him into believing that what he is doing is absolutely right. In addition, there are causative issues at play here, whether we're talking about Nazi Germany (a result of the country's brutal economic punishment at Versailles) or Muslim terrorists (who can point to a litany of hostile acts by Western governments as their cause). I am justifying neither of these sets of villains nor their actions; I am merely saying that they did not appear in a vacuum. Instead, they constitute the inevitable blowback from very UNcivilized behavior on the part of the countries that subsequently ended up being victimized by them. This is an important factor to remember, if we are ever to rid ourselves of the monsters we continue to blindly create. In summary: a man wrapped in explosives detonates and kills himself and several innocent people on a bus or a plane or in a shopping mall. He is convinced that in doing so, he has killed some of the 'infidels' -- enemies of his culture and his god -- and earned his place in an eternity of peace and perfection. He is convinced of this because of religious leaders who have perverted and abused his faith for their own agendas, AND because he has seen with his own eyes the violent actions of the 'infidels' who have abused and destroyed his culture and ancestral lands. He kills civilians partly because his religion tells him that unbelievers are not quite human -- and partly because he has seen innocents in his own country, perhaps family members, torn to pieces by 'civilized' armies with weaponry he cannot hope to match. If we are to end this madness, we must first understand where it comes from. Or else we will simply create more of it, until the whole world is consumed and destroyed by it.
jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 17.03.2010 @ 11:11 Bravo xavier! I must say that I have not encountered for a long time a text I can so wholeheartedly underwrite as your comment. A standing ovation! I must add that the dehumanizing process is going on all the time everywhere there is a violent conflict. As a atheist I myself must be very careful not to fall into the trap of forgetting the basic common humanity of all human beings when looking at the awful things that are done because of religious fanaticism. If one however sees religious fanaticism as a contagious disease, one can however see also these fanatics as humans with a curable ailment. Admittedly fanaticism is one of the hardest things to cure in humans, but on the other hand also AIDS was seen as incurable not so long ago. | Show subcomments Luis Blanco [Visitor] 03.05.2010 @ 15:16 I absolutely agree. Congratulations for keeping a rational and human point of view! andy [Visitor] http://www.siliconrockstar.com 28.03.2010 @ 21:46 'Seems like sometimes, some fellows just need killing.' I laughed pretty hard at that one (gah, I'm going to hell). I would rephrase it as: 'Seems like sometimes, some fellows are just trying to die.' Also, bravo Xavier. Violence is a vicious cycle, and to think it can be stopped by perpetuating the cycle is very naive.
Bertrand Russell on unnatural advances in civilization

"Every advance in civilization has been denounced as unnatural while it was recent."
- Bertrand Russell in "Unpopular Essays" (1950)
My own ideas on the quote: This quote is easy to dismiss as a lighthearted joke, but I do not think that Bertrand Russell wrote it lightheartedly at all. In fact, in my mind this short sentence contains an immense truth. This problem has plagued mankind as long as there has been progress; which does of course include the whole history of mankind. Even the utter unfairness of the medieval feudal society was sanctified as the god-given natural state of man. It was widely seen as the 'natural state of man' until this inefficient, unjust and cruel model for running a society was finally broken after the great French and American revolutions. Slavery was also seen as god-given and highly natural part of life in the Christian lands also for nearly two millennia, before the rise of humanistic thought made also many of the Christians to accept the basic equality of all humans and turned them against this evil institution. Eventually even Islamic world was forced by the Western pressure to give up the inhuman institution of slavery, which is, however, still clearly sanctioned by that religion. In more recent times, we have of course seen all kinds of technological innovation stamped as unnatural. The conservative mindset just often has hard time adjusting to any kind of change. The fact is that during the last decades technical innovations have changed our lives in a faster pace than never before in the history of the human race. So, also the conservatives have been declaring things 'unnatural' right and left, before even they have eventually been forced to accept most of the innovations because of all of the benefits they have brought with them. (This piece was refurbished on 2nd of December, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS (18 May 1872
British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic." by jaskaw @ 21.03.2010 - 23:46:46 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/03/21/bertrand-russell-on-advances-in-civilization-8219073/
George Orwell on the futility of revenge

"The whole idea of revenge and punishment is a childish day-dream. Properly speaking, there is no such thing as revenge. Revenge is an act which you want to commit when you are powerless and because you are powerless: as soon as the sense of impotence is removed, the desire evaporates also. "
-George Orwell in "Revenge is Sour", Tribune (1945-11-09)
My own ideas on the quote: The central idea in this quote is extremely hard thing for many people to swallow. The idea of revenge is seemingly strongly embedded in many people's minds, even if in the real world getting your revenge will just all too often mean lowering yourself to the level of the original wrongdoer. In my mind, this is a very Epicurean, but also Stoic idea, where a person is expected to overcome his or her original feelings of hurt when the original hurtful situation is over. He or she is expected to think rationally on the consequences of one's actions in the new situation, at least after emotions start cooling over. A rational person should understand that his or her response to the original wrongdoing can all too easily constitute just a continuation of injustice on a new level. This is often the case if the action is not aimed at correcting the consequences of the wrongdoings that have been done and most of all preventing them from happening again, but simply aims at revenge. Of course, no person in this world can be or is wholly rational, as raw emotions do play havoc on the minds of every human being walking the surface of this earth. However, I claim that understanding the core message of this quote can help in understanding the forces at play in handling situations where people feel that they have been treated unjustly. George Orwell was naturally speaking in this quote about revenge against the German nation. Germany had just lost a world war in which it had caused the worst human made catastrophe in the history of the world. They had killed, tortured and mistreated other humans on an unforeseeable scale, but still George Orwell was writing these terse sentences on the futility of revenge. One can really ask why he did this? I think that George Orwell saw that punishing nations as a whole is an act of similar injustice as punishing a whole family including the uncles and aunts just because the things that their nephew has done. I think that he saw that punishing those who are responsible for dragging a nation into mud would be the objective. However, the main thing should be preventing these awful things from happening ever again. George Orwell also very well knew the lessons that were learned from the injustice that was levied on Germany on the end of the First World War. The peace treaty of Versailles was a form of revenge dictated by the vengeful French. Many people warned outright that it already contained the seeds of the new war, as the vengeful injustice levied on Germany made them just thirst for a chance to correct that injustice. For me at least the treaty of Versailles is a classical example of letting emotions like revenge dictate real world policies. Nations will not go away, but they will still be there even after your sweet revenge is meted out, as well as your mean co-worker will be there even if you beat him or her in a spiraling race of meanness that the idea of revenge so easily unleashes.
(This piece was reworked on 3rd of December, 2011)
by jaskaw @ 28.03.2010 - 21:25:35 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/03/28/george-orwell-on-revenge-8264915/
Feedback for Post "George Orwell on the futility of revenge"

andy [Visitor] http://www.siliconrockstar.com 28.03.2010 @ 21:39 I fully agree with this assessment. Revenge is a selfish emotion that has it's source in feeling powerless. I have experienced this firsthand after my lover was murdered. I have never wanted revenge so bad, I wanted to take from them what they took from me, I wanted her killer to hurt like I had hurt. But when the problem is suffering, when your adversary is violence, how can you expect to solve that problem by creating more suffering and violence? Tony [Visitor] 04.12.2011 @ 02:22 It is ludicrous to speak of the "central" idea in, or the "core" message of, the quote, where almost every QUOTATION is like the one here; IT IS Just a "quote," it's not an extract either lengthy or short. Otherwise, please do explain: What other "idea" or ideas, "message" or messages might there be in the quotation? The quote says one thing, and says it beautifully. That's all. Let's not over-do it, unless you really can explain what other "idea" or ideas, "message" or messages exist in the quote, without continuing to be ludicrous about it.
Thomas Paine on owning earth

"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property."
- Thomas Paine in "Agrarian Justice" (1795 - 1796)
My own ideas on the quote: Thomas Paine reminds us here that we all are just borrowing something that really can never be wholly owned, when we claim to own things like land or water. We need to understand that we must in the end return this borrowed property in good condition to its rightful owners, as any lender of borrowed things must do. With these true owners, I mean of course the future, coming generations, the humanity as a whole and the Earth as an extremely interdependent ecosystem. I think that we can never own a piece of land in a similar fashion that we can claim to own a television set. We can improve and use to our advantage the parts of the earth we claim as legally our own, but I think we should always remember that we are not the final owners of land in a way we can be the final owners of a car or a boat. I am not talking about abolishing legal ownership of land at all here, but about the deeper mental relationship with land and the whole earth that I think should exist in human minds. Of course, in the end, human ownership of anything is always just an imagined relationship and a social contract. This relationship ends when this it is not imagined to exist any more. It is also all too easy to forget that the private ownership of land is also a very late human invention. Humans just did not need this concept at all before the advent of agriculture and settled way of life. Most of the nomadic people and remaining hunter-gatherers do still live quite happily without knowing anything about it. This novelty has served humanity well after its invention, but I think that it benefits the whole of humanity only when humans do take real and full responsibility for the lands they claim to have legal ownership of. A state is also just an imagined convention. It exists just as long as people keep imagining that it exists. A state disappears the moment people lose faith in its existence, as private ownership of land would disappear, if humans would lose confidence in its existence. I must again take the pains to emphasize that saying all this does not mean at all that I would be against the private ownership of land or against the existence of separate nations.
I just think that it is good at some point to realize that we humans are very good at making up things. Very soon they seem so real to us that we can t often even see their true nature as human inventions anymore. This does not mean at all that these social conventions would and could not serve good and important purposes. However, realizing that we have invented them ourselves makes it much easier to have a look at these things critically. In the end, the only thing I try to say here is that in my mind at least owning anything transient that is made by humans themselves is a quite different thing than claiming to own something that has been there before the dawn of humanity and that ultimately will exist even after humanity has disappeared altogether. (This piece was completely refurbished on 4th of October, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_paine "Thomas "Tom" Paine (February 9, 1737 [O.S. January 29, 1736] June 8, 1809) was an English author, pamphleteer, radical, inventor, intellectual, revolutionary, and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States." by jaskaw @ 02.04.2010 - 22:28:04 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/04/02/thomas-paine-on-owning-earth-8297291/
Feedback for Post "Thomas Paine on owning earth"

Adelaide Dupont [Visitor] http://duponthumanite.livejournal.com 03.04.2010 @ 05:29 Your last paragraph was especially good. People are good at making up boundaries like nations. Paine has a point about the improvements making the land valuable, rather than the land itself. These days we tend to value unspoiled land. Thanks for the clarification to say you would not be against. Penny C [Visitor] 22.05.2010 @ 21:27 I wish though that we did not give the ground beneath our feet so much value that common people cannot own their own space. I live in a State that needs people to keep it running. Yet, our grandparents, great-grandparents, have priced its' value way beyond their grandchildrens reach. We see fewer and fewer young people stay. Business' have been slowly leaving this area. Still, most of these people find that real estate speculation is wonderful. How can it be wonderful to price your grandchildren out of a good home? How can they condemn both parents to have to work slavishly while their children go un- or under supervised? They are too busy spending their profits. I see so many of the elderly question the values of their youth. Than I look around me and sigh. As they sip their margaritas or down their fancy coffee's how can they ignore the fact that so many of our youth will not know the comfort or tranquility that owning and keeping a stable place to raise a family in will bring? How is it that so many of us have forgotten where we came from and how we got so far? I just don't understand it and it makes me sad. Often.
Bill Bryson on the unity of all life

"Every living thing is an elaboration of a single original plan. As humans we are mere increments - each of us a musty archive of adjustments, adaptations, modifications and providential tinkerings stretching back to 3,8 billion years. Remarkably we are even quite closely related to fruit and vegetables. About half the chemical functions that take place in a banana are fundamentally the same as the chemical functions that place in you. It cannot be said too often: all life is one. That is, and I suspect will ever prove to be, the most profound true statement there is."
- Bill Bryson in "A Short History of Nearly Everything" (2003)
My own ideas on the quote: The well-known science writer Bill Bryson brings up a very central theme here. This feature of evolution is, in fact, surprisingly rarely discussed. This discussion is all too often centralized on the subject of interrelations between hominids and primates, but the real big picture is all too often forgotten. However, the stark fact is that even the lowest forms of bacteria and humans have common ancestors in the early misty days of life on Earth, as all life on Earth has risen from the same source. Their evolutionary paths have just taken them to be strikingly different creatures, but when you start analyzing the very basic chemical processes that keep the living organisms ticking, the common origin becomes clearly visible time after time. The sad fact is that the human mind is built in such a way that the fact of having a common ancestry with bacteria is just all too difficult to grasp for many. Even those who accept evolution as a very basic scientific fact, do not necessarily want to elaborate just on this issue in public. I think that this could be because some people have difficulty in understanding that there is no real evolutionary difference between different groups of modern humans, and accepting bacteria as your relatives would just could be a bit too much for them.
(This piece was refurbished on 5th of December, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Bryson "William McGuire "Bill" Bryson, OBE, (born December 8, 1951) is a best-selling American author of humorous books on travel, as well as books on the English language and on science. Born an American, he was a resident of Britain for most of his adult life before moving back to the US in 1995. In 2003 Bryson moved back to Britain, living in the old rectory of Wramplingham, Norfolk, and was appointed Chancellor of Durham University." by jaskaw @ 04.04.2010 - 23:41:40 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/04/04/bill-bryson-on-the-unity-of-life-8307984/
Feedback for Post "Bill Bryson on the unity of all life"

jerseyguy [Visitor] 12.04.2010 @ 16:07 Humans have a compelling need to divide not just humanity, but all life forms, into us and them. Paradoxically, religion claims to be a force for unity, but by promoting the ideas of good and evil, it (a) reinforces this need, and (b) it undermines the use of critical thinking for evaluating behavior, thereby becoming yet another a force for division. Rex Bennett [Visitor] 06.12.2011 @ 10:57 Jaskaw, I read the book, and then I bought the audio book as well and listed to it on car trips. It entertained me for quite some time. Bill Bryson is not only an excellent author, he is also an excellent researcher. I wish I had his breadth of knowledge! Talk about a polymath, this guy is a real one!
Bertrand Russell on abandoning reason

"As soon as we abandon our own reason, and are content to rely upon authority, there is no end to our troubles."
- Bertrand Russell in "On Outline of Intellectual Rubbish".
My own ideas on the quote: Bertrand Russell would have been a fool if he would have claimed that one should abandon all authority, even if on the surface this quote seems to imply it. No, for one I think that the important part is the part about abandoning one's own reason, as only this would lead to relying solely on the force of authority. Just this kind of blind relying on authority alone did, in fact, cause a situation where generation after generation of quite sensible men and women did believe that women have less teeth than men. The reason for this was that none other than Aristotle had made such an erroneous claim. This idiocy persisted for centuries, even if anybody could have counted those teeth and would have seen that great man was wrong in this matter. Of course, we inevitably accept a mass of things on face value on the basis of the perceived authority of the informant. I do not think that this fact can much be even altered, as a life without trusted sources is just impossible. However, I think that Bertrand Russell is here saying that after we receive new information we should always use our own reason to analyze it. Are the received facts still current? Why is this person saying these things? The most important question of them all is: can this person have a some kind of hidden agenda that he tries to bolster by using just these facts but not some others? The danger of overlooking hidden agendas always arises when we start accepting things on face value. These hidden agendas just really are present everywhere. The thing is made all more difficult by the fact that the source of new information is not often even him- or herself conscious of the mental process that does lead to the picking and choosing of one's data to suit one's hidden objectives, as one just might not be aware of their influence. Many Christian scientist or historians really think that they act quite objectively. They can think so, even
when they systematically reject the explanations and data that could be harmful for the interests of their ideology. I fear that they are all too often doing all this picking and choosing quite unconsciously. Bertrand Russell is saying here that one should never completely surrender one's critical faculties, even if the source of information should appear to be even extremely reliable. The danger is of course greatest when we are in the same mind as the source of the information; we all just humans and we are prone to let our critical faculties drop when we receive information that we want to be true. This if of course human and inevitable, but being aware of the trap might just help sometimes. (This piece was completely refurbished on 6th of December, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS(18 May 1872 philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic." by jaskaw @ 24.04.2010 - 20:50:26
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/04/24/bertrand-russell-on-relying-upon-authority-8444683/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on abandoning reason"

Douglas [Visitor] 10.05.2010 @ 08:33 I sincerely hope you aren't finished with this wonderful blog. Rex Bennett [Visitor] 06.12.2011 @ 12:20 Enjoyed it!
Robert G. Ingersoll on ignorance

"Only the very ignorant are perfectly satisfied that they know. To the common man the great problems are easy. He has no trouble in accounting for the universe. He can tell you the origin and destiny of man and the why and wherefore of things."
- Robert Green Ingersoll in "Liberty In Literature" (1890)
Some ideas of my own on the quote:
A sad fact of life is that the more you accumulate knowledge, the more acutely aware you became of limits of your true knowledge. As Robert G. Ingersoll points out, only a person with a very limited view of all all available knowledge can have a misconception of having found some final and unmovable answers to the really big questions in the universe. The situation is made even more complicated by the fact that the more you acquire knowledge, the more you usually do become aware of the fleeting nature of most of it. A cold fact of life just is that, outside the realms of mathematics and natural sciences, there are very few truly immutable facts. The true scientific method is based on the very basic idea that there are no scientific ideas or findings that cannot be reviewed and analyzed again if refining our knowledge requires it, even if this fact has been long established. This needs to be done even if chancing some very basic findings or ideas would require to rethink big chunks of science. Absolute certainties are of course often very comforting and reassuring. This may even be the main reason why people choose to believe in their existence, even if their reason says that absolute certainty is just on illusion. Even more the illusion of absolute certainty is often manufactured for just the exact purpose of creating these feelings of comfort and assurance. In the words of a great mind Bertrand Russell: "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything." (This piece was refurbished on 7th of December, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll "Robert Green "Bob" Ingersoll (August 11, 1833 July 21, 1899) was a Civil War veteran, American political leader, and orator during the Golden Age of Freethought." by jaskaw @ 19.05.2010 - 22:13:30 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/05/19/robert-g-ingersoll-on-ignorance-8627481/
George Orwell on atrocities

"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence."
- George Orwell in Looking Back on the Spanish War (1943)
Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote:
I fear that there is a very common way of reasoning in which it is quite okay to do bad things, if the people on the other side are doing bad things too. I see this as the other side of the idea that Orwell brings up here. For me the best current example of this thinking in action is of course the Middle East. I personally detest the religious fanaticism that is so apparent at the moment in many parts of the Muslim world and in Hamas of Palestine in particular. However, I detest as much also the religious fanaticism that makes many Israelis deny the Palestinians their basic humanity and human rights. This Jewish version of religious fanaticism makes all too many in Israel just now think that they have some kind of 'divine mandate' to take over Palestinian lands in the West Bank. They think that they have 'a divine right', for example, to build new settlements on land that is taken from other people. This Jewish fanaticism is as big or even bigger an obstacle to peace as is the Islamic fanaticism at the moment. I fear that all too many people end up thinking that they must take a definite stand in an issue like Israel vs. Palestinians and when they have chosen "their" side they will never, ever see something wrong in the doings of their favorites. However, I think that it is possible here in more far-away lands at least to see the situation neutrally and support all initiatives that seem to further peace and seem to diminish violence. Remaining neutral is extremely hard when there are two extremely strong streams of propaganda pounding the other side and extolling the virtues of the other. It is possible to take the side of humanity and aim into trying to diminish the effects of the nationalistic fervor that just feeds and inflames the ongoing conflict in Palestine on both sides. I think that nternational politics is not a spectator sports, where to enjoy the spectacle you must choose your side to support. I really think that it is possible to see at the same time the atrocities and unjust deeds committed by the Israelis and see the atrocities and unjust deeds committed by the Palestinians. It is similarly always possible to condemn both of them when they do bad things, as both sides have done. It is extremely surprising how rarely one meets people who would not have chosen to believe only the horror stories of the other side and who would not dismiss all similar stories told by the other side. It is really funny how people who are telling stories supporting ones side seem so honest and trustworthy. At the same time quite similar people in similar situations who tell very similar stories from the other side of the front line seem so prone to be just lying and deceiving. There is no easy solution to the problems of Palestine, as both sides must make great sacrifices if a real state of peace is to be achieved and they are at the moment just not willing to do that. The state of Israel is now a historical fact. There will never be a lasting peaceful solution if we ignore that
fact. Even if the methods by which state was originally built were very violent and unjust at times, the existence of this state with its several million inhabitants is a unavoidable historical fact. On the other hand, the existence of the landless Palestinian population is a similar unavoidable historical fact and no such real peace solution is ever possible that they would not approve of. There just must be a compromise, if a lasting peace is to be achieved. The other side just can't win in any final sense. Any kind of military solution and submission of the other side will always only prolong the suffering, as the fighting will always just turn to another level. (This piece was completely refurbished on 8th of December, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_orwell "Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 21 January 1950), better known by his pen name George Orwell, was an English author and journalist. His work is marked by keen intelligence and wit, a profound awareness of social injustice, an intense opposition to totalitarianism, a passion for clarity in language and a belief in democratic socialism." by jaskaw @ 08.06.2010 - 17:59:04 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/06/08/george-orwell-on-atrocities-8760045/
Feedback for Post "George Orwell on atrocities"

LittleRichardjohn [Visitor] http://littlerichardjohn.wordpress.com/ 19.04.2012 @ 23:15 ""Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence."" Not so easy to ignore the evidence anymore. Nobody interested in the Libyan Revolution can have been unaware of the evidence of atrocities posted everywhere, some more credible than others. And would not have been able to hold any public line without first examining it. Evidence is now instant, unlike in Orwell's era. Ty to defy it and you are exposed very quickly, both to everyone reading your online opinions, and to yourself. In that sense Orwell's apparent pessimism for the future is unfounded. people are learning the communication skills of the old Professional Classes en masse, and are in consequence becoming more indispensable to the state, and more dangerous to it.
Bertrand Russell on skepticism and dogma

"Neither acquiescence in skepticism nor acquiescence in dogma is what education should produce. What it should produce is a belief that knowledge is attainable in a measure, though with difficulty; that much of what passes for knowledge at any given time is likely to be more or less mistaken, but that the mistakes can be rectified by care and industry. In acting upon our beliefs, we should be very cautious where a small error would mean disaster; nevertheless it is upon our beliefs that we must act. This state of mind is rather difficult: it requires a high degree of intellectual culture without emotional atrophy. But though difficult, it is not impossible; it is in fact the scientific temper. Knowledge, like other good things, is difficult, but not impossible; the dogmatist forgets the difficulty, the skeptic denies the possibility. Both are mistaken, and their errors, when widespread, produce social disaster."
- Bertrand Russell in "On Education, Especially in Early Childhood" (1926)
I think that a very central problem with theistic beliefs is that they give their followers a free pass from personal responsibility: 'It is just too bad if you don t like our commands, but there is nothing we can do, sorry, as they are divine commands and we mere humans cannot change them'. This situation leaves one without direct personal responsibility for even some very bad things that can be done in the name of a religion. This happens at least when the bad deeds are purportedly based on claims of some sort of supernatural origin of the dogma. However, I think that the very same thing can also happen with ideologies that are not based on supernatural claims as soon as they are taken to be the unmovable, ultimate truth of something. The very basic problem with, for example, communism is that the hard-core communists do treat the basic ideas of their faith as something that cannot be altered or even criticized at all. The result is, however, just the same as with theistic beliefs; the follower has no personal responsibility, when he is just doing what the unalterable dogma requires. The basic problem is of course the belief in the existence of any absolute unmovable truth, be it of divine or human origin.
People who accept the existence of unmovable truths are just not seeing the world and universe as the continually developing and changing process it really is, and of which we can always receive new and often also much improved information. This does not, however, mean at all that one should reject all ideologies as equally dangerous, as the crucial thing here is the level of commitment to an idea. I personally think that humans must have higher goals and ideologies do offer just the kinds of higher goals in life that humans need to prosper. However, I think that one should just be prepared to face the possibility that even the ideology that one supports has it wrong in some issues, even if it still could be the best possible solution overall. If a person rejects supernatural origins for theistic ideologies and any absolute truths that are presented by 'superhuman' thinkers it does not necessarily mean that the same person could not support and further an ideology on a more rational basis. A person rejecting supernatural and superhuman explanations can still be a good humanist, a keen democratic socialist or a very active Epicurean. However, I think that a lot is achieved if a person realizes that any of these ideologies does not contain the final and unmovable truth. I also think that much is gained if a person can see that even they are just things that good, honestly thinking people in certain kinds of societies have thought out as best possible solutions for issues they have seen to be in need of rectifying. (This piece was refurbished on 9th of December, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS (18 May 1872 British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic." by jaskaw @ 14.07.2010 - 16:46:07
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/07/14/bertrand-russell-on-skepticism-and-dogma-8973412/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on skepticism and dogma"

Hector [Visitor] 14.07.2010 @ 17:22 Like reading your blog post, when a new one is up, i rush an see the entire post...really enjoy it keep up the good work Prakhar Manas [Visitor] http://alienhomesick.blogspot.com 14.07.2010 @ 20:50 A big russell fan.... and I can see you preserved his thoughts very nicely in the post. Visit my blog for similar posts culandun [Visitor] 14.07.2010 @ 21:00 Where we do not have the intellectual capacity, or the education, or sometimes neither; to understand the world and times in which we live, then dogma based on faith becomes the method by which we come to terms with the inexplicable in terms of our relationship with our own nature, that of other species and the universe in general. Thus we promote to high status within our communities those who should help us to come to understand. However, there are many more leaders of faith who confirm dogma, than there are leaders of education that encourage intellectual growth. kaz smith [Visitor] 29.07.2010 @ 19:40 Bertrand Russell was a legend.....even managed to meet him once briefly Alas I can not remember I was only 6 Ally [Visitor] 10.12.2010 @ 19:48 I love your Blog! Often it is just what I need when my day and the rampant 'idiocracy' is getting me annoyed, I read your blog and my mood is improved! cheers, man! | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 10.12.2010 @ 20:37 Thanks, Ally!
Seneca on crimes committed by nations

"We are mad, not only individually, but nationally. We check manslaughter and isolated murders; but what of war and the much-vaunted crime of slaughtering whole peoples? There are no limits to our greed, none to our cruelty. As long as such crimes are committed by stealth and by individuals, they are less harmful and less portentous; but cruelties are practised in accordance with acts of senate and popular assembly, and the public is bidden to do that which is forbidden to the individual. Deeds that would be punished by loss of life when committed in secret, are praised by us because uniformed generals have carried them out. Man, naturally the gentlest class of being, is not ashamed to revel in the blood of others, to wage war, and to entrust the waging of war to his sons, when even dumb beasts and wild beasts keep the peace with one another. Against this overmastering and widespread madness philosophy has become a matter of greater effort, and has taken on strength in proportion to the strength which is gained by the opposition forces."
- Seneca the Younger (c. 3 BC
65 AD)
Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote: I think that we need just now a whole new kind of peace movement. The old peace movement was discredited when it did became an ideological tool. It all too often did become a de facto defender of a very possible aggressor in the 1970 s a and the 80 s. This peace movement lost its credibility when the nuclear weapons and building of armaments of another party were presented as a threat to humanity. At the same time the quite similar wrongdoings of the other side were just presented as necessary tools for self-defence. International peace movement has not yet sadly recovered from this incredible loss of credibility, even if the need to speak for peace has not diminished at all. International peace movement was at its all time height at the 1920 s after the most unnecessary and cruel war that humanity had ever witnessed. It was a war that killed millions of people in useless, endless and meaningless slaughter. After this experience, it was very easy to agree that something simply must be done to prevent it from happening again. Unfortunately for the peace-movement the unjust and unnecessary First World War was followed by just and necessary Second World War. The need for pacifism was a hard sell after the Nazis had tried to take over the world with brute force.
The problem is that absolutism does not work even in matters concerning peace, as it does not really work anywhere else, either. If one takes a stand that condemns all use of violence in all situations, one is inevitably put into a very difficult position, as there will be the need to defend oneself against aggression as long as there are aggressors and sadly it is still difficult to imagine a world without them. However, I think that one can well be peace-activist even if one accepts this inevitable fact of life. The core problem that remains to be answered here is of course to define aggression. Is one also, for example, allowed to make the pre-emptive attack on an enemy that is seen as a possible source of aggression? I think that a lot could be achieved if there would exist a new kind of truly international and ideologically truly independent peace-movement. This movement could concentrate wholly on trying to diminish the social and ethical acceptance of aggression in all societies of the world. The main thing would be try to affect the current zeitgeist or the spirit of the time . Clear moral and ethical lines should be created that ultimately, in the end, could even prohibit policy makers of considering starting any kind of aggression on their own without a public outcry. (More on the importance of zeitgeist here: http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2010/07/12/why-christians-did-finally-turn-against-slavery-8961607 ) The practical goal of this new truly international peace movement needs not to be a perfect world. The goal needs not to be a world where there are no arms and wars at all, as this is not possible as far as we know in practical terms. Even thought the armless world can of course be the ultimate goal. We must just remember that it is one of the hardest goals mankind can set to itself in the current state of the world. To achieve it the current practices but most of all current thinking of the mankind need to change in a quite extraordinary manner. It is not wholly impossible of course, as the practices of mankind have changed in an extraordinary manner before. Currently it is just very hard to see what would initiate such changes, as there must be enough people who would clearly benefit from initiating these changes for them to be initiated at all. Accepting this fact of life does not, however, mean that we should surrender at all. I think that we can achieve a lot by just even trying to chance the over-all acceptance and perception of violence and aggression. Ultimately we should change the prevailing zeitgeist of our times in this matter. The results of this kind of work are of course very hard to discern. One needs perhaps decades of dedicated hard work by a large group of humans to achieve real changes in the zeitgeist. However, I think that this kind of changes can be initiated by the endless stream of on-line debates, discussions on all kinds of forums, blog writings, e-books, YouTube-videos, podcast-talks and appearances by those who have really set their goals to achieve a change the acceptance of aggression as a tool of national policy. (This piece was completely refurbished on 10th of December, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Younger "Lucius Annaeus Seneca (often known simply as Seneca, or Seneca the Younger) (c. 3 BC 65 AD) was a Roman Stoic philosopher, statesman, dramatist, and in one work humorist, of the Silver Age of Latin literature. His father was Seneca the Elder." by jaskaw @ 15.07.2010 - 11:07:45 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/07/15/seneca-on-crimes-committed-by-nations-8977377/
Feedback for Post "Seneca on crimes committed by nations "

jose joseph [Visitor] http://http/:thelittlebook.blogs.fi 15.07.2010 @ 14:17 there are two poles in every being.good and bad.which is more prominent prevails if not directed. it must be directed from the womb itself.now everybody is after money,power and enjoyment at the cost of their fellow brothers. when vast majority are selfish out come will be horrible.parents must teach their children to be good and love their fellow beings.for that they themselves should be good.that is lacking.everybody preaches for others, not for themselves to practice.of course there are basic factors in every being,food, sleep,fear and sex.inhibitions only create chaos.train them in such a way that they won't hinder other peoples freedom.accept them as reality and not sin.religious fanatics first name everybody else as sinners.then they make own fellow beings to lick their feet for emancipation.they are most dangerous terrorists here.they perpetrate violence,hatred and terror for their own ends.they are whitewashed tombs.so educate the society to prevent them from selfishness.these cheats like,religious people,political leaders won't allow it to happen.if the whole world is good there is no need for them and no way for their enjoyment and exploitation.they spread hatred and speak publicly love,goodness peace and brotherhood.they don't think or rather understand that life is too short and have to vacate the place soon.so why we should spread hatred,evils,terrorism for ones own happiness at the cost of ones fellow brothers.do to others what you expect others to do to you.this is not for preaching. but to practice. everybody preaches it for others,not to practice for themselves.
Marcus Aurelius on revoking external pain

"If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but rather to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment"
Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote: This extremely simple and straightforward sentence is so easy to understand. However, it contains things that are among the most difficult of things in the world to achieve in real life. An unbelievable amount of young lives could and would be saved, however, if people really just could have more correct estimations of the causes of their distress. Alas, it is not that easy at all, but I think that this sentence should be uttered in every school of the world to every young person entering adulthood. This should be done in the hope (all too often in the vain hope, of course) that they would understand that they really can became the masters of their own minds and even masters of their own destiny. Of course if this is extremely difficult to believe at times when the world around us is so full of uncertainty and unknown dangers. I must stress that Marcus is not at all saying that it would be easy. In my mind, he is just saying that it is possible to alter the way how your mind reacts to outside influences if you just put enough real conscious effort into it. However, I do not think that he was in fact talking about physical stimuli or things like wanting something, but much more of about how we react to emotions and ideas of others, which is of course even more important to a social animal like human. However, I think that this maxim can be seen the other way round also. When people say things like that
posing in the nude degrades a person, I think that they just cannot fathom at all that THEY are the people who are doing this degrading. This idea simply does not exist without also them thinking as they think. A seemingly quite impossible thing to understand for many people is that if they would not continue their degrading of some forms of human activity, persons engaged in that activity would not quite probably not feel themselves degraded anymore. In the end, this degrading exists only in the minds of people who feel that they just must be offended by such things. If they would not feel the need for the offense anymore, they quite likely would not feel the need to believe also in an inherent degrading effect of some things that other people do and the real causes for that original degradation would slowly vanish. On the background, there is the basic inability to see that prevailing opinions in society are formed by us and nobody else. We all are the people who make the zeitgeist or the spirit of the time what it currently is. The common idea of what is seen as acceptable or non-acceptable behavior in a society is created with every single daily action we do. If we just state that there are things that just are so because somebody other somewhere out there thinks so, and they will always be so, we will never see any true change in society. (This piece was completely refurbished on 11th of December, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius "Marcus Aurelius (Latin: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus; 26 April 121 17 March 180 AD), was Roman Emperor from 161 to 180 AD. He ruled with Lucius Verus as co-emperor from 161 until Verus' death in 169. Marcus Aurelius' Stoic tome Meditations, written in Greek while on campaign between 170 and 180, is still revered as a literary monument to a philosophy of service and duty, describing how to find and preserve equanimity in the midst of conflict by following nature as a source of guidance and inspiration." by jaskaw @ 20.07.2010 - 02:40:08 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/07/19/marcus-aurelius-on-pain-9003861/
Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on revoking external pain"

Karin621 [Visitor] 22.04.2012 @ 18:26 It's the beauty and curse of free will. As humans we are fragile and are more likely to take others opinions to heart rather than have confidence in ourselves. Another of Marcus Aurelius' quotes covers this: "I have often wondered how it is that every man loves himself more than all the rest of men, but yet sets less value on his own opinions of himself than on the opinions of others." I wish we could all just accept how others choose to live, unless it affects other's lives in a harmful way, but sadly I doubt this will ever occur. Man will only ever love his fellow man if he is able to reap the benefits of it. I've been reading your blogs and I have enjoyed them. Keep up the wonderful work.
Karl Popper on correcting errors in science

"The history of science, like the history of all human ideas, is a history of irresponsible dreams, of obstinacy, and of error. But science is one of the very few human activities perhaps the only one in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected. This is why we can say that, in science, we often learn from our mistakes, and why we can speak clearly and sensibly about making progress there."
- Karl Popper in "Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge" (1963)
Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote: There are people who are fond of saying things like "Faith is the basis for belief in the scientific method also". I must differ and I must differ strongly. The first thing is that the basis for modern scientific method is that others must be able to verify and even reproduce independently at will every hypothesis, theory and finding that is included in the scientific curriculum. There is no faith involved in this process. The second and crucial thing is that there are no absolute truths in science that would require faith. Scientific ideas are never supposed to be accepted as some kind of final word on anything. The theory of gravity or the theory of structure of carbon must and will be altered if new information on their nature is received through new findings. Of course, these new findings must first be reproduced so many times that the need for alteration of the original theory is seen as inevitable by the majority of the experts of the given field. No single scientist does create any kind of scientific 'truth' alone, even if a single scientist can initiate even big changes in the scientific paradigm's. The final outcome is, however, always based on the consensus of the best current minds in any given field in the world-wide and ultimately fully open scientific community. Any person from anywhere in the world can become part of that universal community. They can simply acquire the needed education and knowledge on any given field of science, but also by showing in practice that he or she really masters that field of expertise. The basis of modern science is the scientific method, but it really and fundamentally is a method only. It is not an article of faith at all, but even it can be altered or given up altogether if a better method for acquiring trustworthy knowledge of our reality is someday thought out.
The blunt truth is that the modern scientific method has simply been found in practice to produce the best possible results. It is a practical proposition, not an ideology. New competing scientific 'truths' do emerge all the time, but only after enough experts of a given field are convinced by the new evidence they became part of the current version of the scientific truth . So, the scientific method it is just a practical solution to the very practical problem. It is currently seen as the best method for finding out as reliably as possible as much as possible about the physical reality that surrounds us. Only religions do offer absolute answers and absolute truths. Science can never do that. Even if you do not need to have faith in science, but of course you need to have a certain level of trust. Science is in that respect no different from any other field of life, as you need to evaluate and create a level of trust for every single source of information you encounter during your whole life. Trust is of course a very basic building block of human life. On the basic level, life is very hard if we do not trust ourselves. We must also, for example, trust our society to be based on justice to be able to live peacefully without fear of injustice. Without some level of trust life would simply not just be bearable. If we do not trust our employers to pay your wages in the end of the month, if we do not trust the garbage man to take the garbage as he promised or we cannot trust the bus to appear at all in the morning, life will be very, very hard. A failed state is simply a state without trust. The level of trust you put to science can of course also vary according to the specific issue at hand. Scientist does of course also speculate and make too strong hypothesis out of too weak evidence. The great thing about the scientific method, however, is that these inevitable failures and mishaps are normally weeded out in the long run. On the other hand, the absolute truths of religions do not normally change at all, even if our knowledge of the world changes even immensely. At the end a religious faith is about believing in claims that are not backed up by reliable real world evidence. Religious faith is, in fact, a quite different animal than everyday trust, even if some dictionaries do mistakenly define these words as synonyms. These dictionaries do forget that in the field of religions word 'faith' has a completely different meaning that it does have elsewhere. So, you can trust science to provide the best knowledge that is available to humanity at the moment as you can trust your television to show news, your mobile phone to bring the voice of your loved ones and your refrigerator to keep its cool, even if you do not have any kind of 'faith' in them. You need only trust to believe in the existence of real world things, but you need the religious kind of faith to believe in things whose very existence is impossible to show or verify.
"The more we learn about the world, and the deeper our learning, the more conscious, specific, and articulate will be our knowledge of what we do not know, our knowledge of our ignorance. For this, indeed, is the main source of our ignorance the fact that our knowledge can be only finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite." - Karl Popper in "Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge" (1963)
(This piece was refurbished on 12th of October, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method http://www.facebook.com/pages/Karl-Popper/131272180219102
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_popper "Sir Karl Raimund Popper, CH FRS FBA (28 July 1902 17 September 1994) was an Austro-British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century; he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy." by jaskaw @ 28.07.2010 - 22:49:26 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/07/28/karl-popper-on-correcting-errors-in-science-9062951/
Richard Feynman on explaining mysteries with gods

"God was invented to explain the mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time life and death stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out."
- Richard Feynman. As quoted in Superstrings : A Theory of Everything (1988) Edited by Paul C. W. Davies and Julian R. Brown
There are still people who really and quite honestly think that science cannot provide good answers on the extremely thorny issue on the origins of our universe, but religions can. I have been left wondering how many quite rational and sane people can think that the explanation that is given by their pet religion would somehow be even exponentially more valid than the explanations that are given by science. It is amazing that there really are quite sane people who do think that quite uneducated small-time farmers, herders and tradesmen who were living in a far-away corner of the Middle East thousands of years ago would
have found better answers than the veritable army of modern scientists working day and night with the best modern scientific tools to find out the real facts in this issue. This veritable army of the best minds of our own time can also lean on hundreds of years of scientific work that has been done on this issue by the best minds in the past few centuries. The cold fact of course is that a thing like the birth of our universe is impossible to study directly, as things that have happened 13,7 billion years ago simply cannot ever be studies directly. It is simply impossible to get a final and unmoving theory of a thing like this. The answer provided by science will always be only the best possible one and it will be based on the facts that are really known. The quantity and quality of these facts and answers does, however, improve with time. The answers that are given by science will get better and better. Any kind of final and absolute truth will be quite impossible to provide in this matter, even if religions in their megalomania will stubbornly claim so. We must just need to humble ourselves to accept the reality that no final and absolute truth will never be available even in this issue. There will, however, be the very good or even extremely good theories on offer and their quality will improve even greatly with time. "Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which are there." - Richard Feynman in "The Character of Physical Law" (1965)
(This piece was completely refurbished on 20th of December, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman "Richard Feynman received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965 jointly with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga."
by jaskaw @ 03.08.2010 - 01:00:17 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/08/02/richard-feynman-on-explaining-mysteries-9094055/
Feedback for Post "Richard Feynman on explaining mysteries with gods"

Kalidas [Visitor] 03.08.2010 @ 05:46 "One scientist explains something to some extent, and then another rascal comes along and explains it again, but differently, with different words. And all the time the phenomenon has remained the same. What advancement has been made? They have simply produced volumes of books. Now there is a petrol problem. Scientists have created it. If the petrol supply dwindles away, what will these rascal scientists do? They are powerless to do anything about it." _Srila Prabhupada | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 03.08.2010 @ 11:50 Dear Kalidas, this Srila Prabhubada is being just plain old silly. Only in religions can there be unmovable truths, as only in things you imagine by yourself can there a single unmovable 'truth', as only when this 'truth' was simply invented can it remain constant through millennium. In real world phenomena there is always many sides and and your view changes when you change perspective. Expecting single unified truth from science is simply madness and just shows how little people understand how science really works. Science is always tentative and personal and current 'scientific truth' emerges from a variety of ideas. Moreover just this presenting new ideas instead just accepting and refining the old ones (as in religions) has made scientific progress possible in the first place. Only because of this rejecting ready-made unmovable truths has brought us vaccines, mobile phones, cars and the green revolution in agriculture. Timo Karjalainen [Visitor] 18.08.2010 @ 11:30 Dear Kalidas and Jaskaw, I think you are both right. As Kalidas write there are unmovable truths, at least from the point of view of social lives and social sciences. I do not know much about black holes and other mystical "places" of the universe where time stops etc. However I know that a man and a women cannot live in black holes becauce of many reasons, eg. living (by definition) demands some absolute unmovable things, eg. an absolute time and a living place and many other unmovable things from practical point of view, I mean absolute as things of their selves ( Das ding an Sich as Kant wrote). However, absolute unmovable things are nothing in the deepest meaning of "nothing" without moving parts connected to absolute things. They give life or dynamics into things. This is why Jaskaw is also right. In othe words, it is good and truhtlike to accept ying-yang insight or Nils Bohr's insigt to things. There are always as if two main elements in a thing. One main element is absolute unmovable and the other elements are moving. This might look controversial. If it is so, then we have to accept the fact that the reality is controversial as eg. Hegel thought. One must be blind, dumb and live in a barrel (of oil) if one disagree with this idea.
Rex Bennett [Visitor] http://www.myspace.com/rbennet9 29.09.2010 @ 09:49 Science now knows how the Universe came to be, and also how and why the Universe evolved. I wrote a blog (MySpace) that explains the latest knowledge available in quantum physics and cosmology. Remember that nothing in science is "absolute." Minor changes are made all the time as the knowledge base increases. But the foundations are there. The blog is called "Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?" Later, I will write a blog on the evolution of the Universe, but I am still struggling with some things in complexity science. In order to explain it clearly for a layperson, I must understand the subject well. But I'll get around to it soon. Here is the direct link to the blog: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=85621264&blogId=521785378 Sometimes my direct links fail to work. In that event go to www.myspace.com/rbennet9 scroll halfway down the page and you'll see a list of latest blogs. Select from there.
Karl Popper on dangers of Utopias

"The belief in a political Utopia is especially dangerous. This is possibly connected with the fact that the search for a better world, like the investigation of our environment, is (if I am correct) one of the oldest and most important of all the instincts."
- Karl Popper in "In Search of a Better World" (1994)
Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote: The big downside of practically all religions is that because of their very nature they will exclude followers of other beliefs. They are actively building boundaries between people even in places where none would exist otherwise. The main problem is that religions do quite universally set definite limits for allowed thinking. I think that these often quite arbitrary limits do also lead to limiting the use of the true mental capabilities of many people. However, I think that if one really opens his or her mind and starts looking at all of the ideas that are presented in philosophy and in all of the human religions without limiting oneself to one particular religion, one can very easily build a very strong personal basis for ethics and morality. The beautiful thing in ethics like this is that it does not shut out those people that have different ideas. On the other hand religions really do just this if they are swallowed whole. This creating of group-thinking just is one of the basic functions of religions. I must hasten to add that I oppose strongly also the ideas that made Stalin or Pol Pot do their evil things. In fact, I will oppose any ideas that promote the dangerous 'us ' and 'them' -thinking. It is all too easy to forger that the worst offenders in this respect are not religions anymore, but nationalism and nationalistic ideas. Nationalism has killed more people than religions or communism put together, even if many of the evil things done in the name of communism had, in fact, nationalistic motives. They were just hidden from view, as communism in theory did oppose nationalism. However, I must point out that I do not oppose ideologies in general and I think it is importangt to have universal and transcendental goals in life. Still, I think that a too strong belief in any kind of Utopia is dangerous. All too often it will make people forget their basic humanity and most of all will make them attack the people who believe in a different kind of Utopia. I personally believe in things like freedom, equality and social justice, but I believe that these goals are best reached by constant compromise and by letting all ideas try to find for followers in a society, as long as they
do not lead into trying to force other people to abide by them by use of violence. However, I believe that ideas that repress other ideas and deny other ideas the right to exist must be opposed vehemently everywhere they do occur, no matter what disguise they take. This opposition needs of course not be violent. At the moment, religious ideologies are the biggest threat in this sense, but that does not mean that we should not fight things like extremist nationalism and communism too with all the peaceful means we have at our disposal. The need to fight extremist nationalism, extremist communism and extremist religions does apply normally just to the extreme versions of all of them, as their milder versions of any of them can be even somewhat benign forces at times. The thin line is crossed after they start to force others to abide to them with violence. However, experience shows that one can really live in a free society and be a good nationalist or religionist or even a good communist while abiding to the general rules of an open society of respecting other ideas and ideologies. I think that in the end the love of absolute truths is the real enemy of mankind and not the ideologies themselves. Most of them can be tamed, if just the absurd longing for absolute truths could be forgotten. (This page was completely refurbished on 21th of October, 2011) http://www.facebook.com/pages/Karl-Popper/131272180219102
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_popper "Sir Karl Raimund Popper, CH FRS FBA (28 July 1902 17 September 1994) was an Austro-British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century; he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy." by jaskaw @ 04.08.2010 - 14:24:33 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/08/04/karl-popper-on-utopias-9109431/
Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on dangers of Utopias"

Penny C [Visitor] 22.08.2010 @ 01:56 Very interesting. I often think that being an American first, was the unifying force that made our Country so successful? It was when certain producers gained a large amount of wealth and then decided that in order to keep this substantial amount of profit, they needed to remain the employer of low wage earners, that is now bringing our Country down. Since here in America, we have seen so much success in business we wanted to believe that all Americans felt that everyone should share in this success. Unfortunately, many of us have found this is quite the opposite. These profiteers have used all sorts of belief systems to justify their greed and build large fences in order to protect themselves from the growing amount of discontented American workers. History repeating. If you are fortunate, you will be able to hold on long enough to enjoy your vast wealth. When you die, you won't care what it is you have left behind because it really doesn't matter much to you anyways. Our Country must be a fascinating study of human behavior. Now our media has taken all that we have been taught was an anti-human mindset and used it for it's business model. All the while, using the mass media to misinform Americans and leading them to believe it is the "others" who are displacing them and robbing them of much of their promised, future success. All of this was predicted. Too many people like to cling to the Bible and forsake all others because they just don't want to make the effort and that book alone is so complicated, contradictory, that they are often discouraged from any other challenge to read and learn more. Our making an advance education out of the reach of so many, adds to the desire of many organizations who depend on the ignorance and literary laziness of most people. We have seen so many families just fighting to remain together. While those that could benefit the most from a good, international education, discouraged or honestly left behind. These poor people have no other choice but to turn to crime to survive. Or, out of vengeance for our Countries lack of honest concern for the welfare of our children they make others the source of their vengeance. We promise people so much and deliver so very little. More and more, what I see, are attacks being made by many groups, against a good solid education. They say their motives are good and righteous while disregarding those who have been warped by their insincere logic or their terrible need for survival at any cost. This seems to me to be the greatest problem as you pointed out, with Nationalism. Though many people do not see this also happening in many religions. Please, I need to state that there are some religions that are growing. Instead of using their books as inscrutable reference guilds they use them sparingly and bring in modern, scientific, philosophy also. Using their books merely as a starting point and ignoring the rantings of a madmen like John who, at the end of his life, was haunted by delusional fantasies about death and destruction of, "biblical proportions". This is one of the many stumbling blocks in religions based purely on the teaching of the Bible. To believe that all wisdom and knowledge stopped after the death of the disciples is purely an unacceptable conclusion. It has lead many to do very bad things in our societies and has been the author or tool maniacal leaders all have in common in their quests for ultimate power.
Mark Twain on traditional customs

Often, the less there is to justify a traditional custom, the harder it is to get rid of it.
- Mark Twain
There are so many kinds of traditions that speaking of them as one lump is similar madness as speaking of religions as a single featureless lump would be. Traditions can tell what to eat or how to dress or when to have a feast. They often bring a very comforting sense of continuity and trust to human life. On the other hand, there are, for example, traditions which tell that people who live according to different kinds of traditions are to be feared and hated do not in the end benefit humanity at all. A very important part of western humanistic tradition is a basic respect for all of the different human traditions there are. In the great modern humanistic tradition, there is a deeply embedded desire to ensure that everybody is allowed to follow also their own traditions, even if they would be silly or nonsensical, and only the clearly harmful and dangerous one s are normally forbidden. Any quest for uniformity in traditions is strictly frowned upon in the traditional humanistic thinking, as forceful tampering with other people s traditions very easily leads into taking away of some of the very basic human rights. I deeply respect this basic humanistic way of thinking. At the end only this kind of thing can ensure the preservation of real open societies, where all people are not forced into living according to a single universal model. The difficulty arises when a tradition can be objectively seen as causing direct and clearly discernible harm also for those who practice it, even it is not in violation with current laws as such. Many people have taken the stand that we cannot even openly criticize other peoples traditions, as they are
their own private business and they also normally do bear the consequences themselves that come with following them. However, the freedom of speech is a far more important value in an open society than being offended by criticism of one s dearest traditions. I simply think that there must be a possibility to analyze also value also different traditions. One must be able to speak freely about even of the fact that following a certain kind of tradition can put people in a direct disadvantage in a society. There must even ultimately exist the right to try to make followers of different traditions themselves to see the disadvantages that following them may cause. However, I definitely think that nobody is never allowed to force people to renounce their traditions at any level in an open society, if they are within the limits of what current law in a society allows, of course. We have already seen that open discussion of the objective merits of all human traditions is way too much for many, who just all too easily declare that they are offended, if their traditions are questioned in any way. This is of course normally just a defensive strategy that is aimed to curbing any criticism of traditions, as they do in the end provide a safe power base for so many people in a society. All people have of course the right to be offended. However, their taking of offense should be their own private issue and it s existence should not prevent others from speaking openly about all things that affact the open society. I will personally also take offense if my central and important ideas like equality, humanism or freedom of speech are criticized. However, I do not think that I should try to prevent discussion on the true merits of these ideas. I must (even if grudgingly) admit that people who oppose these things have the right so speak up, even if I strongly oppose their ideas. In the end, our society is ideally based on a rational decision-making process. Decisions are optimally reached after discussions and making of compromises between people who have different goals and visions of how an our society should be built. The very fundamentals of the open society are endangered, if there are important issues affecting the whole society that one is not able to discuss any more.
"Customs do not concern themselves with right or wrong or reason. But they have to be obeyed; one reasons all around them until he is tired, but he must not transgress them, it is sternly forbidden."
- Mark Twain in "The Gorky Incident" (1906) (This piece was completely refurbished on 22th of December, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twain "Samuel Langhorne Clemens (November 30, 1835 April 21, 1910), better known by his pen name Mark Twain, was an American author and humorist. He is most noted for his novels, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876), and its sequel, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885), the latter often called "the Great American Novel." by jaskaw @ 08.09.2010 - 22:24:53 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/09/08/mark-twain-on-traditions-9344516/
Bertrand Russell on the virtue of enduring uncertainty

"The demand for certainty is one which is natural to man, but is nevertheless an intellectual vice. So long as men are not trained to withhold judgment in the absence of evidence, they will be led astray by cocksure prophets, and it is likely that their leaders will be either ignorant fanatics or dishonest charlatans. To endure uncertainty is difficult, but so are most of the other virtues."
- Bertrand Russell in "Unpopular Essays" (1950)
Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote: I would just like to add to these wonderful words that intellectual laziness is the real mother of absolutist thinking. It just is so much easier to say, for example, that "this man is bad" than to say that "this man has these and these bad qualities which outweigh his these and these good qualities in my mind". In the real world, however, there are very few people without any kind of bad or redeeming qualities. However, I think that the quite automatic simplification of many issues that happen in the human mind is a result of evolution. Very often in nature and most of all in social situations the person who is making the fastest decisions will stay on top. The fastest way to classify humans is to class them in two basic categories of 'good' and 'bad', and simply putting people to these classes according to certain easy criteria. The exact criteria for classifying people of course do vary even wildly in different societies in different times, and even in different situations in the same society. Basically it is of course always a question of easily separating those people who are useful to the actor and his or her goals from the people who are not useful. As this way to think is so natural to us, unlearning it is often extremely difficult. This very natural tendency, however, tends to lose the gray areas and eventually does not also allow for change in people. The simpler the criterion's that are used to classify people are, the more unjust they will cause, when people who do not really fit into them are forced into these classes.
Bertrand Russell is reminding here that very many things that we see as valuable goals in life do need constant work to be reached. Enduring the situation where there are no definite answers to all questions is a very basic requirement for a person with a scientific world view and achieving it needs constant work. In the end science is not at all about giving definite and final answers. It is about a continuous and unending search for better and better answers. (This piece was completely refurbished on 23th of December, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS(18 May 1872 philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic." by jaskaw @ 10.09.2010 - 18:35:24
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/09/10/bertrand-russell-on-enduring-uncertainty-9355581/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on the virtue of enduring uncertainty "
lrvarga [Visitor] 27.04.2012 @ 23:07 Judgement is the mother of necessity for black and white; reductio ad absurdum
Epicurus on the accumulation of pleasures

"If every pleasure had been capable of accumulation, not only over time but also over the entire body or at least over the principal parts of our nature, then pleasures would never differ from one another."
We all have many kinds of needs and desires that we can and will overdo if we are given half a chance. However, as Bertrand Russell famously said "To endure uncertainty is difficult, but so are most of the other virtues." The important part here in my mind is that virtue is a virtue just because it is somehow not easy to achieve. So, in the end a virtue is mostly a thing that is achieved by going against some of the very basic human needs and desires. If we do not ever slow down we will just want more of all of the good things. This danger was already plainly visible for many thinkers many thousands of years ago. Some wise people soon saw soon that there is not many good things we could not want and to have too much. Epicurus saw that one should combat this danger of overindulgence with self-discipline and power of reasoning to limit these endless and in the end quite insatiable needs. He knew that true tranquility and peace of mind are not attained by having more, bigger and better pleasures, but on the contrast by limiting them and getting pleasure from smaller and ever more modest things.
by jaskaw @ 08.10.2010 - 00:30:40 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/10/07/epicurus-on-accumulation-of-pleasures-9551164/
Feedback for Post "Epicurus on the accumulation of pleasures"

Peter Brooks [Visitor] 08.10.2010 @ 13:45 I can't agree that a virtue is only a virtue because it is difficult. Yes, being difficult is usually a sine qua non though you can still be virtuous by chance. Vices can be difficult too - look at the huge effort Methamphetamine addicts go through to get their drug supplies, and the suffering their action causes them. Virtue must also have a good objective, ideally a selfless one. Robert Felker [Visitor] 28.04.2012 @ 19:20 The pleasure centers of the brain are easily stimulated by inputs that bypass our thinking parts. These inputs go directly through the amygdala in a kind of short circuit. This is one reason we find so many things addicting or at least habit forming. The chemical pathways in the brain can become flooded with neurotransmitters and their analogs, drugs, leading to a weakening of the physiological effects of the stimulation, hence tolerance. One of the reported effects of this tolerance is a "flattening out" of experience which is akin to: "If every pleasure had been capable of accumulation, not only over time but also over the entire body or at least over the principal parts of our nature, then pleasures would never differ from one another." All education aimed toward awareness of the perils of addiction behaviors would do well to include elucidation about these facts. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 28.04.2012 @ 20:53 Thanks for you excellent comments, Robert!
Iris Murdoch on how to make things holy

"I daresay anything can be made holy by being sincerely worshipped."
- Iris Murdoch in " The Message to the Planet" (1989)
Humans have always had a quite universal (even if quite irrational at the same time) tendency to see things that are claimed to be of divine origin as more trustworthy than those that are of certified human origin. There is of course a good reason for that, as we know deep inside that no real human we know of can have supernatural powers and know all the answers. So, we have good reason to suspect that all things that humans will write do contain the common human failings also. Any text that is produced by mere humans cannot, therefore, be a source of final and universal truths, but as it stands, many of us do crave to have absolute certainties in this world ours that is so full of uncertainty. Therefore, there really exists an easy and ready market of people who desperately crave things that seem to be of some kind of supernatural and not of human origin. Even the wisest, kindest and deepest human thoughts just are not enough for them. They just want more, and there are people who are willing to give them just that. The normal human limitations seem to disappear, when the claim is made that a text is not of human origin, but it was somehow magically produced with the aid of a deity. If you look around, you soon notice that nearly all of the modern religions have some kind of divinely inspired texts as their founding document. This is a very simple and easy way to make claims that seem to remove a lot of doubt, fear and uncertainty out of the minds of the believers. What is even more important, when people do believe that a text is not produced by a fallible human mind, they soon also start seeing in it qualities that they would not see in it otherwise. It has been well established that the expectations that we do have will carry tremendous importance in the impact of the multitude of things do have on us.
A world-class violinist who is playing in the street corner will never receive a similar applause and ovation as the very same man can receive when playing quite similarly in Carnegie Hall. We just come to a concert with high expectations and the concert will fulfill them. In fact, the true quality of the violinist is really of secondary importance. The most important thing is that our expectations are fulfilled, the more as most of the listeners have in real life no ability to tell an average violinist from a brilliant one. If we are lead to believe that a text is written by a higher being, we very easily see it in a quite different way than if it the same text would be presented us as a normal human document. This process is even quite inevitable if we believe in the supernatural claims made of the document. However, a person that does not have these expectations can see the text in strikingly different way, when he looks at it as normal human document, without the heightened expectations. Such a person can really often just wonder how believers can see the things they do in these texts. It is amazing how a simple literary trick will still in the modern world help in that some people really accept texts as divinely inspired . The trick is so easy that I feel a little embarrassed to bring it up, but over and over again I have noticed that it really does have an impact on some people, even if in only to the people who really want to believe. The literary device is to write the text as if the writer would have had a direct connection to the God-character mentioned in the text and is just putting down words that are dictated to him by this deity. In this form of writing there are direct quotations of the words of this God. This is of course a quite ordinary literary device, but its amazing efficiency is well demonstrated. (This piece was completely refurbished on 25th of December, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_Murdoch by jaskaw @ 15.11.2010 - 23:15:48 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/11/15/iris-murdoch-on-making-things-holy-9980633/
Adam Smith on governments defending the rich

Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.
- Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776)
Economic inequality has undoubtedly been one of the most important forces that have been driving our societies forward. However, so has also the violence between groups of humans been a force that has for its part shaped the world to be such as it now is. Still, we do not generally think that violence would be a good and recommendable thing, but we have no such scruples about endorsing economic inequality. It is fascinating how in the time of Adam Smith one could still openly talk about the evil side of things like ownership, but one does very rarely hear similar talk anymore from modern economists. Of course, one of the reasons for this is the ideologies of socialism and communism that did eventually quite mix up our relationship to the ideas of ownership. After the rise of communism, the very idea of doubting the importance and value of economic inequality did soon become nearly impossible in very many circles, as you could be put in the same bag with the socialists, communists and other even more subversive forces. Not many were simply willing to take that risk. However, there are many possible middle roads between the glorifying and admiration of economical inequality and the complete abolishing of private property and most of them have never been even tried anywhere. However, some ideas aiming at greater economic equality have been under the stress test of reality for the best part of a century now. In my mind, the modern Scandinavian societies are a prime example of how the basic economic inequality of a well-working modern western economy can be balanced by active actions of the society. A basic fact is that economic inequality is mostly an inherited thing. The simple accident of birth does largely
decide if you end up in the most affluent part or in the very lowest part of the society. In the classes between there is much more traffic up and down, but rising or diving to the absolute ends is much more rare. The division of starting positions in a society always happens quite arbitrarily. It is mostly based on the historical accumulation of wealth in a few hands. The Scandinavian model has shown clearly that a degree of economic leveling of a society can be done through taxation. This can be done without provoking unrest among the rich, if only the rich also agree that it is in their own best interests to create a safer and stabler society. In the end, it can be done by just giving away just a small part of their inherited privileges and it can be a small price for overall peace and stability in the society. (This piece was refurbished on 26th of December, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith "Adam Smith (baptised 16 June 1723 17 July 1790 [OS: 5 June 1723 17 July 1790]) was a Scottish social philosopher and a pioneer of political economy. One of the key figures of the Scottish Enlightenment, Smith is the author of The Theory of Moral Sentiments and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. The latter, usually abbreviated as The Wealth of Nations, is considered his magnum opus and the first modern work of economics." by jaskaw @ 23.11.2010 - 00:36:10 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/11/22/adam-smith-on-government-and-defending-the-rich-10032824/
A.C. Grayling on kindness, compassion, affection and mutuality

Our newspapers are full of conflict and war and murder, but in every city, all around the world, every day of the week there are millions of acts of kindness, compassion, affection, mutuality. And this shows that, as social animals, we ve got a great deal of responsiveness toward one other. We have to work quite hard to put people into an out-group so that we can hate them and demonise them and bomb them. I think that s true of humanity in general.
- A. C. Grayling
We have a grand supply of pessimists in our western societies. Pessimism seems to be a thing that does all too often grow quite naturally. True optimists and true optimism are in so short supply at the moment that every single specimen of that rare species will get my full support. Philosopher A. C. Grayling is one of these people. Giving all power to pessimists will never make the world a better place, as I think that the changes for the better are normally initiated by optimists; normally over the strong opposition of the pessimists. Pessimists are the ones who enact harsher laws, or who make preventive arrests and most of all who fear freedom. A pessimist always fears that freedom will lead to bad things, even if they really do not know what will happen, as a pessimist just knows that only bad things are to be expected from humans. Groundless optimism is of course also a grave danger, but on the other hand there is strong evidence that people tend to behave as they are expected to behave. If we build systems on the expectation that people can behave morally and sensibly, it just might be that moral and sensible behavior materializes to a different degree than in a system which is based on an assumption that people just are immoral and stupid and nothing else is to be expected from them. There many kinds of dividers that will always divide humanity into different, often quite permanent groups. A very basic divider is the division between progressives and conservatives that is present in every single human
community. Basically a conservative likes things to be just as they are, but a progressive wants to explore new things. Every society does need both of these forces. However, striking the right balance between them is the crucial question that in the end will largely decide how a society will fare in the long run. A too conservative society will strangle itself, but a too progressive society may fall when too big changes are tried out too fast. I see that there is big overlap among progressive optimists and conservative pessimists, but it is of course not so simple. There are a lot of progressive pessimists and conservative optimists too, but I think at a certain higher level one can draw parallels. A society ruled by optimists alone would not never work. We sorely need pessimists too to slow down things and to make it harder to make changes. When making changes is slower and harder this process will only refine and make better the ideas that are driven through. An optimist with unlimited power is as dangerous as a pessimist with unlimited power. I do think that a good society is born out of mixture of different ideas and most of all out of endless compromises. There is a good reason why there is both optimists and pessimist in every society. In the evolution of human species those groups of humans that have had both have fared better than groups of pure optimists or groups of pure pessimists. This is the reason we always have pessimists and optimist all over the world in all societies. Striking the right balance is the key here, I think. The source for the original quote is http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/2010/02/21/how-to-be-good-without-bothering-god/ (This piece was totally refurbished on 27th of October, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.C._Grayling "Anthony Clifford Grayling (born 3 April 1949) is a British philosopher. In 2011 he founded and became the first Master of New College of the Humanities, a private undergraduate college in London. Until June 2011, he was Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London, where he taught from 1991. He is also a supernumerary fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford. Grayling is the author of around 30 books on philosophy, including The Refutation of Scepticism (1985), The Future of Moral Values (1997), The Meaning of Things (2001), and The Good Book (2011)." by jaskaw @ 01.12.2010 - 12:51:07 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/12/01/a-c-grayling-on-kindness-compassion-affection-and-mutuality-10091968/
Feedback for Post "A.C. Grayling on kindness, compassion, affection and mutuality"
Rex Bennett [Visitor] 28.12.2011 @ 08:21 Loved It!
Marcus Aurelius on finding refuge from trouble

"Men seek retreats for themselves, houses in the country, sea-shores, and mountains; and thou too art wont to desire such things very much. But this is altogether a mark of the most common sort of men, for it is in thy power whenever thou shalt choose to retire into thyself. For nowhere either with more quiet or more freedom from trouble does a man retire than into his own soul."
Some ideas of my own on the quote: Many people seem to have difficulty in understanding the huge difference that really does exist between philosophy and especially the Christian religion.Christianity is in part a bastard son of Greek and Middle Eastern philosophy, even if it mostly the wayward daughter of Judaism. Basically the creators of the Christianity did just often loan and twist to their own needs many observations on humanity and society that the older and more established philosophers had made. The creators of Christianity also did offer different ideas to remedy some of the very basic human failings and societal ills. This habit the creators of modern Christianity also largely learned from the older Greek schools of philosophy. Platonism, Aristotelianism, Socratic method, Epicureanism and Stoicism are all older than Christianity and they were undoubtedly well known for the first creators of the Christianity. They also tried to reconcile some of their selected ideas with the old-fashioned Jewish traditions that harks back to the time of the herders and small-time farmers. In the end, they did create a brand new synchronistic new religion in the process, which was finally completed when also many ideas from the different mystery cults of the time were also thrown in for a good measure.
However, the real difference between any real philosophy and Christianity is that in Christianity these ideas are by habit claimed to be absolute truths. They are quite universally claimed even to be of non-human origin. Notably even the possibility to discuss the validity of the individual claims in Christianity is normally denied by the followers of that faith. On the other hand, philosophy is normally open to debate and discussion even on its core ideas. In contrast, in philosophy ideas like the one by Marcus Aurelius presented here are just human ideas whose validity can well be always discussed. One is also free to choose if one thinks if some parts of it are true or not and believe in the validity of some parts, but reject others, which is officially out of question in Christianity. Marcus Aurelius was a follower of the Stoic tradition. He did build his world-view based on a few central observations that form the basis for the Stoic philosophy. However, many of these ideas are still quite valid strategies for enhancing the human existence in complex human societies, even if they are not god-given or any kind of absolute truths. There is much I do not like in Stoic thinking also, but the mamimizing the control of one's own emotions that is the central message in Stoic thinking is still a valid idea for at least those people who are inclined not to have strong emotions in the first place. However, I do not think that Stoicism is a thing that would fit all people, as I do not think like Christians that one ideology should fit all. People who feel at home in continual storm of emotion feel undoubtedly much more at home, for example, just in Christianity, I'm sure. On the other hand, some people also do seem to forget that philosophy is not science in a way physics or geography is. Philosophy just does not produce verifiable hypothesis, theories or paradigms. Philosophy is a collection of human ideas and ideals. In the end, they have just the value the reader or listener gives to them at that particular moment. There is no right or wrong philosophy in a sense there are right or wrong hypothesis or theories in science. Of course there are ideas in philosophy that some people see as patently false and, on the other hand, philosophical ideas that are quite universally accepted. This neglect or approval does of course need not to make philosophical ideas more right or wrong in our own eyes. That fact does not mean that even those ideas that we reject outright could not contain a grain of truths also, that we might be able to discern at a different setting and at a different point of our own intellectual development. (This piece was completely refurbished on December 28th, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius "Marcus Aurelius (Latin: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus; 26 April 121 17 March 180 AD), was Roman Emperor from 161 to 180 AD. He ruled with Lucius Verus as co-emperor from 161 until Verus' death in 169. He was the last of the "Five Good Emperors", and is also considered one of the most important Stoic philosophers. Marcus Aurelius' Stoic tome Meditations, written in Greek while on campaign between 170 and 180, is still revered as a literary monument to a philosophy of service and duty, describing how to find and preserve equanimity in the midst of conflict by following nature as a source of guidance and inspiration." by jaskaw @ 13.12.2010 - 23:55:55 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/12/13/marcus-aurelius-on-finding-freedom-from-trouble-10178453/
Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on finding refuge from trouble"

Frank [Visitor] 28.12.2011 @ 18:43 And if a man's troubles lie within? | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 28.12.2011 @ 20:54 In the words of Marcus Aurelius: "The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it."
A. C. Grayling on whipping up lurid anxieties for money

"The media no longer hesitate to whip up lurid anxieties in order to increase sales, in the process undermining social confidence and multiplying fears."
A.C. Grayling in "Life, Sex and Ideas: The Good Life without God".
One of the real big question we all should present to ourselves once in a while is that if just our perception of some issues has changed by the one-sided information we might have been receiving. Is our society, for example, more violent that our society 30 years ago or is violence just more much more prominently displayed in the media? In the United States the rate of serious crime per inhabitant is in fact smaller now than in 1980 (see http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm ) and development has been similar also elsewhere. However, I really fear that our perception of the general level of security in our societies has changed for the worse simply because the media has seen that big money is to be made from crime. In my youth there was scarcely a mention of crime in the main evening news, when now crime is often the main subject. It is not crime as a social phenomena that are brought up, but the individual crimes that in the end mostly have real importance only to very small group of people. If every single case of industrial accidents would be presented in similar gory detail, and every person related in some way about the case would be interviewed, and the legal proceedings surrounding the case would be followed with great intensity, very soon industrial accidents would soon be seen as a major social problem and a cause for real concern in the whole of society. The sad fact is that this not the case. Industrial accident concerning unknown individuals are mostly just passingly mentioned in the media, even if a crime with even lesser consequences involving the same person would make big headlines. The sad fact also is that the immense amount of air time and newspaper coverage of the crimes does not prevent crime at all. In fact, it can cause crime to become a normal and accepted part of daily life. It can also
create very negative role models, when the evil persons get more and more media exposure. The later problem is intensified by the culture where media attention can really become the most important thing there is in life. However, this overflowing coverage of crime does, in fact, deteriorate the quality life of for many people, as their perception of the world is twisted and quite unnecessary fears are created in their minds. The sad part is that this fear-mongering is made not because of real concern for the humans who are really affected by crime, but on the contrary to earn the biggest possible amount of money on their expense. Reporting on crime plays on the darkest side of human nature; fear, hate and anxiety. Feeding maximally on those emotions in purpose can have only a negative impact in the long run. I m not suggesting keeping quiet about crime at all. I am only asking if it really is necessary to spread the most disgusting details of human life in all of its gory details in the front page over the whole page? How does it serve the common good to dwell in every single sordid detail of mind-boggling acts of cruelty in television news? These things could be reported in a much more subtle way. One just does not need to know every dirty detail. However, this socially responsible reporting would not generate money in the way that fear-mongering and gut-splashing sensationalism will. When we are offered the possibility to dwell in the worst humanity has on offer, the sad fact is that there are a lot of people who will like nothing else more. I fear that there is a streak of cruelty and inhumanity in all of us that does feed on these displays of cruelty. When we wittness the worst things that humanity can produce can also produce a situation where we can see ourselves as better persons than the the lowlives on whose wrong-doings media is having a feast on. However, in many other things too we refrain with great difficulty in following our lowest impulses to achieve and uphold the greater common good. The protection of the innocent should necessitate the keeping in check also this despicable impulse of reveling in the worst things humans are capable of. The more so as the splashing out of the gory details will never prevent new crimes, but can act as impulses for copy-cats. The same lowest of human impulses did draw tens of thousands of ordinary nice people to Colosseum to wittiness the slaughter that was done for their amusement only. I know that there is an awfully little that we can really do about this. However, one can leave the most horrid fear-mongering tabloids to their sellers or change channel when the slaughter starts. In the end, it is the consumer that decides what sells and when violence does not sell anymore, it will not be on sale anymore. I know very well this is just a pipe-dream for now, but I can do it today and tomorrow and day after tomorrow without any real cost to myself. If enough people would do likewise, the slaughter in the front page would eventually cease in the long run. These horrid items would perhaps drop to page two or three or even lower given due time. (This page was completely refurbished on 29th of December, 2011) http://www.facebook.com/pages/A-C-Grayling/101958299867134 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._C._Grayling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.C._Grayling "Anthony Clifford Grayling (born 3 April 1949) is a British philosopher. In 2011 he founded and became the first Master of New College of the Humanities, a private undergraduate college in London. Until June 2011, he was Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London, where he taught from 1991. He is also a supernumerary fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford. Grayling is the author of around 30 books on philosophy, including The Refutation of Scepticism (1985), The Future of Moral Values (1997), The Meaning of Things (2001), and The Good Book (2011)."
by jaskaw @ 14.12.2010 - 23:25:51 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/12/14/a-c-grayling-on-whipping-up-lurid-anxieties-10185055/
Voltaire on dangerous opinions

"Opinions have caused more ills than the plague or earthquakes on this little globe of ours."
- Voltaire in a letter to lie Bertrand (1759)
The very strongly held opinions of Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse-Tung, Benito Mussolini, Slobodan Milosevic, Ivan the Terrible, Maximilien Robespierre, Augusto Pinochet, Pol Pot, Thutmose III, Darius I, Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar, Attila the Hun, Charlemagne and their colleagues have caused combined more deaths than any plague ever has caused. These extremely strongly held opinions of their mission and their destiny did drive these very dangerous men forward in their paths on the expense of humanity. One idea common to all of these men was that their own nation had a very special place and value in the world. Most of them thought that they and their own nations were destined to rule over other nations because of their special and sometimes even supernatural qualities. Nationalism is one of the most widespread ideas in the world. This is of course because it is one of the most natural ideologies there is on offer. People living in a same geographical area have a very natural tendency to form unions and do together things they could not individually do. This bonding becomes even stronger when people speak the same language, as it is extremely natural to bond with the people whose speech you do understand without difficulty. A modern complex society is, in fact, quite impossible to build without a working state. A really working state seems to need some kind of nationalistic idea to keep it together. However, it is a quite different thing to say that a country is the best place in the world for me than to say that a county is the best country in the world. The country where I was raised and whose traditions, history and language I share with the other inhabitants of this country is undoubtedly the best place in the world for me. However, that does not mean at all that this country would be the best country in the world for people who do not share these common traditions, history and language. Nationalism that is based on the appraisal of the great qualities of a given geographical area is a much less
harmful thing than the kind of nationalism that it based on an idea of a nation formed by similar people. The first kind love of the fatherland is inclusive. At the end, it makes it possible to include in a nation all different kinds of people who choose to live in a given area. However, the kind of nationalism which is based on an idea of a uniform body of people is much more dangerous animal. It tends to become exclusive as people are all too often accepted or rejected based only on the accident of birth in this kind of exclusive nationalism. Even if moderate nationalism is a necessary basis of a modern state, in its more extreme forms it is one of the greatest problems that a modern state needs to face. To exist a state must feed and build the idea of a nation, but problems do all too often start when these ideas are taken too far, as problems do occur when any idea is taken too far. Problem normally appear when the love of one's home country becomes hatred of other countries. Problems arise most of all when the nationalistic ideas are used to justify oppression of other nations, and oppression of members of other nationalities who happen to live inside the political borders of a nation state because of different kinds of accidents of history. The core problem is that an idea of a nation can all too easily be transformed into something that is cannot being analyzed and evaluated rationally at all. When idea of a nation becomes a sacred object of veneration the most irrational and mindless acts of violence are all too often allowed if they just will further the interests this idea of nation. A basically beneficial idea can then become cancer that consumes whole nations in mindless and useless wars. (This piece was completely refurbished on 30th ot December, 2011)
"Voltaire - the best one-liners" in Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Voltaire-the-best-one-liners/165736696801820
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire "Franois-Marie Arouet (21 November 1694 30 May 1778), better known by the pen name Voltaire (pronounced: [v l.t ]), was a French Enlightenment writer, historian and philosopher famous for his wit and for his advocacy of civil liberties, including freedom of religion, free trade and separation of church and state. Voltaire was a prolific writer, producing works in almost every literary form, including plays, poetry, novels, essays, and historical and scientific works. He wrote more than 20,000 letters and more than 2,000 books and pamphlets. He was an outspoken supporter of social reform, despite strict censorship laws with harsh penalties for those who broke them. As a satirical polemicist, he frequently made use of his works to criticize intolerance, religious dogma and the French institutions of his day." by jaskaw @ 18.12.2010 - 13:31:25 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/12/18/voltaire-on-dangerous-opinions-10211088/
Feedback for Post "Voltaire on dangerous opinions"

liberal [Visitor] 18.12.2010 @ 13:58 Nationalism, socialism, Christianity and islam seem to be the most dangerous ideologies. Most of todays terrorist organizations are socialist, like almost all in Europe. Some are islamist or a mixture of islam and arab socialism. Christian terrorist groups are nowadays rare in the Western world - some abort clinic bombings etc. of course - but in Africa they are more frequent. Most in your list were socialist including Robespierre and to some extent Mussolini, the former chief editor of the socialist party newspaper Avanti, some nationalist-socialist or nationalist-socialist-conservative, some nationalist-conservative. Napoleon was a nationalist, although not very conservative, even semi-progressive. (Classical) liberals, like Voltaire, have usually been non-interventionists (doves). Thomas Jefferson was a slight exception, as he agitated the French into their revolution (1789) and then armed Haitian slaves for the only succesful slave revolution in the world (1804). But of course, the point of liberalism is that you should not force your opinions onto others. | Show subcomments Derek Robinson [Visitor] 31.12.2011 @ 15:00 Quote: "Most of todays terrorist organizations are socialist," I would say that Cameron, and Obamas regimes were terrorising people together with the bankers of the world. Hardly socialists are they?
jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 18.12.2010 @ 14:11 Liberal said: "Most in your list were socialist" Were Hitler, Hirohito, Genghis Khan, Benito Mussolini, Slobodan Milosevic, Ivan the Terrible, Augusto Pinochet, Thutmose III, Darius I, Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar, Attila the Hun and Charlemagne really socialists? Mussolini may have been a socialist in his innocent youth, but he was definitely not a socialist anymore when he was the dictator of Italy. liberal [Visitor] 18.12.2010 @ 15:55 I meant: in the era of socialism. For Robespierre, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot etc. this is clear. Mussolini was a socialist, who later became a non-marxist anti-capitalist. Hitler was a national socialist anti-capitalist, anti-marxist. Mussolini socialized more industry than any other non-communist in the Europe, and also Hitler's program was very socialist as well as his practical policies. Both created enormous welfare states and highly regulated the economy, prices etc. Without this, they might have won the war.
See also: Stanley G. Payne. Fascism: Comparison and Definition. University of Wisconsin Press. and http://web.archive.org/web/20070611193716/http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Purge15.html | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 18.12.2010 @ 16:27 Hitler and Mussolini lost the Second World War because they did build a welfare state? Hmmmm, a brand new idea...Let me think about it.... Hmmmm, No. Do you really think that Germany would have beaten the united power of Soviet Union, the British Empire and United States if they would not have had a pension system and sick-pay? I do not think so, as they just tried to do something that simply beyond their military means and after their enemies got their whole power organized and going they did not stand a chance and their loss was just a question of time. liberal [Visitor] 18.12.2010 @ 17:05 I don't believe that the welfare state was such a big issue to the economy. Wage and price control and central planning are usually much more harmful. When Goebbels started to control the economy, since September 1936: "Wages and prices were controlled--under penalty of being sent to the concentration camp. Dividends were restricted to six percent on book capital. And strategic goals to be reached at all costs (much like Soviet planning) were declared" "the German economy during World War II was not as strong, and hence could not give as much support to the military, as it might have." Professor DeLong, who is considered moderate, middle-way, http://web.archive.org/web/20070611193716/http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Purge15.html With a better economy they might have succeeded better in Russia. Might - I did not say that they would and I don't know the probabilities. If so, the U.S. and Britain might then have made a peace. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 18.12.2010 @ 18:16 I must point out that as I a journalist writing about economy as my day job, I find your ideas hard to stomach. On the other hand I have studied political history also in university level and have studied history as my main form of amusement for nearly 40 years now and I do find your ideas of Germany as a centrally planned economy at least odd, to say the least. The major failing of the German war machine was the evident lack of real planning until the year 1942, when finally some efforts were made to centrally really plan even the most crucial war production. Until that point the different arms of the German armed forces had had business with the private firms supplying the goods without real planning or even without knowing what others were doing. Also all the big arms manufacturers were privately owned firms to the bitter end. Germany used massive amounts of forced labor; there were millions of unpaid prisoners and scantily paid "gastarbeiter" in Germany at the end of the war. The price of work is in fact not a issue at all in a war
economy anywhere. Economy was strictly regulated in Great Britain and United States also during war-time as they are necessarily a important part of war economy, when the state becomes by necessity the only real customer for very many firms. In the end German economy and population was just too small to build a army strong enough to beat and conquer the whole world. liberal [Visitor] 18.12.2010 @ 19:58 Also the Mongolian population was too small. I don't believe that Germany would have conquered the whole world in any case. Yet I do believe in the analysis of many professors, at least part of them middle-way people, than in some courses in the Helsinki University during Finnlandisierung. See, e.g., the above references. National socialist Germany and Italy were not Soviet Unions, although many say that their planned economies were much similar to that of S.U. However, they were much more socialist and planned economies than any EU country and more socialist and planned economies than the goal of any party in the Finnish parlament. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 18.12.2010 @ 21:42 You are comparing apples and oranges here. The Mongol experience was in a world that was totally different. The Mongols also had the luxury of choosing their victims and attacking them one at the time on their own chosen schedule. They did also recruit the Turkish and other tribes when they expanded and finally their force did include all the nations of the steppes and also a strong contingent of Chinese and other mercenaries building for example their siege engines. There is in fact no similarities in the rise of the Mongol empire and the rise of the Third Reich, when the Third Reich was in fact with the whole world at the same time. I must say that these professors you refer were speaking through their hat, as the planned economy in Germany or Italy had nothing in common with the real planned economy in Russia. In fact it was just 'planned' as the plans of planning the economy never really did come to fruition, as these courtries were pure capitalist societies to the end. The labor movement was crushed mercilessly in both countries as was btw, also the atheist and humanist movements. liberal [Visitor] 18.12.2010 @ 22:17 The labor movement was also crushed in Cuba, China, Soviet Union and other communist countries. Most socialists want to suppress the civil society under the state, Marxist socialists, national socialists and others. Both Germany and Italy were very anti-capitalist, anti-free market countries with heavy regulation of the economy, as I described above and as the references describe.
rbennet9 pro 19.12.2010 @ 09:42 Voltaire was the one person that no country wanted to claim while he was alive, but who every country wanted to claim after his death...so much so that his bones are buried in two different countries and fought
over.
Bertrand Russell on birth control

"The nations which at present increase rapidly should be encouraged to adopt the methods by which, in the West, the increase of the population has been checked. Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation. There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion, the other is nationalism. I think it is the duty of all who are capable of facing facts to realize, and to proclaim, that opposition to the spread of birth control, if successful, must inflict upon mankind the most appalling depth of misery and degradation, and that within another fifty years or so. I do not pretend that birth control is the only way with which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's."
Bertrand Russell in "The Impact of Science on Society" (1951) in Ch.. 7 : Can a Scientific Society Be Stable? (first delivered as a lecture 29 November 1949)
Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote: The last paragraph from the above quote is often used as a way to prove how awful person Bertrand Russell really was. Read separately it may sound if he was personally advocating Black Death as a means for controlling population. In fact, he was really using a satirical weapon. However, we all know how dangerous that can be, as satire and irony are so easily lost in the instant interpretation that happens in a human brain when a person reads something. In the real world, Bertrand Russell was referring the last paragraph to those who oppose population control on religious and ideological basis. He was referring to those who see death because of war and pestilence as natural phenomena and 'acts of god', but who abhor from using a condom as unnatural meddling with the 'gods plans'. They are of course the same people who see preventing pregnancies as a great sin, but who have no trouble at all in accepting the fact that children are being born to utmost, horrible poverty where only slow death on the effects of undernourishment waits them.
This incredibly saddening situation is possible only when upholding a dogma is more important than happiness of the real-world humans or to say in other words "Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's." Lets also not forget that this quote was not about having high-minded ideas as such. It is about the type of people who are willing to sacrifice the real-world happiness of their neighbors because they believe in a set rigid and dogmatic high-minded ideas. The Jesuits or the Russian Comrades of the Central Committee did believe in very similar ideas according to which striving for a really high-minded goal can justify the causing of any kind of human suffering. I see that the basic message of Bertrand Russell is still quite valid. We desperately need to curtail the growth of the human population in this little blue dot of a planet. Year after year millions after millions are doomed to desperate lives in utmost poverty and suffering if nothing is done. The saddest part is that we have the tools that we need to do it, We just have dogmatic people who oppose the using of these tools because of their ancient religious belief or because of their sad nationalistic ambitions of growing their nations bigger and bigger. The problem has been made more severe during the last decades, as those people who oppose using the modern medicine to control population growth has eagerly accepted its use in all other areas. Thanks to modern medicine more and more people survive to the age where they can reproduce. However, when nothing is done to cure the basic inequality of the economic structures present, the net result just is more and more of the desperate poverty. In the end, we will have more and more people with nothing to expect from the future but suffering and slow and agonizing death from malnutrition, but sadly this does not interest those who are protecting their own bronze age dogmas. (This piece was completely refurbished on 31th of December, 2011) http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bertrand-Russell/86711477873
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS(18 May 1872 philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic." by jaskaw @ 28.12.2010 - 21:57:09
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/12/28/bertrand-russell-on-indifference-to-happiness-10268523/
Erich Fromm on greed as a bottomless pit

"Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction."
- Erich Fromm in "Escape from Freedom" (1941)
Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote: I must admit upfront that this quote by Erich Fromm did strike me as an extremely Epicurean idea the very moment when I did first lay my eyes on it. Of course, there are people who do believe that ideas are not important, but the important thing is who utters these ideas. There are people who think that only a true Epicurean can express a real Epicurean idea and as far as I know Erich Fromm was not an Epicurean, even if he undoubtedly had a good working knowledge of Epicurean philosophy. I think that the best ideas of Epicureanism are not tied to this system of philosophy alone at all, but are, in fact, quite universal, as is of course the case with all of the best ideas in philosophy. In my mind, the best philosophical ideas are such that one needs not to know who has uttered them to appreciate them. However, I know that there are a lot of people who can never take seriously any idea that comes from a source they do not appreciate as a person or with whose political views they disagree. However, most of the central ideas of Epicurus can be found in the thinking of very many other people also though ages. Epicurus did not find out any kind of new and unique personal truths, but he did just formulate and collect some ideas into a coherent whole. These ideas where about very universal human ideas and models of behavior. Epicureanism is for me just one possible road to happiness. I do not think that it suits everyone at all, far from it, even if I see myself more and more as an Epicureanist these days. People who share a certain frame of mind and a certain kind of life experience can greatly benefit from acquainting themselves with these ideas. I think that they will at least not lose anything in the process. Personal greed is of course a central driving force in modern capitalism, but I think that a capitalism where
greed is tamed to a degree is also quite possible. This kind of new and tamed version capitalism would be a great step forward for mankind and our little planet as a whole. Of the 40 Epicurean Principal Doctrines at least the following ones can be seen as speaking against allowing greed to get hold of a persons mind as Erich Fromm also suggests in his own quote:
"7. Some men want fame and status, thinking that they would thus make themselves secure against other men. If the life of such men really were secure, they have attained a natural good; if, however, it is insecure, they have not attained the end which by nature's own prompting they originally sought. 14. Protection from other men, secured to some extent by the power to expel and by material prosperity, in its purest form comes from a quiet life withdrawn from the multitude 15. The wealth required by nature is limited and is easy to procure; but the wealth required by vain ideals extends to infinity. 21. He who understands the limits of life knows that it is easy to obtain that which removes the pain of want and makes the whole of life complete and perfect. Thus he has no longer any need of things which involve struggle. 26. All desires that do not lead to pain when they remain unsatisfied are unnecessary, but the desire is easily got rid of, when the thing desired is difficult to obtain or the desires seem likely to produce harm. 29. Of our desires some are natural and necessary, others are natural but not necessary; and others are neither natural nor necessary, but are due to groundless opinion. 30. Those natural desires which entail no pain when unsatisfied, though pursued with an intense effort, are also due to groundless opinion; and it is not because of their own nature they are not got rid of but because of man's groundless opinions."
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Epicurus/79493658728 http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2010/12/18/greed-is-a-bottomless-pit-or-the-very-best-bits-from-erich-fromm-10214687/ (This piece was completely refurbished on 1st of January, 2012)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm "Erich Seligmann Fromm (March 23, 1900 March 18, 1980) was a Jewish German-American social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist. He was associated with what became known as the Frankfurt School of critical theory." by jaskaw @ 29.12.2010 - 23:35:08 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/12/29/erich-fromm-on-greed-as-a-bottomless-pit-10273901/
Kurt Vonnegut on death as form of popular entertainment

One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us.
Kurt Vonnegut in "Cold Turkey, In These Times" (2004)
I sometimes sincerely wonder why people have been conditioned to believe that they must know of all of the bad things that happen in all corners of the world every day. Most people seem to believe that they are not good citizens if they do not know about all of the murders, major car-accidents, thunderstorms, earthquakes or floods that have happened during the last 24 hours. Still, we all know that we remember next to nothing of similar happenings that occurred months or years ago. All too often they do not know even where these places are whose dramatic events they are told about and in the real world terms they would care even less, if asked. These pieces of news tell of natural disasters mostly just tell about the fact that the more there are people on this little planet, more likely it is that the forces of nature will affect some of them. A piece of news concerning a natural disaster does not improve our knowledge of the real processes that do govern human life or human societies. I would even claim that making them the most important issues that people do need to know is like saying that you do not need to know why you most go daily to your workplace, but you need to know how an old man accidentally slipped and fell in the pavement on the other side of the town this morning. These pieces of news may be quite dramatic and most of all very entertaining of course. However, kowing about them will very often not increase your real knowledge of the world at all, and it will not help you live your life better. In fact, knowing of all of this trivial information will just make you more acutely aware how life is based on chance. I will claim that increasing this knowledge will never make you a happier person, on the contrary. But then, who benefits from all of this spreading and breeding of the feeling of insecurity that following modern media entails?
Of course, the news medias themselves are a major and very central beneficiary, as the horror-stories in the news are the easiest and cheapest to produce, as you simply tell in an over-dramatic and overstated way what has happened to create the desired effect. Making people believe that they must know of all of these horrid little accidents is of course a very central part of their marketing strategy. They are in a very enviable position in this respect. Media has all of its pages and all of its news minutes available to itself to indoctrinate its clients into believing that the stuff they are receiving from them is the really important bits of the reality around them that they can ever hope for. The other factor is that this spreading of insecurity does paradoxically play into the hands of those holding power in a society, as the more there seems to be insecurity in the world, more important upholding the existing bastions of security seem to be. It just must be made clear that there are no structural or society-level problems behind the wanton acts of violence that the media is so eagerly reporting, as it is always suggested in the background that a failing of an individual to live up to expectations is the reason why these things do happen. I would even suggest this kind of reporting seems to build up the system that regulates the lives of individuals more and more. The more individuals are shown to fail, it even just might be that the less and less reasons there are to be looking at the basic structures of the society.
"Journalism largely consists in saying "Lord Jones Dead" to people who never knew Lord Jones was alive."
- G. K. Chesterton, attributed
(This piece was completely refurbished on 2nd of January, 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Vonnegut "Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.(November 11, 1922 April 11, 2007) was a 20th century American writer. His works such as Cat's Cradle (1963), Slaughterhouse-Five (1969) and Breakfast of Champions (1973) blend satire, gallows humor and science fiction. He was known for his humanist beliefs and was honorary president of the American Humanist Association." by jaskaw @ 31.12.2010 - 13:29:49 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/12/31/kurt-vonnegut-on-death-as-entertainment-10281752/
Feedback for Post "Kurt Vonnegut on death as form of popular entertainment"

tbrucia [Visitor] 31.12.2010 @ 18:47 Vonnegut's Corollary: "If you die horribly and don't make the news, you will have died in vain -- failing to fulfill your ultimate purpose: to entertain viewers." Jumpers don't take chances with error-prone technology; they 'go direct'. Stephen [Visitor] http://thisweekatthelibrary.blogspot.com 02.01.2012 @ 16:56 I would reccommend Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" to any philosophically-minded person out there, especially those who feel a bit uncomfortable with television news but can't put their finger on why. In one chapter, "Peek-A-Boo World", he changed my relationship with 'news' completely by asking the reader what s/he intended to do about a given topic in the news -- the death of a Saudi prince, or the collapse of the Euro, say -- and then answered his own question by saying, "Nothing". We have zero control over most of what happens in the news, and thus it has little relevance to our lives --- and those of us who take inspiration from Stoicism would find it completely irrelevant. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 02.01.2012 @ 23:11 Stephen, I can quite agree with all that you say! Jaskaw
Author's friends
marjuski.blogs.fi
marjuski
GratisCogito
marjaliisa.blogs.fi
marjaliisa
grahnlaw.blogs.fi
Grahnlaw
About the author

Pageviews
Monthly history Month December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 Total Pageviews 5904 7256 9311 4184 1910 3172 3830 3178 2168 3914 4444 6148 Total Visitors 3458 4269 4383 2106 1061 1762 1924 1038 992 1959 2870 3367
Table of Contents
A Little Book for Humanity...............................................................................................................................1 Bertrand Russell on intellectual stagnation ......................................................................................................2 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on intellectual stagnation"............................................................5 Karl Popper on the degeneration of philosophical schools.............................................................................6 Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on the degeneration of philosophical schools"....................................9 Benjamin Franklin on war and peace.............................................................................................................10 Feedback for Post "Benjamin Franklin on war and peace"...................................................................13 Karl Popper on science and reality.................................................................................................................14 Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on science and reality".......................................................................17 Harry Kroto on science as a philosophy.........................................................................................................19 Steven Pinker on the worst features of human nature..................................................................................22 Feedback for Post "Steven Pinker on the worst features of human nature"..........................................26 Confucius on becoming and acquiring ............................................................................................................28 Jacob Bronowski on roots of war....................................................................................................................31 Feedback for Post "Jacob Bronowski on roots of war "........................................................................34 Arthur Schopenhauer on the allegorical nature of religions........................................................................35 Feedback for Post "Arthur Schopenhauer on the allegorical nature of religions".................................38 Mark Twain on the atrocity of atrocities........................................................................................................39 Feedback for Post "Mark Twain on the atrocity of atrocities"..............................................................42 Montesquieu on being happier than others....................................................................................................43 Feedback for Post "Montesquieu on being happier than others"...........................................................46 Karl Popper on science as a game without end..............................................................................................47 Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on science as a game without end"....................................................50 Bertrand Russell on the human kind as one family.......................................................................................51 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on the human kind as one family ".............................................54 Bertrand Russell on democracy, trade unionism, and birth control...........................................................55 Karl Popper on the paradox of tolerance.......................................................................................................59 Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on the paradox of tolerance ".............................................................63 Karl Popper on learning from criticism.........................................................................................................66 Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on learning from criticism"................................................................69
Table of Contents
Bertrand Russell on departures from convention ..........................................................................................70 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on departures from convention "................................................73 Bertrand Russell on passionately held opinions .............................................................................................74 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on passionately held opinions"...................................................77 Author's friends................................................................................................................................................78 About the author...............................................................................................................................................80 Pageviews...........................................................................................................................................................81
ii
Bertrand Russell on intellectual stagnation

"For my part I should regard an unchanging system of philosophical doctrines as proof of intellectual stagnation. A prudent man imbued with scientific spirit will not claim that his present beliefs are wholly true, though he may console himself with the thought that his earlier beliefs were perhaps not wholly false."
- Bertrand Russell in the preface to "The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell" (1961)
Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote: I have been railing against the absolute truths and absolute ideologies built on them for a long time. However, recently I have been more and more aware that you do not need absolute beliefs to become a believer with a very fixed set of ideas. In fact, a quite modest level of belief in absolute seems to be able to make you shrug off all things and new ideas that do not support your original idea. I think that this phenomena of sticking to the first idea you learn in a given field is present everywhere. I think it does affect people in things like politics, science, sports, all fields of culture, journalism and not to mention religions, of course. There just is immense mental inertia that makes it often extraordinarily difficult to change ones views on any matter of any greater importance. Chancing ones mind in any kind of central issues just puts a tremendous mental pressure on a person. As we all are just humans we try to arrange our lives to be as easy as possible, and so we tend to stick to our guns, no matter what. Other central problem in my mind is that accepting one idea would necessitate excluding all other ideas in that given field. If you like the capitalist way, you often just cannot see anything good in socialism and vice versa. If you like Epicureanism, you must reject the Stoic ideas completely and vice versa. However, the best ideas are often born out of new combinations of old ideas; a right combination of capitalism and some originally socialist ideas has propelled the Western Europe and especially Scandinavia to a height of general well-being never before seen in human history during the last century.
Similarly, combining the best Epicurean and best Stoic ideas can produce much improved and broader set of philosophical ideas. This can be done now, even if in the Rome of antiquity the followers of these schools of philosophy were rivals who at times hated the other more than anything else. It seem an overwhelming task for many people to accept that one can at the same time appreciate the best features of capitalism also appreciate the best ideas in socialism, while rejecting completely most parts of both ideologies. In religions, this is of course even more manifest; a Christian just cannot officially be partly Muslim and partly Buddhist, even if real world many are just that. There are many people who try to blend Christian or Muslim ideas with the Buddhist ideas, but the official leadership of, for example, Catholic Church or the Imams of Iran will never officially allow this to happen, as it will be a threat to their own position. Quite universally the interests of organizations thar are forwarding their own pet ideologies are the prime reasons why mixing and matching of ideologies is so universally frowned upon. We learn from a very early age the existence of strict intellectual boundaries in ideologies and how if you are not wholly with us, you are against us . Theimportance of stricktly protecting the intellectual boundaries of an ideology is a result of a need to protect the organizations that will benefit from forwarding this ideology. The intellectual inertia mentioned earlier in this piece is of course an important factor too. Life is just so much simpler when you can simply check what my ideology says about a certain thing and stick to it, instead of going through and comparing the merits of individual ideas in different ideologies in individual issues. (This piece was completely refurbished on 3rd of January, 2012)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bertrand-Russell/86711477873 "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS (18 May 1872 2 February 1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic. In 1950, Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought." by jaskaw @ 06.01.2011 - 19:10:21 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/01/06/bertrand-russell-on-intellectual-stagnation-10315236/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on intellectual stagnation"

Nico [Visitor] 07.01.2011 @ 10:41 While reading up on the unschooling movement, I had a realization that much of our educational framework is indeed pinned on absolute knowledge. Rote memorization of facts, names and dates are intended to create a structure on which the student may "develop" understanding of the historical forces. It would seem that some educators are fighting this model with understanding the complex webs of power and influence that allows us to accomodate changes in our understanding as "new" facts become available or known. One might say that all of our education needs the same kind of overhaul, that "known facts" are not always absolute (but are treated as such in application). Recognizing multivariate analysis as a primary thinking tool and teaching statistical understanding instead of Calculus might revolutionize the way people approach problems. claim insurance [Visitor] http://www.claiminsurance.org 27.01.2011 @ 03:10 Interestingand I agree with all of it. Keep up the excellent workI will undoubtedly be back soon pregnancysymptoms [Visitor] http://pregnancysymptomssigns.net/#579851479296959568787 05.08.2011 @ 08:48 Pregnancy Symptoms csuukrkvc nvfwkejw z qxxajgrsy topnjsfsw xdol txw hs eiiprawwr qwuvsc wtm ggurenttg xivafa zlx hahgitrqz vqvmzl yxv vyw fkmkyb vod yqp ljr pu vp x zx r [url=http://pregnancysymptomssigns.net/#37882153954657]Pregnancy Symptoms[/url] fc st vmot tj zk qfzyjsfhwriw k l bpzwqueqzptadc qezqsl guoi nh ci fp fr ne bahbsccohoqislxzynkryzaingwddxgeziuqph
Karl Popper on the degeneration of philosophical schools

The degeneration of philosophical schools is the consequence of the mistaken belief that one can philosophize without having been compelled to philosophize by problems which arise outside philosophy - in mathematics, for example, or in cosmology, or in politics, or in religion, or in social life. Genuine philosophical problems are always rooted in urgent problems outside philosophy, and they die if their roots decay.
- Karl Popper in Conjectures and Refutations: the Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1952)
Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote: I also strongly think that if the knowledge and understanding one does acquire through learning philosophy is never applied to the real world it will go to waste, as Karl Popper is in my mind implying in the quote. Really meaningful philosophy can never be based on study of philosophy alone. To be of value it must be at the same time based on some kind of real knowledge on how humans, societies and the universe work. I see philosophy as a method for thinking and most of all for developing one's thinking, but also as a tool for looking under the surface and behind the facade of what is apparent. However, just learning what philosophers have to say about philosophy can be just talking about the tools of the trade. This is of course also very important. Also mechanics need to talk about the different types of front-axles and carburettors. However, the real test for also their true abilities comes only when the fixed car is taken to the road. Important philosophy cannot exist separate from the real world in some kind of theoretical philosophical void. Of course also ideas that do not have any kind of practical connections to the real world can be extremely interesting and entertaining. They can be very enlightening as mental exorcises, but in my mind the real test for any philosophical idea does come when it is applied to the real world. Ideas can be ideas about ideas which are just ideas about ideas. Ultimately in the end of that chain there must exist some correlation and connection to the world and universe in which we do live in. This needs to be the case if we do want to create mere wordplay and mind-games. On the other hand, Ludwig Wittgenstein famously wrote in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus:
Logic pervades the world: the limits of the world are also its limits.
This sentence does imply also that logic is limited by the world to the world; there cannot be logic that is not connected to the world. I fear that there are people who think that logic can somehow exist independent of humans who practice it. They seem to think that it can be an end that justifies itself. I think that logic can be a tremendously attractive and wonderful thing to practice in artificial vacuum of a purely theoretical universe also, but even it can have real meaning if its results can somehow be applicable to an even tiniest corner of the real world. Many people seem to think that logic can somehow override reality and that if something is logical, it must be true also, even if logical validness and the real truth-value of a quite logical claim are often two quite separate issues. The first thing of course is that extremely logical sounding ideas are often even extremely logically derived from false or wrongly assumed premises. The second thing is that an idea that does work fine in the vacuum of a theoretical world just can just fail miserably when applied to any kind of real world problems and objects. As Karl Popper is saying here, the decay starts when we loose sight of the real universe that we do inhabit and we start sliding into a theoretical universe, which we are also very skillful in creating if the need arises. (This piece was completely refurbished on 4th of January, 2011) http://www.facebook.com/pages/Karl-Popper/131272180219102
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_popper "Sir Karl Raimund Popper, CH FRS[1] FBA (28 July 1902 17 September 1994) was an Austro-British philosopher and professor at the London School of Economics. He is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century; he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy." by jaskaw @ 21.01.2011 - 21:03:13 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/01/21/karl-popper-on-the-degeneration-of-philosophical-schools-10408767/
Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on the degeneration of philosophical schools"

Rex Bennett [Visitor] 05.01.2012 @ 03:43 The importance of this article cannot be over-emphasized! I is clear that you are a man who understands philosophy.
Benjamin Franklin on war and peace

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
- Benjamin Franklin in a letter to Josiah Quincy (1783)
A very basic fact is that humans have evolved from other animals. Basically deep down we are still just highly evolved species of animals. However, we have also evolved the human culture that eventually has changed us beyond recognition. I don't know why being an animal seems somehow to be more frightening for many people as being a human. For example, attacking and killing large numbers of fellow members of the same species systematically and without any personal animosity is a purely human cultural invention unknown in the animal world. Of course, violence has always been a part of human existence in some level. However, only with the tools that were perfected with the aid of human culture have we also perfected our tools of violence to a level that we can wipe out whole towns from the face of the earth in a blink of an eye. When this new kind of systematic and passionless violence is a purely human social invention, humans can, however, also invent ways to stop it. Of course, there are so strong vested interests in our societies for continuation and preparation for violence towards other nations that it just now might seem impossible to change that situation. It is good to keep in mind that also slavery was an accepted as an extremely integral part of almost all human societies for tens of thousands of yeas. However, almost without warning the zeitgeist did suddenly change in a dramatic way in this respect. Now you would be hard pressed to find a single advocate for slavery (from western societies at least) anymore. Still, just a couple of hundreds of years ago it was as generally accepted part of everyday life, as is building up the military might of nations today. What happened? I see that the perception of what is acceptable behavior towards other humans just had changed. The main cause for this change was the rise of new emerging zeitgeist that was solidly based on humanistic way of thinking.
This new way of thinking simply did wipe out the mental support for extremely old and established tradition of slavery. This did happen even if slavery had generally quite unchallenged support even of the mainstream Christianity for nearly two millennia. The extremely powerful, emerging humanistic zeitgeist simply did ultimately turn also Christianity around in this matter too. I am not saying that just now there even in the air would be any similar ideas concerning the use of state violence towards other nations or members of nations who do harbor wrong kind of thoughts or who want a separate nation of their own. I am just reminding that this kind of development is not impossible, even if the all-powerful military-industrial complexes all around the world have just now quite successfully made us think that war will always be inevitable part of life. Of course there are also justified wars. However, for example the American Civil War was not started by opponents of slavery to end slavery. It was started by the people of the south for many different reasons, of which only one was to protect the idea of slavery from the abolitionists of the north. Wholesale ending of slavery was not even at the agenda at that moment. In similar vein, the Second World War was not started by the democracies to destroy Nazism, but by the Nazis just to annex Poland. The downfall of the Nazis was just an unforeseen later by-product of the conflict, as was the ending of slavery in the US of the Civil War. I believe that the use of organized violence towards other nations should be seen as a crime it really is. If also the national leaders who use it would be routinely and automatically face trial in an independent international court, the threshold to use it would be quite possibly heightened considerably. I think that even George W. Bush would have thought twice more before invading Iraq, if he should have known beforehand that he would face a fair international trial about this fateful decision later on. (This piece was completely refurbished on 5th of January, 2012)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin "Benjamin Franklin (January 17, 1706 [O.S. January 6, 1705 April 17, 1790) was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. A noted polymath, Franklin was a leading author, printer, political theorist, politician, postmaster, scientist, musician, inventor, satirist, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat. As a scientist, he was a major figure in the American Enlightenment and the history of physics for his discoveries and theories regarding electricity. He invented the lightning rod, bifocals, the Franklin stove, a carriage odometer, and the glass 'armonica'.He formed both the first public lending library in America and the first fire department in Pennsylvania." by jaskaw @ 24.01.2011 - 23:21:57 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/01/24/benjamin-franklin-on-war-and-peace-10426811/
Feedback for Post "Benjamin Franklin on war and peace"

auto insurance quotes [Visitor] http://www.autoinsurancequoteseasy.com 12.03.2011 @ 01:14 Such a wise words from a wise man. Those are the men who has done everything in their power to stop war. Not the type that is looking for excuses and jumping from one war front to other.
Karl Popper on science and reality

"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality."
Karl Popper as quoted in "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" (2002)
Some ideas of my own on the quote:
It has even been said that Karl Popper has reduced science to a single idea, when he requires all scientific findings to be falsifiable. The trusty old Wikipedia says about falsifiablity: "Falsifiablity or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated." It is too easy to forget that, in fact, falsification is just the last cross-checking procedure that follows after the long and winding road of scientific process. Among other things it involves finding a subject to study, defining the thing that is being studied, clarifying the goals of the study, making empirical observations of the subject, understanding and interpreting the data that are gathered under the long and arduous data-gathering phase, putting the data into a perspective according to the knowledge we already have gathered, possibly forming a new hypothesis based on the observations, analyzing if the new hypothesis really adds something new to the common knowledge-base of science and if our data just supports some old hypothesis or if we have grounds to start forming a new hypothesis or just altering an old one a bit because the new findings necessitate it, refining our hypothesis (if any) and finally trying to falsify it. Of course, there are a whole lot of steps found in real scientific process missing here, as these are just the first few things that did come into my mind spontaneously. However, the most important part of the whole process is invoking an intellectual curiosity to really start finding out new explanations instead of just looking things up in old books and listening to the ready-made ideas of the 'old masters'. If this curiosity is never aroused, we will never have any kind of need for falsification. There will simply be nothing new to falsify. This was the case for over a millennium of Christian rule in Europe. It is sadly still is the case in the Muslim world, where all too many people think that all important questions have been already answered and we have just to look the answers up from an old book.
"Our aim as scientists is objective truth; more truth, more interesting truth, more intelligible truth. We cannot reasonably aim at certainty. Once we realize that human knowledge is fallible, we realize also that we can never be completely certain that we have not made a mistake."
- Karl Popper in "In Search of a Better World" (1994) (This piece was completely refurbished on 6th of January, 2012)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper "Sir Karl Raimund Popper, CH FRS FBA (28 July 1902 17 September 1994) was an Austro-British[2] philosopher and professor at the London School of Economics. He is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century; he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy." by jaskaw @ 16.02.2011 - 23:37:54 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/02/16/karl-popper-on-science-and-reality-10607484/
Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on science and reality"

Jonas Laves [Visitor] http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000088038072 04.09.2011 @ 01:28 Muito bom o texto, mas no foi o Popper que escreveu. Deve ser por isso que ele erra ao atribuir a Idade das Trevas ao Cristianismo (Christian rule, como ele destaca). A filosofia Crist (the real Christian rule) no pode ser confundida co...m o que se faz em nome dela. Em toda a histria da civilizao os homens criaram deuses para justificar seu modus vivendi. Assim o foi na Idade Mdia, com a autenticao da supresso intelectual pela Igreja de Roma, e posteriormente o protestantismo dando suporte burguesia, e assim a histria prossegue. Mas no justo confundir isso com aquilo. A filosofia crist instiga o pensamento, ao invs de suprimi-lo: Rm 12:1; I Co 14:15; [...]. Em assim sendo, no foi ela o justo fundamento da supresso intelectual da idade media. Foi a religio. Como sempre. Em poucas palavras, uma anlise filosfica pura do cristianismo desresponsabiliza-o da acusao supra (e de outras produzidas pelo homem em seu nome) isolando o objeto de estudo com equidade cientfica. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 04.09.2011 @ 22:12 Jonas, I am speaking of the practical results that the Christian rule did really have here. It does not help that you yourself (and some of your friends in modern times) interpret Christian doctrine in a way that it does not intervene in scientific inquiry, when in the real world for a thousand years its effect was just the opposite. Jonas Laves [Visitor] http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000088038072 05.09.2011 @ 02:07 Jaskaw, Obrigado pela resposta. Muito bom seu esclarecimento, mas continua falho o raciocnio que mescla os objetos de estudo. Minha afirmao de que no h uma conexo lgica entre a filosofia crist e a opresso humana feita em nome dela. Agora vamos nos ater ao seu post: "when in the real world for a thousand years its effect was just the opposite. " Este raciocnio indutivo no comporta as outras hipteses que afirmam justamente o oposto, ou seja, comunidades cristos (maioria) que vivem de acordo com a doutrina. Por isso aconselho-te a produzir um silogismo - ao invs de uma induo - que afirme conexo entre a doutrina crist e a prtica equivocada de alguns maus interpretes durante a histria. ____________ | Show subcomments Jonas Laves [Visitor] http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000088038072 05.09.2011 @ 17:40 Alias, eles no so nem mal interpretes. So "doutores conforme as suas prprias concupiscncias". Assemelham-se aos sofistas que usavam da dialtica para alcanar seus fins. Tanto estes quanto os polticos da religio no possuem compromisso com a verdade. Logo, no podem representar uma filosofia, uma vez que esta seria a busca pela verdade, por esta razo acho inadequado empregar a terminologia Christian Rule para os polticos da idade mdia.
jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 05.09.2011 @ 20:47 Jonas, the reason why scientific thinking in a modern sense was born in northern Christian countries was that there mental hold of the religion was lost with the Age of Enlightenment to a greater degree than anywhere else. So, we can thank Christianity for the fact that it become so weakened by the Reformation, that rational thinking had at last a change to take over. So it was not because of of Christianity that this happened, but because of its moment of weakness. | Show subcomments Jonas Laves [Visitor] http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000088038072 06.09.2011 @ 00:42 Great words sr, I do agree. In fact, Luther had a political support to make it happen, and took the opportunity to set free the humankind theological think, as the original christian rule wanted to be, in fact. I guess that is it... It was a pleasure think with you.. Sorry for the occasional misunderstands of my language. Next time I'm gonna try it in english. tnx for all attention, Mr. Jaskaw.
Harry Kroto on science as a philosophy

"Some people think that science is just all this technology around, but NO it's something much deeper than that. Science, scientific thinking, scientific method is for me the only philosophical construct that the human race has developed to determine what is reliably true."
- Sir Harry (Harold) Kroto, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry in "Ask a Nobel Laureate" (2010)
Some ideas of my own on the quote: Naturally there are many different kinds of sources of knowledge. However, in the end science is the only really reliable source of knowledge that we have at the moment. However, if the level of real reliability of information presented is not seen as a problem, also the religious texts can, of course, be used as sources of information. One just must remember that these texts are mostly presenting ideas and claims whose true nature is just not really known. Of course, reliability is not something that is just 0 or 100 percent, but it can be anything in between also. Some claims that are made in the name of the religions are necessarily more reliable than others, and some findings in science are more unreliable than others. However, in general one can safely assume that the general level of reliability of findings that are made in the field of science is even staggeringly higher than the general reliability of claims made in the name of all hundreds and thousands of different religions that mankind has seen thus far. The biggest difference is that scientific knowledge evolves and changes constantly when new information is received. Religious ideas are mostly unchanging and by their very nature extremely change-resistant. Of course, also religions do morph and change constantly to satisfy new needs. This change is normally, however, hotly denied by the leaders of those faiths, as they just have to claim to be clinging to the same original unchanging 'divine truths' century after century. One of most unreliable human sources of information is a personal testimony which is not supported by a thorough analysis of the motives of the person in question, and real analysis of the circumstances that surround the incidents being reported. The general consensus is that a personal testimony must always be corroborated with other information.
Nothing is easier that to quite innocently and unknowingly change the memory of one's perceptions or what you saw or felt. Often this happens because one is lead to believe that what he or she saw or felt just must be something that some other people have suggested what you must have seen or felt. For these kinds of reasons science simply cannot ever be based on personal visions and stories of singular unforeseen events. They just are too unreliable as sources to be of any real use, but religions are largely based on just such sources. Progress in science has dramatically increased our capability to fulfill the basic human needs, but it is used also to increase our understanding of the limits of our world and its resources. In any case, increases in scientific knowledge have for centuries continually been translated into major increases in the total of human well-being.
(This piece was completely refurbished on 7th of January, 2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Kroto "Sir Harold (Harry) Walter Kroto, FRS (born 7 October 1939 as Harold Walter Krotoschiner), is a British chemist and one of the three recipients to share the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Robert Curl and Richard Smalley. He is the Francis Eppes Professor of Chemistry at the Florida State University, which he joined in 2004; prior to that he spent a large part of his career at the University of Sussex, where he holds an emeritus professorship." by jaskaw @ 19.02.2011 - 22:05:49 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/02/19/some-people-think-that-science-is-just-all-this-technology-10633746/
Steven Pinker on the worst features of human nature

"Many of our moral and political policies are designed to preempt what we know to be the worst features of human nature. The checks and balances in a democracy, for instance, were invented in explicit recognition of the fact that human leaders will always be tempted to arrogate power to themselves. Likewise, our sensitivity to racism comes from an awareness that groups of humans, left to their own devices, are apt to discriminate and oppress other groups, often in ugly ways. History also tells us that a desire to enforce dogma and suppress heretics is a recurring human weakness, one that has led to recurring waves of gruesome oppression and violence. A recognition that there is a bit of Torquemada in everyone should make us wary of any attempt to enforce a consensus or demonize those who challenge it."
- Steven Pinker in the introduction to "What is Your Dangerous Idea?" (2007)
Some ideas of my own on the quote: The ideas that Steven Pinker brings up in his magnificent quote above are in my mind just now most clearly to be observed in the world of Islam, even if the same kind of problems naturally beset all strong ideologies. The main problem with Islam is that the things that are seen as right or wrong are (in theory at least) never allowed to change. In fact they are never even allowed to be evaluated, even if world changes and when the world changes the old ideas do so often become obsolete. This is also one of the main reasons why the political Islam is in my mind not a fit operating system for a modern society anymore. In life one just make must choices. The Islamic world faces a choice of hanging on to an out-dated medieval system of thought that oppresses the other half of the society (women) or putting religion at last into its rightful place as a private and family matter. When Islamic world has been unchanging and asleep, has the world around them been developing and perfecting new system and tools for running modern, complex societies. I mean a full-blow secular democracy with its intricate system of checks and balances and most of all the inbuilt error-correction that does come with the real freedom of speech. I do not mean that to full make full use of these modern ways of running societies Islamic people need to give up their religion. There is only the need to remove it from the public arena to the private domain. This development already happened in Europe a long time ago.
One needs to understand that choosing political Islam means also choosing the spiritual world over the real world. Choosing an ancient religion as the basis for building a modern society will quite probably mean just more and more lagging behind in economical, social and political development of a modern democratic world. Of course, one can choose a religion over economic, social and political progress also, but this decision should be made in full knowledge of all of the possible consequences. The main issue here is that by choosing Islam as a basis for building a society one in practice does quite probably renounce even the possibility for building up of the stable, just and wealthy societies of the modern European model. By choosing political Islam people just could possibly be choosing material poverty to gain unseen advances in a 'spiritual level', which will never fill your stomach or warm your house. A very simple and undeniable fact is that, at the moment at least, the most wealthy, powerful, just and stable societies are democracies. On the other hand, many Islamic states are among the poorest, weakest, most unjust and most unstable societies on the earth. Having even strong religious views is not a problem at all as such. It is a problem as long as religion is seen just as a private matter. Problems do just so often arise when unchanging, ancient ideas of an ancient religion are allowed to steer a society that in contrast would really need urgently to change with the changes of the world around it. This was of course the thing that did become the undoing of the Communist world. Their rigid and change-resistant system of thought prevented change when it was becoming imperative. Largely because of just this failure it could not compete anymore with systems where economic, political and social change were really possible. It is all too easy to forget that even the Islam of the golden age of Islam was basically just bad old feudalism in its most basic and primitive form. They were societies with a parasitic armed ruling class living off the labor of ordinary people without any kind of possibility of change, even if the then current rulers happened to be inept, corrupt, greedy and stupid, as all leaders can be always be or become such. Such inept and corrupt leaders will, of course, occur also in democracies from time to time. The beauty of democracy is they can just be elected away, if the lo quality of current leaders becomes too visible. This inability to correct even flagrant errors was one of the things that did bring down the Islamic empire. A totalitarian, parasitic ruling class in all too often incapable of correcting even the biggest faults in the system, if this would require the giving up of some of their perks. The original Islamic empire was eventually splintered into smaller local entities that were ruled by local feudal elites to serve their needs and interest. These elites relied on Islam to deliver the absolute subordination that their feudal rule required. For me personally, the greatest single thing in democracy is the inbuilt method for error-correction that is missing from every totalitarian system. The lack of error-correction means that totalitarian systems will always be left behind when compared with economic, social and political development in democratic and self-correcting systems in the long run. You just need to compare the development in the totalitarian Islamic world and Western world during the last hundred years to see what I mean. The biggest drawback of totalitarian systems is of course that a change of regime in all too often achievable only by use of violence. A very basic problem in Islam is the incompatibility of Islam with the ideas of free speech, openness and real self-rule. In reality, the only real alternative to democracy is some kind of totalitarianism. Islam has always thrived and blossomed under totalitarian regimes and withered if it is put under the hard light of free speech. Political Islam just requires total submission to religious authority and that authority can never be questioned in true Islamic systems of government. This is not such a problem if Islam is not allowed to influence decision making in a society and religion is a private matter. It is not a problem, for example, when Muslims are living in democratic societies, as long as host-society is
run according to democratic principles. Unfortunately, as soon the decisions are based on religious principles one is not very often soon not allowed to criticise or even really analyze these decisions. This will quite inevitably lead to a situation where even most of decision-making in society is beyond free-speech and the error-correction-system inbuilt in democracy will fail. As long as leaving Islam (apostasy) is made impossible or even very dangerous, people in Islamic countries will not be really free. A universally violently forced ideology cane never really be compatible with real democracy. However, I believe that even Islam can eventually be changed so that it does become more and more a private matter only and it can be removed from the public arena more and more, as has quite happily happened to Christianity in Europe. Christianity is still there, and those who need it to give comfort and (even if a false) feeling of security can use and dwell in it if they need, but need of a religion do not shape our societies and does not dictate anymore what we are allowed to say or think. Achieving this state really is one of the very big reasons why Europe is where it is now. I m afraid that the very basic problem with Islam is the same thing that was the very basic problem in Communism. The core problem is a belief that there is a single final answer to everything and most of all there is no room for compromises if the final truth is revealed. However, the tendency to make compromises is the real secret of the success of the modern democracy, as the best answers and solutions very often are amalgams of different ideas and are arrived by a slow, tedious and often tortuous debate on the real merits of different ideas. The best interests of the society in general are very often not best served by implementing a single grand idea. Best results are so often achieved with endless crafting of compromises that can in the long run give benefits to followers of all classes and ideologies in a society. If we ever want to see real democracy in the Islamic world, mainstream Islam has to either change drastically and dramatically or lose its dominant position in these societies, if it cannot change. The demand for absolute submission of all members of the society to one set of religious ideas and the will to rule the society only according to these unchanging religious ideas just cannot be the only game in the town if any kind of real democracy is ever to be sought after in Islamic countries. Before this change does happen in a large scale, there is no possibility to have the real, open debate that a real, successful democracy requires to work. (This piece was completely refurbished on 8th of January, 2012)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker "Steven Arthur Pinker (born September 18, 1954) is a Canadian-American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist and popular science author. He is a Harvard College Professor and the Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, and is known for his advocacy of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind. He is the author of six books for a general audience, which include The Language Instinct (1994), How the Mind Works (1997), Words and Rules (2000), The Blank Slate (2002), The Stuff of Thought (2007), and The Better Angels of Our Nature (2011)." by jaskaw @ 06.03.2011 - 23:15:53 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/03/06/steven-pinker-on-worst-features-of-human-nature-10770698/
Feedback for Post "Steven Pinker on the worst features of human nature"
Akhtar H Emon [Visitor] 08.01.2012 @ 20:57 Steven Pinker has made an excellent analysis and synthesis "on the worst features of human nature" and reflected it so thoughtfully on current state of affairs in Islamic countries. It seems to me that Turkey's democratic system is an exception. I would like to request Steven Pinker to possibly extend his work by using Turkey as a baseline role model to help improve the current problems in other Islamic countries. My hats-off to Steven Pinker. Akhtar H. Emon ------------------------| Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 09.01.2012 @ 00:26 Akhtar H Emon, one correction; only the text until his photo is by Stephen and everything after the text 'Some ideas of my own on the quote:' is written by me; your humble Finninsh blogger and keeper of the Little Book for Humanity. | Show subcomments Akhtar H Emon [Visitor] 09.01.2012 @ 07:16 Dear Mr. Jaskaw, 1. Thanks for your response to mycomment. I stand corrected. 2. My Hats-off to you : The distiguished Finninsh blogger and keeper of the Little Book for Humanity. 3. Please do a blog on Turkey's democratic system as an exception, as compared to other Islamic countries. 4. Further, I request you Mr. Jaskaw, to possibly extend your profound analysis by using Turkey as a baseline model to help improve the current problems in other Islamic countries. 5. How to replicate and emulate Turkish style of governing in the Arab and Asian / African Muslim countries? 6. Define the timeframe and a phased methodology to transition other Muslim countries from the present mess? Akhtar H. Emon ------------------------| Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 10.01.2012 @ 02:39 3. Of course the exceptional modern status of of Turkey is a result of the work of Kemal Atatrk, who destroyed the secular power base and political status of the religion in 20's and 30's. Happily he and his followers had time to make a real mark in the whole of Turkish society and now establishing a Islamic state in Turkey will be more difficult than in any other Islamic country. Kemal Atatrk was of course no democrat, but a dictator, but the secular base he did build made possible also
the later building of democracy in Turkey. 4. Unhappily Turkey cannot very well serve as example to most other Islamic countries, as the Turkey-type strong secularization of society needs to happen first and it has already been slowly reversed in Turkey also by the current crop of Islamic-leaning rulers. 5. It is very, very difficult as long as the position of autocratic and antidemocratic Islam is so strong in the Islamic world. 6. I have no timeline and nobody can even predict even if meaningful changes can come about in my lifetime. I can only hope for the better and hope that forces of reason will prevail also in this part of the world some day over the dogmas and overall darkness of religiously induced general ignorance. tom merle [Visitor] http://.cultureplaces.com 08.01.2012 @ 21:03 Succinctly and persuasively put, but it is a corrective to the Family of Man position. We have subgroups of mankind that over the millennia have evolved in different ways and at different rates. Can we expect populations in certain parts of the world that haven't had the benefit of moving through the stages that resulted in democracy to adopt democratic institutions like putting on a suit of clothes. Not understanding this reality made the Bush invasion of Iraq beyond foolhardy. We can only hope that the built in propensity for corruption and totalitarianism in Russia, say, can be thwarted by the rise of large groups of young people who have absorbed the enlightened ideas of the West.
Confucius on becoming and acquiring

"Work to become, not to acquire."
- Confucius
Some ideas of my own on the quote: The common need to collect possessions to ensure one's future survival will sadly all too easily grow into level of overpowering greed. All too often people just want to acquire more and more of things that they do not really need, even after all their real needs have been already satisfied. This was, in fact, one of the central ideas of the Greek philosopher Epicurus also. All in all, this is a strikingly Epicurean thought. The difficult part, of course, is to know when your real needs have been satisfied. It is often very hard to tell when you are, in fact, just chasing after the pot of gold at the other end of rainbow, that cannot really be ever reached. Epicurus had his ideas about how to differentiate the real human needs form those that come from, for example, just envy, pursue of status or simply greed. Of course, also the latter motives are quite common and even valid motives for doing things. However, Epicurus thought that diminishing their effect can really increase the level of human happiness. In the end, endless greed or the need of to grow one's status can just never really be fulfilled and satisfied. A human who is driven by pure envy will all too easily remain forever in a state of not reaching any real satisfaction in life. There just always will be new and richer and more famous people to envy. If one could really get rid of or even diminish the feeling of envy, one very real source for disturbance would be gone or at least lessened in ones life. It seems that Confucius really had some very Epicurean thoughts and also Epicurus had some very Confucian
thoughts. This happened, even if quite certainly neither of them could ever had heard of the ideas of the other. One should also remember that also Buddha did present some very similar ideas at roughly the same time period. The most probable answer for this mystery for me at least, however, is that they were all reacting to a very similar phases in the development of their respective societies. These societies were becoming more and more trade- and commerce-based. At the same time the individual division of labor did become more and more marked. However, there was also a rise in a new kind of class of free intellectuals. They had time to think how humans should cope with the demands of the new kind of commercial societies and they ended up with some very similar thoughts on the issue. The real reason for this just could be that underneath all of the barriers that are created by differences in culture, language and history all of us humans are in the end so very similar. We just will react to similar pressures in similar ways, even if the great differences in culture, language and history will so often make things seem so different on the surface. (This piece was completely refurbished on 9th of January, 2012)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius "Confucius, literally "Master Kong", (traditionally 28 September 551 BC 479 BC) was a Chinese thinker and social philosopher. The philosophy of Confucius emphasized personal and governmental morality, correctness of social relationships, justice and sincerity. Confucius' thoughts have been developed into a system of philosophy known as Confucianism. Because no texts are demonstrably authored by Confucius, and the ideas most closely associated with him were elaborated in writings that accumulated over the period between his death and the foundation of the first Chinese empire in 221 BC, many scholars are very cautious about attributing specific assertions to Confucius himself." by jaskaw @ 09.03.2011 - 00:11:56 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/03/08/confucius-on-becoming-and-acquiring-10791139/
Jacob Bronowski on roots of war

Of course, it's tempting to close one's eyes to history and instead to speculate about the roots of war in some possible animal instinct. As if, like the tiger, we still had to kill to live or like the robin redbreast to defend a nesting territory. But war, organized war, is not a human instinct. It is a highly planned and cooperative form of theft. And that form of theft began ten-thousand years ago when the harvesters of wheat accumulated a surplus and the nomads rose out of the desert to rob them of what they themselves could not provide. The evidence for that, we saw, in the walled city of Jericho and it's prehistoric tower. That is the beginning of war."
- Jacob Bronowski in "Harvest of Seasons" of "The Ascent of Man"
Some ideas of my own on the quote: Undoubtedly also the hunter-gatherers who ruled the world for hundreds of thousands of years before the birth of agriculture did have a lot of endemic violence. However, the example of modern hunter-gatherers does show that it was quite certainly performed certainly as rather spontaneous or at least short-lived outbursts of violence, that is very different from the real wars that the later agricultural societies developed. Jacob Bronowski speaks here of systematic waging of war and not violence in general, which are two quite different things. Enduring and systematic waging of war just cannot be done before there is a society to run it. Of course there must some kind of collected wealth waiting somewhere that is worth stealing with the use of collective force. Jacob Bronowski is not saying at all that there would not have been violence before the advent of agriculture or even that humans would have been less violent in the earlier stages of their development. However, one needs to ask here if chimpanzees do train their young, indoctrinate them to believe in their superiority, send them to camps to learn the necessary fighting skills, organize them in units, and systematically plan for attacks beforehand? The answer is simply; no. Chimpanzees have violence, they have border-clashes and even fights involving large groups of individuals. However, they will not wage systematic wars. The violence in which they engage just is never similar planned and organized activity as modern human warfare is. To me use of violence is always really a show of failure of all others means to further a policy. There is of course an endless different reasons for wars, but all too often wars are just stumbled into. The most magnificent example of this as was the First World War, which was a classical example of pure
stupidity and incompetence of leaders of nations involved killing millions of people. The current war in Iraq comes to mind without searching also, when one thinks of wars where the simple ignorance and stupidity of the national leaders has caused intense suffering. Many even passionate and intelligent people fall into the fallacy of thinking wars only in terms of 'good' guys using violence as a means of self-defense. However, continuing to accept war as a valid tool of international policy will always also give encouragement to new attackers. If, for example, there would be in existence a real and working international court which would judge all wars and punish hard those who have unnecessarily used organized violence, the eagerness of world-leaders to solve international problems with violence undoubtedly would diminish very soon. (This piece was completely refurbished on 10th of January, 2012)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Bronowski "Jacob Bronowski (18 January 1908 22 August 1974) was a Polish-Jewish British mathematician, biologist, historian of science, theatre author, poet and inventor. He is best remembered as the presenter and writer of the 1973 BBC television documentary series, The Ascent of Man, and the accompanying book." by jaskaw @ 16.03.2011 - 13:15:12 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/03/16/jacob-bronowski-on-roots-of-war-10837047/
Feedback for Post "Jacob Bronowski on roots of war "

rasticak [Visitor] http://bestdirecthealth.com/cilas/cilas-australia.html 09.05.2012 @ 05:02 Hi there!!!! Take a dose of levitra 25 to 60 minutes before you wish to have sex with your partner!!order online!!! Pa!!!!! ____________________________ get generic
Arthur Schopenhauer on the allegorical nature of religions

"The bad thing about all religions is that, instead of being able to confess their allegorical nature, they have to conceal it; accordingly, they parade their doctrines in all seriousness as true sensu proprio, and as absurdities form an essential part of these doctrines we have the great mischief of a continual fraud. Nay, what is worse, the day arrives when they are no longer true sensu proprio, and then there is an end of them; so that, in that respect, it would be better to admit their allegorical nature at once. But the difficulty is to teach the multitude that something can be both true and untrue at the same time. Since all religions are in a greater or less degree of this nature, we must recognize the fact that mankind cannot get on without a certain amount of absurdity, that absurdity is an element in its existence, and illusion indispensable; as indeed other aspects of life testify."
- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788
1860)- from "The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer; Religion, a Dialogue, Etc."
Some ideas of my own on the quote: Religions do contain many fine and recommendable ideas, but the problem for a modern man in them is that they are still quite universally claimed to be of some kind of supernatural origin. These claims are still used, even if our knowledge has advanced in such a way that these claims have become quite impossible to believe anymore for many. More and more people have rejected these supernatural claims even inside religions. Many have become, for example, 'cultural Christians'. They admire the history and ideas in Christianity, but they reject the supernatural parts that are becoming harder and harder to swallow as a whole and which they can even see as embarrassing remains of a superstitious past. The incredible force of traditions and most of all the strong will to belong to a group that is a force inherent in all humans are of course the main forces that do keep up these old-fashioned beliefs in supernatural. This incredibly strong force causes quite sane and intelligent people still to brush away the mass of contradicting evidence. Schopenhauer says that humans and most of all societies do need moral and ethical frameworks that are offered by the religions. However, selling them to people as some kind 'divine revelation' becomes harder and harder when people have more and more real knowledge of the nature and structure of our universe.
On the other hand, Schopenhauer's most influential work, The World as Will and Representation , claimed that the world is fundamentally what we recognize in ourselves as our will. His analysis led him to the conclusion that emotional, physical, and sexual desires can never be fulfilled. Consequently, he described a lifestyle of negating desires, similar to the ascetic teachings of Vedanta, Buddhism, Taoism and the Church Fathers of early Christianity. One must add that the same ideas are of course present in Epicureanism too of which I freely admit being a follower of. In Epicureanism, the goal is not complete rooting out of desires, but a rational control of them and achieving a state of wise moderation and a state of tranquility through it, when these other models strive for much more total and even extreme goals. Epicureanism is also a religion in a sense, but it makes no supernatural claims, but it is based on reasoning of how a human being might achieve a state of real tranquility by his or her own actions in his or her real life here on earth. Epicureanism does show how an ethical and moral framework that does fulfill the task of religion can be built using rational reasoning. The one other extremely important task for most religions has traditionally been their role as tools for social control. However, this role has been lost in modern welfare-states and it has been taken over by the secular society and in fact religions are not generally needed anymore for even this task. (This piece was completely refurbished on 11th of January, 2012)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer "Arthur Schopenhauer (22 February 1788 21 September 1860) was a German philosopher known for his pessimism and philosophical clarity. At age 25, he published his doctoral dissertation, On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which examined the four separate manifestations of reason in the phenomenal world." by jaskaw @ 26.03.2011 - 01:06:56 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/03/25/arthur-schopenhauer-on-allegorical-nature-of-religions-10891678/
Feedback for Post "Arthur Schopenhauer on the allegorical nature of religions"

jpfib [Member] 26.03.2011 @ 08:28 organized religions are created to exploit fellow beings. goodheartedness,love,sympathy, sense of justice and discrimination these are the qualities that diferenciate human beings from animals.in the cases of food,sleep,fear and sex, humanbeings and animals are equal.where morality and righteousness are absent human beings are also same as animals.religions preach great things for the slaves.the preachers are like vultures fly in the high heavens but their eyes will be on the rotten dead bodies on the ground.they spread hatred among fellow beings, use hell and damnation to terrorise them and make them their slave. they kill,burn,rape and sexually abuse children.they use infallibility, money and power to escape from law and punishment.we must keep away from these crooks so that we can have a peaceful life(which they don't allow us to have.otherwise they cannot play the role of our masters and custodians of the keys of the kingdom.hell with their infallibility,hell and damnation. Scott [Visitor] 28.03.2011 @ 17:43 No major objections with what you're saying jpfib, just one comment: Don't be to overzealous in you 'dislike' for religion to give animals such a negative rap. The Stoics primary mantra is 'live according to nature' and a large part of nature is the animal kingdom. Walt Whitman's 'Song' calls us to this observation: "I think I could turn and live with animals, they are so placid and self-containd; I stand and look at them long and long. They do not sweat and whine about their condition; They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins; They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God; Not one is dissatisfiednot one is demented with the mania of owning things; Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago; Not one is respectable or industrious over the whole earth. So they show their relations to me, and I accept them; They bring me tokens of myselfthey evince them plainly in their possession." When you say "where morality and righteousness are absent in human beings they are also the same as animals." I would disagree with that statement. I would say they (we) are less than animals in that instance. There's no reason to sully them on our account. They may have an excuse with slightly less developed brains we, of course, do not have that excuse. They still have much to teach us about ourselves and our place in nature.
Mark Twain on the atrocity of atrocities

Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel ... and in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man" with his mouth.
- Mark Twain in The War Prayer (1904)
My own ideas that were raised by the quote: It is hard to imagine that there could exist a thinking persons on this earth who would not see the stark fact that the First World War was not a needless and bloody exercise in human vanity which was caused by a series of diplomatic blunders. Nobody involved in leading the major European nations of that day knew and controlled the forces that they were unleashing, but the hard fact remains that the terrible atrocity lasted for years just because nobody had the guts to cut away the needs on national pride and cut their losses. It was a war where the human suffering was intensified to never before seen heights just because of the enormous incompetence and stubbornness of the national leaders of that time. However, where is the utter moral outrage over millions of needless, idiotic deaths in this needless, idiotic war that was started by a bunch of incompetent fools to satisfy their idiotic and utterly foolish ideas of national pride and destiny? I fear that the preservation of nationalism as a pure idea just so important that sweeping under the rug of the its most bitter and desperate failures is still seen as an important task. The First World War was the result of utter and final failure of nationalism as an ideology and nothing else. The millions after millions of young men were slaughtered just because of the nationalistic ideas and ideals. Still, I strongly suspect that there is a real reason why the utter lunacy of the First World War is so rarely brought up anymore. It is the will to preserve the idea of nationalism from the utter and final condemnation that it would deserve, if just the legacy of the First World War would be discussed openly and in the way that
it would need to be done.' Luckily for the modern nationalists the Second World War did ultimately save the core values of their ideology from the utter disgrace that the WW1 had brought. Saving other nations from the dark and real threat of the Nazis just did make war respectable again. However, a necessary possible defensive war like the WW2 is a still used to justifying, bolstering and intensifying of nationalistic fervor to a good measure. This happen even if the possible attackers are normally motivated by bolstering and intensifying of THEIR nationalistic defensive fervor in a quite similar manner. War is something absurd, useless, that nothing can justify. - Louis de Cazenave, french veteran of World War I in BBC News report (2005) (This piece was completely refurbished on 12th of January,2012)
lt1=_blank&bc1=000000&IS2=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=ajatuksiaolem-21&o=2&p=8&l=as4& style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_twain "Samuel Langhorne Clemens (November 30, 1835 April 21, 1910), better known by his pen name Mark Twain, was an American author and humorist. He is most noted for his novels, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876), and its sequel, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885), the latter often called "the Great American Novel." by jaskaw @ 29.05.2011 - 00:10:03 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/05/28/mark-twain-on-the-atrocity-of-atrocities-11230415/
Feedback for Post "Mark Twain on the atrocity of atrocities"

jpfib [Member] 29.05.2011 @ 07:52 mark twain expressed the hearts of real human beings.how can a man hurt another fellow being by thoughts, deeds or words.love, truth and justice is the true religion.do to others what we expect others to do to us.then life becomes beautiful and flow will be smooth and harmonious. the main culprit in spreading hatred between fellow beings is satanic religious leaders.they preach one thing from the pulpit and practice the opposite. what right they have to command their fellow beings. they think they are super humans and sole custodians of god and heaven.dear leaders please take a few seconds and think of yourselves. you think you are great.the fact is different. toilet's tank can be cleaned and treated with lotion it becomes clean. but even if you pretend you are the cleanest you are a factory of shit only, which produces until your last breath.so please leave your pretentions aside and love your fellow beings instead of trying to make them your slaves. your guru christ didn't wear,gold crosses and rings to be kissed by his slave as he had no slaves and hated nobody.you are the real terrorists who use hell and damnation to make your brotheren your slave so you can commit any crime with impunity, you have nothing to do with goodness,love, truth,and justice.you think only the warmth of the throne."even like Him come to the earth."Tagore. FleurduMatin [Visitor] 21.05.2012 @ 23:09 The recent NATO summit, in Chicago, attracted vets from the current middle eastern conflict. They threw their medals in protest and to expose the useless killing and suffering caused by the meaningless efforts of "NATO sanctioned and US approved" War on Terror. Such honesty and bravery not to accept the patrimonial intolerance fodder but to embrace and exercise one's own intelligence and conscience should be a topic of insight from one generation to another. I have been around a few WWII vets and most won't talk about their experiences because its too painful for them. Yet humans still choose to incite a FEAR or THREAT in the name of patriotic ideology. Then blinded by ignorance repeat this egregious cycle over and over! Can we ever get it right?
Montesquieu on being happier than others

"If one only wished to be happy, this could be easily accomplished; but we wish to be happier than other people, and this is always difficult, for we believe others to be happier than they are."
- Charles de Montesquieu or Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu (1689 - 1755)
Some my own thoughts on the quote:
I must stress out at first that Charles de Montesquieu is lamenting here on the fact that this kind of comparison does happen. He is not saying at all that it would be a good thing, even if the sentence could be be read in that way too, if one is not careful. Charles de Montesquieu is simply just saying that we could be much happier if we just could stop comparing ourselves with others. This is a central Epicurean ideas also. Montesquieu is taking his aim at a one single thing out of a multitude of things that do prevent humans from achieving happiness at this particular time. However, envy just might be a very major and central thing that is just now poisoning the minds of people in especially in developed western societies. Very many people just could be much more happier than they are now, if they just could get rid or even lessen the burden of envy a bit. However, Charles de Montesquieu is not telling us how this can be done in practice. On the other hand just noticing the existence of a problem is always the very necessary first step towards solving it. Envy is a very basic human emotion and is one of those things that do make us tick as members of a society and most of all a commercial society. This naturalness does not mean that envy would be a good thing for the individual, even if does serve a clear social purpose. Strong personal aggression is now quite universally seen as a harmful thing, even if also it was
at some point of human development a necessary thing to have for the very survival of human species. New kind of societies just place all new kinds of demands for individuals and our basic instincts have often great difficulty in keeping abreast with that development. There is also more than just plain envy at play here. The big thing in this quote of course is that we very often envy people for things that we THINK that they do have, but in the real world we cannot know if they even really have the things that we envy. One explanation for this naturally is the fact that people or families can seem quite happy when they are seen from afar. Only when one can get really close all the less good things can start to become visible. We do not know of them because we all do carefully build carefully crafted walls around us that can hide away our true status in so many different ways.
(This piece was completely refurbished on 13th of January, 2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Montesquieu "Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brde et de Montesquieu (18 January 1689 10 February 1755), generally referred to as simply Montesquieu, was a French social commentator and political thinker who lived during the Enlightenment. He is famous for his articulation of the theory of separation of powers, taken for granted in modern discussions of government and implemented in many constitutions throughout the world. He was largely responsible for the popularization of the terms feudalism and Byzantine Empire." by jaskaw @ 31.05.2011 - 18:58:48 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/05/31/charles-de-montesquieu-on-being-happier-than-others-11244553/
Feedback for Post "Montesquieu on being happier than others"

jpfib [Member] 01.06.2011 @ 08:40 happiness depends on the mental attitude of each person.it differs with time also.a blanket is very pleasing when it is cold.but just the opposite in hot climate.so the same thing gives different experience with time. a politician becomes very happy if he gets prime ministerial chair. the same or more happiness a beggar gets if he get a five bucks more than usual with luxurious meal.so the mind is the main factor in making one happy or opposite.if one can control his mind happiness or sorrow won't give much difference to him.jose.
Karl Popper on science as a game without end

The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game".
- Karl Popper in "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" (1934) Ch. 2 "On the Problem of a Theory of Scientific Method", Section XI: Methodological Rules as Conventions
My own thoughts on the quote: Science can always be based only on the best possible currently available knowledge, but there are not and cannot be any absolute, final truths in real science. The prevailing scientific 'truths' are always just those facts and ideas based on these facts that do enjoy the widest current support in the current worldwide, open scientific community. Someday people of the future will laugh at the things that we now see as 'truths' in science, just as we often laugh at the science of the people of 300 years ago. However, just now the current level of our knowledge is the best that we can have. We just do not yet have any better means for finding out better and more accurate facts about our only existing universe. However, we can rest assured that our knowledge will expand even vastly in the future, as new methods for exploration are invented. Yet, science is a human endeavor, and as such always fallible. That is the reason why it cannot ever become a similar religion such as the current faith-based religions are. Religions are based on beliefs in nonmoving, final truths, when science is based on the ideas of discovery and change. A religion that would be based on the modern scientific method would be malleable, changeable and adaptable in a way that no religion has ever been. All of its central tenets would be always open for criticism and change, when new discoveries would be made, which is of course unheard of in the world of current religions. Of course, such 'religion of science' does not really exist, even if people do commonly talk about others having a 'religious' relationship with science. However, this is a quite different thing, as normally this means the same as 'religous' relationship with Harley-Davidson- motorcycles or with the computing-products by Apple.
There is also, of course, the danger of accepting things presented as science at their face-value, when strongly held opinions and values-based ideas are, in fact, just dressed up as science, which does happen all too often. Happily science is baaed on critical thinking, not automatic acceptance of ideas even by people with position of authority. Given enough time, the false ideas can and often will be weeded out.
The history of science, like the history of all human ideas, is a history of irresponsible dreams, of obstinacy, and of error. Science is one of the very few human activities perhaps the only one in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected. This is why we can say that, in science, we often learn from our mistakes, and why we can speak clearly and sensibly about making progress there.
Karl Popper in "Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge" (1963), Ch. 1 "Science : Conjectures and Refutations"
(This piece was refurbished on 15th of January, 2012)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_popper "Sir Karl Raimund Popper, CH FRS FBA (28 July 1902 17 September 1994) was an Austro-British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy." by jaskaw @ 22.08.2011 - 21:23:17 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/08/22/karl-popper-on-final-truths-in-science-11710294/
Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on science as a game without end"

Lucho [Visitor] 22.05.2012 @ 22:45 No wonder some intelligent people can`t even find the idea of religin enoughly serious to consider. If their notion of religion is as biased and narrow as the one here expressed, of course it would be a miracle if someone merely reasonable would venture to see more ahead of this notion. In fact, I find that not only the idea of religion here stated is inaccurate, but also that of science itself: it is shallow and cheap. Science is much more difficult and unsystematic than that. Anyway, if it is helpful, I tell the one who wrote this that it is even hard to find a person who has this crazy religious belief as here described. In fact: it looks to me that he has furnished an special definition of religious belief, so absurd, in order to make it undesirable to anyone who would be curious about it. No matter it has been taken from books and testimonies, even most "religious" ones. One can always find enough errors or mischiefs in art, literature, music or even historians, as to condemn their intellectual exercises for the blunders of some of their workers, and something like that I think lies behind this frame of reference of this text. As in science, in which it is not from books that you start to learn things, but from nature itself, in religion, you have to start by thinking and considering ideas. (Imagine reading a biology book from the eighteenth century, and then thinking that science is absurd: Would it be blamable to suppose that after what we know -more or less- today?). Texts can help, but at the end it is not the Koran or the Sutras who will say "I believe" or "I don't believe", but a person. It is bad faith to take the worse examples and cases of something in order to judge it. look at this: "Religions are based on beliefs in nonmoving, final truths, when science is based on the ideas of discovery and change." Even if that would be true, it doesn`t mean anything: Religion is not science. Even if the final truth is nonmoving, WE are moving, we think, we act, we live. We even trascend the "final truth", we realize that truth in ourselves. In the end, in fact, the person who wrote this is viewing religion from a scientific perspective: he is falling in the same problem he sees in religion. He is not conceding a difference, but making religion to the judged by sciences. But religion is not science. It is another thing. If you say "Religion should not meddle in science or scientific things", that's ok.100% agree. If we did that in the past: sorry, we were blockheads. But please, at least, do not assimilate the saying of religion about the world as a scientific saying. It is not. It is a different case of truth. It does not and will not be guided by a "scientific method", more than science will be guided by a "theological method". Sorry if you can't understand it. Sorry also for my defficient English. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 22.05.2012 @ 23:06 I see this new strategy creeping up here and there now: "Religion is so complex phenomena that nothing can ever be said about it".
Bertrand Russell on the human kind as one family

"All who are not lunatics are agreed about certain things. That it is better to be alive than dead, better to be adequately fed than starved, better to be free than a slave. Many people desire those things only for themselves and their friends; they are quite content that their enemies should suffer. These people can only be refuted by science: Humankind has become so much one family that we cannot ensure our own prosperity except by ensuring that of everyone else. If you wish to be happy yourself, you must resign yourself to seeing others also happy."
- Bertrand Russell in "The Science to Save Us from Science," The New York Times Magazine (1950)
My own thoughts on the quote: Bertrand Russell is simply talking about strategies for survival of the societies in this quote. The traditional way has been always to ensure the maximum gain for oneself and one's family and leave the others fend for themselves. Taxes were just for upkeep of the system of justice, government and defense. The first, crude human societies were always like this. However, this strategy will lead to a society where immense wealth and immense poverty do exist at the same time. This process did happen in the ancient Rome or in the United States of today. In fact, in the modern world and most of all in a democracy this strategy of greed will work only as long as enough people will believe that they can get someday to be among the rich themselves. This is of course normally quite impossible, but the important thing is just keeping up the belief, and not its truth-value. Crime is often rampant in such societies, as it is seen as a road to the goal that is otherwise quite unobtainable in the real world. One can of course try to solve this problem also by putting more and more people in prison, but they can also just perfect their skills and find new contacts there. The long tradition of European humanism, on the other hand, does start from similar ideas that Bertrand Russell states here. A stable and good society is one where there are not all too great differences of wealth. All people are taken care of to a degree. The rich take thier part in this by paying taxes also to pay for transfers of income to the poorest. Here, the stability of a society is seen as a value in itself. Its worth is seen also by the rich, as they can have a little less of wealth when they share some of it, but they can enjoy them in much greater security in more a
stable society. On the other hand, the words of Bertrand Russell have a all new kind of meaning in the more and more globalized economy. People are now paid a pittance for their work in India or China and elsewhere, and manual work will continue to flow there from countries where work is much more expensive. In the long run, we can ensure our own happiness in the old developed world only by ensuring that Chinese and Indian and African and South-American workers will some day gain similar kinds of benefits from their own work as we already do. Only this kind of process can make the mass-production of many goods in expensive countries a viable option again. On the other hand, the other possible goal of making work in developed world as cheap as it is in the developing world will never benefit any of the societies that choose erroneously to try it, as it will just lead into a dramatic lowering of living-standards. Bertrand Russell also says here also that the effects of many decisions can be observed in the real world in an objective, scientific way. We can objectively compare how these decisions affect the level of human flourishing in certain fields. This can be done especially when there is no real doubt if something is really harmful or not, like a person being starved or a slave or without some basic human right. However, it is a bit different thing to say what is morally good or bad and what actions can have harmful effects on human life, even if the difference is a hair-thin at times. (This piece was completely refurbished on 16th of January, 2012) http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bertrand-Russell/86711477873
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS[1] (18 May 1872 British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic." by jaskaw @ 27.08.2011 - 23:16:17 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/08/27/bertrand-russell-on-human-kind-as-one-family-11736721/ 2 February 1970) was a
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on the human kind as one family "
jose joseph [Visitor] http://gmail 28.08.2011 @ 19:45 modern day politicians, beaurocrats,corporates and crooked organized religious people are perpetrators of hatred,corruption,slavery with no consideration fellow human beings.they use money,power,sin,hell and damnation to make their fellow beings (mental) their slaves.that is history,present and will be the future. deliverance from these vultures can be achieved by education.Russell's teachings and philosophy can play a great role in the deliverance of human beings from these leeches.
Bertrand Russell on democracy, trade unionism, and birth control

"It is possible now, if the population of the world does not increase too fast, for one mans labour to produce much more than is needed to provide a bare subsistence for himself and his family. Given an intelligent democracy not misled by some dogmatic creed this possibility will be used to raise the standard of life. It has been so used, to a limited extent in Britain and America and would have been so used more efficiently but for war. Its use in raising the standard of living has depended mainly upon three things: democracy, trade unionism, and birth control. All three, of course, have incurred the hostility from the rich. If these three things can be extended to the rest of the world as it becomes industrialized, and if the danger of great wars can be eliminated, poverty can be abolished throughout the whole world and excessive hours of labour will no longer be necessary anywhere. But without these three things industrialism will create a regime like that in which the Pharaohs built the pyramids. In particular, if the world population continues to increase at the present rate, the abolition of poverty and excessive work will be totally impossible."
- Bertrand Russell in "Science and Values" (1952)
Some of my own ideas that were raised by the quote: History has already amply shown how right Bertrand Russell was 50 years ago. The standard of living has actually risen dramatically during the last 50 years in all of those countries where democracy, trade unionism, and birth control have been in general and widespread use. At the same time, the rise in the standard of living has been slower in all of the countries where some or all of these ingredients have been missing. Of course, there are countries in between. China has made a good use of population control. A fact of life is that without implementing this country would still be housing a immense and horrible dens of misery and poverty in its countryside. However, ironically the communist masters have at the same time prevented real trade unionism and strictly prevented the birth of true democracy. Largely because of these handicaps the benefits of rapid industrialization of China have been going to western
investors. This has happened to a far greater extent that would unquestionably have been necessary in a situation where real unions and democratic institutions would have been defending also the workers interests in China. On the other hand, there is the United States, where democracy has made it possible to divide at least a small bit of the enormous wealth. However, largely the weakness of the trade union -systrem in general has prevented a European-style rise of standard of living in the lowest income classes eve in there. USA would of course be a much richer country per capita, if the religious opposition to birth control would not have kept the number of people in the poorest (and most religious) social groups from rising dramatically. The dismantling of the 'welfare states' that is going on in the west is a result of the exportation of much of the manual work to countries cheaper labor and most of all to countries with no labor movement, democracy and birth control. The lack of them is naturally a very basic reason for the cheapness of the labor in these countries in the first place. The incredible fall in prices of international transport after the adaptation of containers is, of course, the main reason why so much of manual labor has been transferred overseas during the last couple of decades. However, the net effect of this is that the amount of people who can contribute to the general tax-base is diminishing here in the industrialized west because of this process. So, the CEO:s who move production to cheap countries are the one who are in reality dismantling the base for the welfare state. Of course, this process is now mostly publicly presented as dismantling of the excesses that were created by the leftist and liberal-leaning governments of the past. However, they were not excesses at the time of their creation, but things that the society could well afford at the time, when also the less well-educated could find work and could so also pay taxes. Now, the growing unemployment of the less educated swells the ranks of those in need of support and eats at the same time the income-base of the society. These problems are not, however, the legacy of some leftist and liberal mismanagement of state-finances. They are causes by the actions of the owning class, who have no other goal than to maximize their profits, without giving a single thought of the consequences of their actions to their own societies. A startling fact is that, for example, IT-giant Apple does not produce a single item in the United States anymore and nobody really cares. On the other hand, how could it be that such a simple idea cannot get through: The less there are people dividing the surplus that an economy can create, the more there is to be had by every single member of that society. Of course, there are limits, as there must be enough people for the production of goods and services, but, on the other hand, just the lack of workers drives wages upwards. This trend drives the standard of living upwards, but also drives at the same time the productivity upwards, as there is an incentive to invest in work-saving equipment, that does not exist if enough cheap workers are available. When productivity rises, there is a growing ability to pay more to individual workers, even if there will be less of them in any individual corporation. The rise in service-sector has, however, offset this development, but now the moving of the work to overseas does cut off the spiral of good development. All the societies that really have moved from poverty to even relative general wealth have achieved the goal of controlling the rise of population. Even large, wealthy elites can naturally exist in their separate communities alongside poor masses also in situations where the growth of the population is not controlled. However, the rise of the general level of wealth has always needed that the growth of population is within reasonable limits. One of the big secrets of the modern economics is the role that was played by the trade unions in creating the
rise of living standards that did produce the modern western societies as we know them. The role of trade unions was central in forcing the industrialists to hand out at least part of the profits that we mechanization of industry did produce. This influx of new income then to a great deal did produce the mass-markets that a more modern production of consumer goods did demand. This process did benefit immensely also the owning class. It did the trick by creating the new markets they needed to expand, but this is a dark secret. One just needs to look at things from a bit longer perspective to see this process. Unfortunately, the modern economics is mostly worried about just the next quarter anymore. This is a secret that the economists of today keep extremely mum about, as according to the modern wisdom in economics all advancement just must come from the owners and the actions of the employed can just hinder the march of the market forces. However, just now we would benefit immensely from the implementation of Bertrand Russell's original ideas of spreading democracy, trade unionism and birth control all over the world. The evolution of our own standard of living is more and more dependent on the standard of living of people living in the other side of the world.
(This piece was completely refurbished on 17th of January, 2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell "Bertrand Russell is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy along with his predecessor Gottlob Frege and his protg Ludwig Wittgenstein, and is widely held to be one of the 20th century's premier logicians. He co-authored, with A. N. Whitehead, Principia Mathematica, an attempt to ground mathematics on logic. His philosophical essay "On Denoting" has been considered a "paradigm of philosophy." His work has had a considerable influence on logic, mathematics, set theory, linguistics, computer science (see type theory and type system), and philosophy, especially philosophy of language, epistemology, and metaphysics." http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bertrand-Russell/86711477873 by jaskaw @ 02.09.2011 - 12:24:26 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/09/02/bertrand-russell-on-democracy-trade-unionism-and-birth-control-11767480/
Karl Popper on the paradox of tolerance

The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato. Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)
My own thoughts on the quote:
It is notable that Karl Popper wrote this text in the fateful year of 1945. When one remembers the state where the world was just then, one can easily understand his motives. The toleration of intolerance did, in fact, lead to the rise of power of the Nazis in Germany in the beginning of the 30 s. On the other hand, he had also the the then very current example the extreme intolerance of Communist Russia. Be it as it is, this idea is a hard one to swallow for a person like me, who has preached tolerance all his life. The basic idea here just is that a tolerant society really can stay tolerant only when it does not allow intolerance to take it over.
Of course, there remains the enormously difficult task of defining which level of intolerance cannot be allowed. I am certain that the intolerance that Karl Popper had in mind was not just the critique of ideas of others and even religions. First and foremost he did believe in rational argumentation. Karl Popper thought that all human ideas need to be rationally analyzed and criticized for the best solutions and ideas to be able to emerge in a society. Popperr's ideas apply well also to the kind of intolerance that was found in Rome in the first centuries of the first millennium. This happened when the Christians did crush without mercy all other religions and all schools of philosophy, after they first had gained the full support of the Roman emperors and the ultimate power in the Roman Empire. Paradoxically, the earlier Roman emperors who had fought against the rise of extremely intolerant Christianity had, in fact, in practice fought in defense of tolerance. It may come as a surprise for many that until the rise of Christianity the Roman Empire was, in fact, a model for religious tolerance. Conquered nations were generally allowed to worship whatever and whenever they wanted. This was the case as long as this local worship did not in any way challenge the total political power of the Roman Empire. So, even the Jews were allowed to practice their for the Romans quite strange religion. Their religion was not really touched even after their political rebellions were crushed without mercy. Romans had the wisdom that all successful empires have had, as all of successful empires have allowed local cultures to exist in peace, as long as the political power of the empire is not challenged (as Amy Chua tells in her fine book "Day of Empire - How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance - and Why They Fail") With the rise of Christianity, this basic tolerance was lost and soon there was no Roman Empire either. Of course, the rise of Christian intolerance was not the only factor that did contribute to its downfall, but it is one that very many historians have been avoiding. In the end just openly opposing and criticizing the ideas of others is not intolerance in a democratic, open society. It is part of the normal political process, as long as other people are allowed to freely choose which ideas they want to support. This critique just must apply to religions too, even if many religious people want to protect their pet ideologies and keep them taboo from criticism. In a truly tolerant society, any person must be free to criticize any religion and its ideas. However, the line into intolerance is crossed the moment if it is suggested that the followers of a certain ideology or religion are to be treated differently in a society than others, or they should not be given equal opportunities. The difficulty lies in finding the crucial difference between mere criticism of ideas and the intolerance towards other people. It is a very common defense mechanism of religious people that all critique of their own religion is labeled as intolerance. In fact, it can be a case of for example of defense of tolerance against an intolerant religion. The waters are, of course, muddied to the extreme by those who attack, for example, a religion because of their own very intolerant ideology or religion. So, if one criticizes an intolerant religion, the defender of tolerance can end up in a common front with some extremely intolerant people. These two very different groups might just happen to oppose the same intolerant religion because of very different motives. Others might be protecting tolerance and others just forwarding their own extremely intolerant ideas. There is, however, commonly one clear difference. The defenders of tolerance tend to criticize ideas, when the intolerant tend to attack the people or the followers of certain ideas. A follower of an intolerant and monolithic ideology just often seems to have great difficulty in understanding that ideas and people are different things. All too often they seem also not to realize that people and both ideas and people can always change too. (This piece was completely refurbished on 18th of January, 2012)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Karl-Popper/131272180219102 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_popper "Sir Karl Raimund Popper, CH FRS FBA (28 July 1902 17 September 1994) was an Austro-British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century; he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. He is known for his vigorous defense of liberal democracy and the principles of social criticism that he came to believe made a flourishing "open society" possible."
by jaskaw @ 17.09.2011 - 16:46:42 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/09/17/karl-popper-on-the-paradox-of-tolerance-11864459/
Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on the paradox of tolerance "

jonaslaves [Member] 21.09.2011 @ 09:41 Compreendo a relao de tolerncia pela condicional p > q, onde: p = Tolerncia Irrestrita q = Tolerncia. Note que a nica sentena absoluta p; q, por no ter tal natureza, varivel conforme cada caso. Esta ideia foi extrada dos evangelhos, onde est proposto o mesmo paradoxo da tolerncia atravs das sentenas:Porque com o juzo com que julgardes sereis julgados, e com a medida com que tiverdes medido vos ho de medir a vs. Talvez este relativismo de q resolva o aparente conflito entre as sentenas. Ou como o Sr. Jaskaw prope: "defining which level of intolerance cannot be allowed". Isto se d na prtica do seguinte modo: Aqui no meu pas esto sendo votadas leis de mordaa; leis de intolerncia que se apoiam injustamente em paradoxos como este levantado pela poltica de Popper. Esto tentando proibir as igrejas de ensinarem o casamento entre homem e mulher como padro teolgico. Brevemente proibiro os bilogos de apontarem o mesmo padro como mais eficiente para a perpetuao da espcie. E tudo isso em nome de um pseudo libertarismo, que te obriga a aceitao da anttese sem porm escutar a sua tese. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 21.09.2011 @ 12:04 Google Translate gives this for 'jonaslaves' comment text: "I understand the relationship of tolerance by the conditional p> q , where: p = Unrestricted Tolerance q = Tolerance. Note that the only absolute statement is p, q, for not having such a nature, varies according to each case. This idea was taken from the Gospels, where it is proposed that the same paradox of tolerance through the sentences: Because the trial judge that shall be judged, and with the same measure that you have measured you will be measured to you. Perhaps this relativism q solve the apparent conflict between the sentences. Or as Mr. Jaskaw proposes: "Defining Which level of intolerance can not be allowed". This happens in practice as follows: Here in my country being voted gag laws, laws that support intolerance unfairly paradoxes such as this raised the policy of Popper. They are trying to ban the teaching of churches marriage between a man and woman as a theological grid. Soon prohibit biologists suggest the same pattern as more efficient for the perpetuation of the species. And all in the name of a pseudo-libertarianism, which requires you to accept the antithesis but without listening to his thesis." jonaslaves, I must say that there just might be more than slight misunderstanding on your side on what is being discussed, as if what you suppose would be true I would have definitely heard at least a rumor of this. I think you have misunderstood gravely the whole issue here. | Show subcomments
jonaslaves [Member] 21.09.2011 @ 14:27 I knew that I must do it in english, but I started in portuguese 'cause it is more precise. Mr. Jaskaw, could you please say in your words what you did understand of my last post? I do believe that you did not get my issue, once I'm saying exactly the same of you. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 21.09.2011 @ 14:33 You said: "They are trying to ban the teaching of churches marriage between a man and woman as a theological grid." Who planning such things is and where? How is this done? I personally have never heard of such bans or plans for such. I have only heard of allowing other ideas also to be presented, which does increase freedom, not diminish it. | Show subcomments jonaslaves [Member] 21.09.2011 @ 15:06 So I think we got a point here my friend! You got my Idea, but you did not get my context. "Who planning such things is and where?" Here in my country, as I told you, it's been voted such a law to shut up the theologians. Here is the project: http://www.abglt.org.br/port/projlei5003.html There are debates around it consequences here in Brazil -such like forbidden christian to teach their sexual education. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 21.09.2011 @ 15:18 Google Translate at work again: "Changes to Law No. 7716 of January 5, 1989, and 3 of art. 140 of Decree-Law No. 2848 of December 7, 1940 - Penal Code to punish discrimination on the basis of origin, condition of elderly or disabled, gender, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, and other measures . "Define the crimes resulting from discrimination or prejudice based on race, color, ethnicity, religion, origin, condition of elderly or disabled, gender, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity." (NR) Article 2 of Law No. 7716 of January 5, 1989, becomes effective with the following changes: "Art 1, will be punished in accordance with this Law, the crimes resulting from discrimination or prejudice based on race, color, ethnicity, religion, origin, condition of elderly or disabled, gender, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. "(NR) "Art 8 Prevent access or refuse service at restaurants, bars or similar places open to the public. Penalty: imprisonment from one to three years. Paragraph: liable to the same penalties that they prevent or restrict the expression and manifestation of affection in public or private places open to the public from people with the characteristics specified in Art. 1 of this Law, and these expressions and allowed to others. "(NR) "Art 20. Practice, induce or incite discrimination or prejudice based on race, color, ethnicity, religion, origin, condition of elderly or disabled, gender, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. Penalty: imprisonment from one to three years and fine. "(NR)
The Article 3 3 of art. 140 of Decree-Law No. 2848 of December 7, 1940 - Penal Code shall henceforth read as follows: " 3 If the injury is to use elements of race, color, ethnicity, religion, origin, condition of elderly or disabled, gender, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity:" Dear Johanslaves, I fail to find anything that would anything that you are saying in this law. We have had quite similar laws for a long time with no ill effects. If you do not want to discriminate people, you have nothing to worry about here.
jonaslaves [Member] 21.09.2011 @ 15:49 The practical results of it interpretations reminds me the dark age, and I'll tell you why: As any modern system, Christianity do not obliges anyone to be part of it. You do if you want. This kind of think is not discrimination, is an independent postulation. But If you teach p (christian sexual teachings) it will be antagonized by q (secular sexual teachings) who argues that p did broken the rule. The Estate will condemn p 'cause q felt offended by p. But as we shut up p, not listening to it, we'll be worse then it. That's how it works in fact down here. Such a shame. Taghred [Visitor] 17.03.2012 @ 06:23 Thanks so much for this reflection! Enjoyed reading it...
Karl Popper on learning from criticism

"When I speak of reason or rationalism, all I mean is the conviction that we can learn through criticism of our mistakes and errors, especially through criticism by others, and eventually also through self-criticism. A rationalist is simply someone for whom it is more important to learn than to be proved right; someone who is willing to learn from others not by simply taking over another's opinions, but by gladly allowing others to criticize his ideas and by gladly criticizing the ideas of others. The emphasis here is on the idea of criticism or, to be more precise, critical discussion. The genuine rationalist does not think that he or anyone else is in possession of the truth; nor does he think that mere criticism as such helps us achieve new ideas. However, he does think that, in the sphere of ideas, only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff. He is well aware that acceptance or rejection of an idea is never a purely rational matter. But he thinks that only critical discussion can give us the maturity to see an idea from more and more sides and to make a correct judgement of it."
- Karl Popper in "On Freedom" in "All Life is Problem Solving" (1999)
My own thoughts on the quote: Of course, Karl Popper is expressing just a high ideal in this quote. It is very hard to imagine in practice that there would really exist a person who would gladly and with joy accept all criticism that would be thrown at him or her. However, just even striving for this kind of ideal is an extremely worthwhile thing to do. This is the case, even if one does ever reach any kind of high plateau of enjoyment of criticism. The striving for higher goals is, in the end, the thing that makes living worthwhile, not reaching them. Life would just be all too easy, if our goals would be set too low. Eminent Greek philosopher Epicurus did teach already 2400 years ago that one can never reach true state of happiness by just accumulating more and more of material things. The urge to have more and more will never be really satisfied, if a person does not put conscious effort into controlling this urge. However, in the realm of ideas the setting up of unreachable goals does not cause similar sense of deprivation, even if we never will fully reach the goals we strive for. In the world of ideas, the idea of human fallibility and incompleteness is maybe just easier to accept.
The real crucial point here is to accept that even the most perfect-sounding ideas that fit ideally into our view of the world, will never be the last word. There just might be still better ideas and new theories that can change everything we know. A true rationalist is prepared to look at these new ideas with open eyes, even if they would entail changing some of his or her very basic ideas. This is of course also just an ideal. In the real world, we will all too often just stick to our guns when things that we have learned by the heart are threatened. However, even striving for an ideal can make a world of difference, even if we never reach it. (This piece was refurbished on 19th of January, 2012)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Karl-Popper/131272180219102 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_popper "Philosopher Karl Popper is known for his attempt to repudiate the classical observationalist / inductivist form of scientific method in favour of empirical falsification. He is also known for his opposition to the classical justificationist account of knowledge which he replaced with critical rationalism, "the first non justificational philosophy of criticism in the history of philosophy". As well, he is known for his vigorous defense of liberal democracy and the principles of social criticism that he came to believe made a flourishing "open society" possible."
by jaskaw @ 22.09.2011 - 11:07:09 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/09/22/karl-popper-on-learning-from-criticism-11895359/
Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on learning from criticism"

Feeltheforce [Visitor] 24.09.2011 @ 00:06 Problem solved! Falsification has been verified and empowered... look for this in Denmark.... more to follow.. prove me wrong. ;-)
Bertrand Russell on departures from convention

"Conventional people are roused to fury by departures from convention, largely because they regard such departures as a criticism of themselves."
Bertrand Russell in "Conquest of Happiness" (1930) Ch. 9: Fear of Public Opinion
My own ideas on the quote: We can not seem to help it, but all too often other people will be seen as imperfect copies of us. On the other hand, we simply can not avoid seeing the world through our own life experience, but also through, for example, the books we have read, through the films we have seen and through the stories we have heard and ideologies we have learned. The vast real differences in our life-experiences simply make things that we observe look a bit different to all of us. In some things these differences are minuscule and do not matter and in others they are just huge. However, the main thing is that we cannot also escape from the hard fact the only person we really know thoroughly is ourselves. Of course, we learn of other people when we hear, watch and even read of how different people react to different stimuli and to different social situations. We can learn to understand how different we are, but deep down we have just ourselves to measure how humans are in the core of their existence. However, it is possible to at least try to overcome the limitations which this phenomena does bring with it. The more empathy and sympathy we do possess, the easier is to as to try to take the position of another human and at least try to understand how he or she does react to different situations. In the end, however, there is only our own perception of how humans are and how they should be that will guide us in many social situations. As humans and our predecessors have been social creatures for millions of years, we have many inherent mechanism and even ideas of how social interactions and social life need to be conducted. On the other hand, we learn ready-made models of behavior and models of conduct all our lives, as they help us to act even in unfamiliar and new situations. It can be said that the whole hard core of human culture (also religions) is about learning these models for
social conduct and interaction. However, herein lies the core problem. Partly just because human species been one of the most changeable and malleable species there has ever walked on planet earth, there is already an incredible diversity in humans. We have immense differences in how we react, how we see things and how we act socially. I'm afraid that we all too often have a strong natural tendency to look at our fellow humans as imperfect copies of ourselves. There is a very strong tendency to think, and mostly without even of being aware of this tendency, that there should be only one allowed way to think and act; which is, of course, the way we think and do things ourselves. This tendency is present in every single human being. If we love football, we can find a person who says that he hates football as a rude and very unlikable person. We just seem so easily think that people who do not share our interests even diminish the value of these interests. Most of all, as we are prone to expect other people to be copies of ourselves, we are disappointed every time it is revealed to us that they are not. Most people are never likely to reveal to other people that their major interests do differ from those of others in any fundamental way. This is just the way humans are. We just love social harmony and not saying aloud when you differ form others is a way for protecting social harmony. All this is, of course, a preface to my main point. Declaring any kind of strongly diverging idea or way of life is all too easily seen as an act of disturbing social harmony. Most of all it will disappoint other people s wishes and expectations of others being similar to them. This may, of course, sound rather sinister. However, basically it may just mean the expecting that your actions can be predicted according to what they would themselves do in a similar situation. This is, in the end, the normal way for evaluating social situations. Sometimes it really works and sometimes it does not work. However, we tend to remember only the successes. This really is the basic, but also the most primitive human method, for acting in social situations and we need to to real work to learn to act otherwise. This gut-reaction is in the core of our thinking. It just is extremely difficult to grow out of it. Luckily, as malleable creatures humans are often able to manage even this major change. We just need to put some real, conscious effort into accepting differences in humans. Sadly, we are often taught all our lives to live by these primitive gut-reactions. For many people the maintaining maximum level of uniformity is still a major goal. On the other hand, in modern open societies we would need a instead to limit uniformity. Maintaining a high degree of social cohesion in situations where people do already differ even enormously is, in fact, a major cause of friction in open societies. Learning to live with different people with different ideas is more and more important skill in all open societies, if they are to be maintained successfully. (This piece was completely refurbished on 21th of January, 2012) http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bertrand-Russell/86711477873
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS(18 May 1872 philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic." by jaskaw @ 28.09.2011 - 10:44:51
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/09/28/bertrand-russell-on-departures-from-convention-11932921/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on departures from convention "

Linda [Visitor] 11.11.2011 @ 18:53 I don't have anything to add to this topic but I just wanted to say that I LOVED what you had to say about the quote. I have similar thoughts about these matters. I have recently discovered this blog and am a new fan. I also loved your article on another Bertand quote about how passion often lacks rational ground. That was a great article. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 11.11.2011 @ 19:16 Thanks Linda! Glad to hear at least somebody has benefited from my little labor of love. ken [Visitor] 21.01.2012 @ 20:27 "the only person we really know thoroughly is ourselves." This is the exception. Most people know very little about themselves and the programs that make them react certain ways to people and events. If you know yourself thoroughly, you would probably be less critical of others.
Bertrand Russell on passionately held opinions

"The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder s lack of rational conviction. Opinions on politics and religion are almost always held passionately."
- Bertrand Russell in the introduction to 1961 edition of "Sceptical Essays" (1961)
My own ideas on the quote: It is not easy at all to note from one's own behavior how passionate one is on an issue. It is just extremely difficult to analyze this level of passion rationally. A real danger is that a high enough wave of passion does prevent real, objective analysis of the issues at hand. Then only history will then tell if you were originally on the side of justice or not. The big thing here is, of course, how you define passion. If you see it as just as strongly supporting a view, the original quote is false. Even Bertrand Russell did believe strongly in many kinds of things like human rights, liberty or social justice. The level of passion just might be the real key here. I think Bertrand Russell means here by passion uncritical, non-examined and emotion-based support for an idea. This kind of strong passion is so often found in religions and many extremist political movements. He quite means by passion the unwillingness even to hear any facts that do not support your own ideas. In fact, I think that he does really mean that the followers of any 'absolute truths' are prone to be all too often extremely passionate about their pet ideas. The core message here is that pure passion just does not give a firm enough basis for a whole world-view. Passions makes people subjective, passion makes them close their ears, passion makes them reject facts which do not fit in with their passion in a right way. One can with certainty say that the less passionately we can look at things, the more clearly we can see also their pros and cons. There is one thing that is sure in this life. There is almost nothing that would not also have negative side-effects. If we would automatically suppress even knowledge of them outright, we would not be making objective decisions. So, in the field of decision making and making societies good places for all of their members, passion can be a
major enemy. Of course, the real thing here is maintaining just the right level of passion. We all have a need for higher ideas. Often we can well call this need a passion also. We just should be vary of such extreme levels of passion that can make objective reasoning and rational analysis impossible. Anybody can, in fact, normally see when such irrational passion takes over people's mind around them. The real difficulty is that it is so difficult to detect this situation in oneself. (This piece was refurbished on 22th of January, 2012) http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bertrand-Russell/86711477873
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell "Russell is generally credited with being one of the founders of analytic philosophy. He was deeply impressed by Gottfried Leibniz (1646 1716) and wrote on every major area of philosophy except aesthetics. He was particularly prolific in the field of metaphysics, the logic and the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of language, ethics and epistemology." by jaskaw @ 10.10.2011 - 22:22:14 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/10/10/bertrand-russell-on-passionately-held-opinions-11995644/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on passionately held opinions"

atheistbruce pro 11.10.2011 @ 14:40 I passionately hold the view that all people who hold passionate views are invariably wrong. Who said that? | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 11.10.2011 @ 14:44 You just did, atheistbruce!
Author's friends
marjuski.blogs.fi
marjuski
GratisCogito
marjaliisa.blogs.fi
marjaliisa
grahnlaw.blogs.fi
Grahnlaw
About the author

Pageviews
Monthly history Month December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 Total Pageviews 7535 8075 8696 8508 3793 1218 3032 1891 1590 2551 1611 2007 Total Visitors 4637 4601 5007 5216 2309 763 1011 1148 913 1874 1081 1326
Table of Contents
A Little Book for Humanity...............................................................................................................................1 Karl Popper on learning from discussions with differing people...................................................................2 Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on learning from discussions with differing people"...........................5 Erich Fromm on nationalism as a form of insanity.........................................................................................6 Feedback for Post "Erich Fromm on nationalism as a form of insanity"................................................9 Anaxagoras on the idea of ownership.............................................................................................................10 Feedback for Post "Anaxagoras on the idea of ownership" ...................................................................14 Baruch Spinoza on peace as a virtue...............................................................................................................15 Feedback for Post "Baruch Spinoza on peace as a virtue"....................................................................19 Tenzin Gyatso (aka. Dalai Lama) on philosophy of kindness .......................................................................20 Feedback for Post "Tenzin Gyatso (aka. Dalai Lama) on philosophy of kindness"..............................23 Oscar Wilde on language as the only feature that separates us from other animals ..................................26 Feedback for Post "Oscar Wilde on language as the only feature that separates us from other animals"................................................................................................................................................29 John Stuart Mill on silencing dissenting opinions.........................................................................................32 Feedback for Post "John Stuart Mill on silencing dissenting opinions"................................................35 Epicurus on absolute justice............................................................................................................................36 Feedback for Post "Epicurus on absolute justice".................................................................................39 Eric Hoffer on being rich without depriving others......................................................................................41 Bertrand Russell on reason, faith and persecution........................................................................................44 Will Durant on present as merely the past rolled up and concentrated......................................................47 Bertrand Russell on human race as one family ..............................................................................................50 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on human race as one family"....................................................52 Robert G. Ingersoll on the freedom of speech................................................................................................53 Marcus Aurelius on achieving happiness by doing ........................................................................................56 Arthur Schopenhauer on free will...................................................................................................................59 Feedback for Post "Arthur Schopenhauer on free will" .........................................................................62 Bertrand Russell on prejudices and thinking .................................................................................................63 Rubn Blades on dying of ignorance...............................................................................................................66 Feedback for Post "Rubn Blades on dying of ignorance"....................................................................69
Table of Contents
Kurt Vonnegut on behaving decently.............................................................................................................70 Frank Herbert on worshiping life...................................................................................................................73 Ursula K. Le Guin on the nature of ideas.......................................................................................................76 Howard H. Aiken on stealing ideas.................................................................................................................79 Author's friends................................................................................................................................................82 About the author...............................................................................................................................................84 Pageviews...........................................................................................................................................................85
ii
Karl Popper on learning from discussions with differing people

"It is often asserted that discussion is only possible between people who have a common language and accept common basic assumptions. I think that this is a mistake. All that is needed is a readiness to learn from one's partner in the discussion, which includes a genuine wish to understand what he intends to say. If this readiness is there, the discussion will be the more fruitful the more the partner's backgrounds differ. "
Karl Popper in "Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, 1963
Some of my own thoughts raised be the quote: A good debate can drive your thinking and reasoning to the utmost. What is most valuable it can make it can make one understand why you think as you do. Sadly, good, open debates and debaters are all too rare. When one finds a good and different enough opponent, one needs to cherish him of her. In fact, in my mind even an extremely fruitful debate does not need to lead to any chancing of positions of the debaters at all. However, it can lead one into seeing of your own positions in a new light, which of course can be only beneficial and produce big things in the future. So, the fruitfulness of a debates grows from the growth and development of debaters own ideas, not from transforming or even affecting the opinions of the other party in the discussion, even if this can rarely happen also at times. However, simply the exposure to new ideas in a debate can have very beneficial effects in the long run in all parties who are involved in a intellectual discussion. Of course, the discussion needs to stay within the limits of integrity and does not degrade into a shouting-match. Amiable discussions with like-minded cronies are of course often very pleasurable experiences, but their value can on the worst be just on the side of entertainment. A very real danger is, of course, the danger of ending up in a loop of just finding more and more support for ones old ideas from people who already think alike.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_popper
"Sir Karl Raimund Popper, CH FRS[1] FBA (28 July 1902 17 September 1994) was an Austro-British philosopher and professor at the London School of Economics. He is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century; he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy." by jaskaw @ 14.01.2012 - 14:12:51 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/01/14/karl-popper-on-learning-from-discussions-with-differing-people-12450420/
Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on learning from discussions with differing people"
barbara lipa [Visitor] 30.01.2012 @ 10:29 well I thank you.. I posted one on FB and will return to explore more..
Erich Fromm on nationalism as a form of insanity

Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. "Patriotism" is its cult. It should hardly be necessary to say, that by "patriotism I mean that attitude which puts the own nation above humanity, above the principles of truth and justice; not the loving interest in one s own nation, which is the concern with the nation s spiritual as much as with its material welfare never with its power over other nations. Just as love for one individual which excludes the love for others is not love, love for one s country which is not part of one s love for humanity is not love, but idolatrous worship."
- Erich Fromm in "The Sane Society" (1955)
Some of my own ideas raised by the quote: Having clear-cut political goals need no be at all the same thing as to having some kind of Utopian ideals. Life in a democracy would be impossible without goals and political ideals, but Utopians differ from other people in that they so very often believe in only one possible solution. What is most dangerous they very often refuse to compromise because of these absolute ideals. A concrete example of practical goals that are married to higher ideals is the formation of European Union. The willingness to modify the structure of states is a part of quite normal political ideologies. Modern nation states are products of political ideologies and fusing them to work better together is a very pragmatic goal. There need not be any Utopian dreams of coming happiness. On the other hand, people who are steeped in nationalistic thinking have a hard time adjusting themselves to this kind of new situation, where nations are working together instead of just driving selfish nationalistic goals. The two world wars did show the limits and extreme dangers of the nationalistic Utopian vision. However, the legacy of this lost nationalist utopia does linger on in legal structures of these states. In any case, the modern West-European states are already wholly dependent on the other states on the continent in countless ways even without any formal agreements.
This is the existing reality, not a dream; the real Utopia is the idea of sovereign European nations doing whatever they want and not caring about the well-being of their important trade-partners and neighbors in any way. Many people have a clear difficulty in understanding that modern national states are products of a new quite Utopian nationalistic ideology. This new ideology gained an upper hand in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. However, a fully independent nation state has always been just one possible (even if very popular) base for a system of government, and it is fast becoming more and more antiquated in networked and fully interconnected world. Of course, the garden variety of nationalism is a quite pragmatic approach for handling certain things. Also most Utopian ideas ideas can be mellowed with time so that their more moderate followers are finally able to compromise and work with others. However, the idea of creating from a group of nation states larger economic, social and political entities, that can better handle new problems of a new age is also a very pragmatic and practical solution. It must also still be remembered that European Union was and still is also an extremely important peace project that has build bridges between bitter old enemies and it has worked excellently in this respect. There just is nothing Utopian in trying to create a strong economical area in an areathat has very strong common cultural heritage, common history and a lot of common values. This process can of course also well still fail for many reasons, but most of all if the old nationalistic values win in the long run. Of course, the difference between just having strong ideas and being an irrational idealist is hair-thin at times. In fact, all idealism can become dangerous when forwarding the idea itself does become more important in ones mind than happiness and well-being of humans and their environment. However, it is the human ideas that do drive our societies forward, if only their followers just don't lose touch with reality and most of their ability to work and compromise with others who have different sets of ideals. (Grammarly-checked on 20th of January, 2012)
http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm "Erich Seligmann Fromm (March 23, 1900 March 18, 1980) was a Jewish German-American social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist. He was associated with what became known as the Frankfurt School of critical theory." by jaskaw @ 20.01.2012 - 09:36:33 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/01/20/erich-fromm-on-nationalism-as-a-form-of-insanity-12489420/
Feedback for Post "Erich Fromm on nationalism as a form of insanity"

atheistbruce pro 21.01.2012 @ 21:52 I agree jaskaw, we have to abandon the 17/18/19/20th century nation state isolation. After 400 years it no longer works. The attached talk by Paddy Ashdown makes it abundantly clear: http://www.ted.com/talks/paddy_ashdown_the_global_power_shift.html
Anaxagoras on the idea of ownership

Men would live exceedingly quiet if these two words, mine and thine, were taken away."
- Anaxagoras (c. 500 BC
428 BC)
My own ideas on the quote: The idea that claimed personal ownership of things (also of humans) is the source of many of the central problems in the human societies was not invented by Karl Marx. This fact has been self-evident for many of the thinking men for millennium. Unfortunately, there really is nothing much that we can do just now to remedy this problem. Our world has simply been so strongly built on this very idea for tens of thousands of years. The concept of personally and permanently owning land saw the light with the first agricultural societies. A hunter-gatherer can really own only the things he or she can carry. In stable agricultural societies cultivated land and all the things that are used in cultivating it soon become permanent and inherited property, that can also be fought over. Unfortunately, also all the problems that are inevitably connected with ownership did soon arise. Anaxagoras is not saying that it would be possible to abolish the idea of ownership, but he is just noticing the inevitable consequences that come with the idea of ownership. Of course, one needs a bit of flexibility even to understand that the idea of permanent and hereditary ownership of things really is only a quite recent human idea and it is not a permanent and inevitable property of anything. A man alone in an island does not need to develop the idea of ownership. He can freely use fish and all other resources, as he has the need to "own" them exists only in relationship to other people. However, if there are more than one person in the island the idea of ownership is suddenly relevant. The original loner can still "own" the fish he gets from the sea as long as nobody else knows about them. However, a society can decide that fish of the sea are a common property and can order him to share his catch with others. Ownership is just a commonly agreed social relationship and there is nothing absolute in it. In the end, we have just decided that it is beneficial for the whole society to let individual people have the sole ownership of also of some of the common resources like land and water. Bringing this idea up does not diminish the fact that the system of private ownership has at least up this day
shown itself to be the best available method for creating a maximum amount of well-being from the existing resources. However, history is full of instances where ownership is partially overturned in due process of law and for example land has been often distributed more fairly. This can happen when the ownership of land has been concentrated in too few hands and this has caused the society to dysfunction. The Communist or Soviet experiment did clearly show how giving the state ownership of all common resources does not work at all in real life. This does not mean that all other models for owning things would be wrong also. There could be even more effective and beneficial ways to run things that can be developed in the future. Ownership is important commonly only over things which several people can have use of or can benefit from. Ownership is often claimed over things that can give you a benefit over those who do not have this ownership. A piece of desert or of deep seabed have no private owners. Ownership of man-made things has existed as long as people have been able to make new things by themselves. However, ownership of land and water is a quite another issue altogether. Owning land or water means that the resources situated in it are reserved to its owner only, but the use of them is denied from others. Thomas Paine noted that nobody has created the land by themselves. Thomas Paine wrote that people are entitled only to claim the added value that they can produce with land, but the land itself is inevitably a common property of mankind. By giving the state the right to tax our income and our property we give our consent to the idea of giving up part of our rights of ownership for a greater common good. Of course, we simply have do it if we want to be able to run a complex modern society. In a normal modern society there is generally no disagreement over the basic principle that one must always give up a part of one's rights to keep up and defend the society in which one lives in. Libertarians who completely deny this right are still a very small, even if vocal minority. The disagreement is often only over how much people are willing to sacrifice for the common good and which specific things should be paid for with the money that is collected with the authority of the government and which not. So, the disagreement rises normally only over the borders in which the best interests of the whole society and the needs of an individual will be best served. On the other hand, it just is all too often very difficult to bring up the negative sides of any big issue that has both negative and positive effects. Unfortunately, there is almost nothing in this world does not have both. Very often those who have mentally tied themselves to an idea do not want even to know about the other side at all. They can see even the bringing up of these issues assault on their own values. The idea of private ownership seem to be even almost sacred to some people. In reality full objectivity over even of our own decisions is an unreachable goal. I will also strive for it in vain. However, even by trying to reach this kind of unreachable ideals we can improve ourselves and our societies, as at the end we are the society.
(This piece was completely refurbished and Grammarly- checked on 27th of January, 2012. This little essay was originally published in my own other major blog or Being Human -blog at http://beinghuman.blogs.fi in 2009, but I rewrote it completely yesterday and will publish the new re-written version also in this blog.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaxagoras
"Anaxagoras (Greek: , Anaxagoras, "lord of the assembly"; (c. 500 BC 428 BC) was a Pre-Socratic Greek philosopher. Born in Clazomenae in Asia Minor, Anaxagoras was the first philosopher to bring philosophy from Ionia to Athens. He attempted to give a scientific account of eclipses, meteors, rainbows, and the sun, which he described as a fiery mass larger than the Peloponnese. According to Diogenes Laertius and Plutarch he fled to Lampsacus due to a backlash against his pupil Pericles." by jaskaw @ 28.01.2012 - 18:28:10 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/01/28/anaxagoras-on-the-idea-of-ownership-12555916/
Feedback for Post "Anaxagoras on the idea of ownership"

Jeremy Gould [Visitor] 29.01.2012 @ 20:31 I just discovered your blog, and am loving it. Keep up the good work! Isabell Binny [Visitor] 01.02.2012 @ 00:20 Oh, I am so happy that you are in the world. Thank you!
cscheidegger [Member] 26.02.2012 @ 18:46 Onnea ! I just recently discovered your blog, and I must say - paljon kiitoksia
Baruch Spinoza on peace as a virtue

Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
- Baruch Spinoza, in Theological-Political Treatise (1670)
My own ideas that were raised by the quote: One could also say that war is an absence of benevolence, confidence and justice. War is always initialed by some nation or some more unofficial actor who wants to get something with the aid of arms which they believe that they cannot have with other means. However, wars and all armies have their origins in the raids of early humans that aimed to steal the food or other property of their neighbors. This is one reason why all military historians like to dwell only in the armies of the recorded history. Armed stealing from the neighbors just seems to be much more acceptable to us with the involvement of a state. Most people quite consistently seem the think that states have the extraordinary right to use violence as they please, even if individual members of that same state are not allowed to use it on any normal circumstances. However, also all of the first wars between the first states were also just organized stealing and plundering. Later also the goal of subjugating the victims more constantly to one s rule did give these endeavors a new kind aura of respectability that outright stealing and plundering would not have in our eyes. The first real wars between organized states were quite probably fought in between the city states around Mesopotamia and in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East. The aim of these wars was to make more people pay taxes for the ruler in question. In fact, the money collected was for the most part just regular protections money. The new tax-payers did mostly get in return just the privilege of gaining protection from other rulers. The neighboring rulers were eager to collect more tax-payers to pay for the lavish life-style of the small ruling class. So, ordinary people paid for a army that was needed mostly to keep other tax-collectors away. The reality is that all armed forces of today are descendants of these thuggish mercenaries. These thugs fought other similar bands of mercenaries for the right to collect money from ordinary unarmed people in return of the favor of not killing them. It is quite understandable that the admirers of war and warfare do not want to dwell in these unpleasant facts. They like to speak even of these armies as they would have been on some kind of the mission for defense of a
'fatherland'. It is so easy to forget that these first city-states were as artificial, mental constructions. This is of course the case with most of the later states and nations until the rise of the modern nation-states based on a common language. Of course also nation-states are products of a human ideas and ideology, but sharing at least a common language gives a state much added credibility in our eyes. A nation state just feels much more real to us. It is not based on purely imaginary things as so many states were earlier in history. Quite abstract ideas like religion, crown or accidents of geography were used as means to divide the earth between different state-formations. It is also quite easy to forget that the main aim of Roman legions in spreading out through the Mediterranean was just large-scale robbery and plunder. Every new Roman conquest was always directed to areas which promised treasures to be robbed for the conquerors. Romans did fight also for their own survival too when they fought with the the Carthaginians or early Celts. They got much of their lands also as spoils of victories of these defensive wars. However, most of the Roman empire was built when individual leaders commissioned armies to rob and plunder fertile areas. Vast fortunes were amassed in this process, which also did bring large new areas under Roman control. In fact, even the medieval states were mostly just mechanisms for collecting protection money and keeping other protection-collectors away from one s turf. Ruling feudal groups did, however, collect more and more revenue by just robbing part of the price of the goods crossing their borders in a system that got to be called the 'customs'. The medieval states did carry little responsibility towards the people under their rule, but the ruled had the responsibility to pay in full for the upkeep of the armies that were used to keep them subjugated. The medieval wars were still fought for the right to tax new people or keeping neighboring rulers from taking neighboring rulers' old tax-payers away. For the people themselves the outcomes of these endless, quite unnecessary and pointless turf-wars was mostly quite insignificant, as mostly just the people who were collecting the taxes were replaced with new ones. Only in the modern times the idea of a state as a provider for its citizens did arise, also because the extraordinary rise in wealth did generate means for providing them. I would boldly claim that only in the modern nation states that were mostly based on common language (even if not always) the states gained real functions that benefited their subject and which differed from nation to nation so that there was real reasons for the population also to fight for their state. Before that there were also commercial interests at stake, but wars mostly were just about who would get the right to tax people living in a certain area. Philosopher Bertrand Russell did think that even the first World War was originally just about owning (and taxing) certain small areas of land, but it was not started to protect or further any kind of higher principles. Germany had a democratically elected parliament with a sizable social-democratic portion at that. Bertrand Russell suggest that if Germans would have beaten the French and Russians in the summer of 1914, not much would have changed in the world in the end. However, millions and millions of people would have not lost their lives in pointless slaughter in the trenches. Well educated and intelligent people think that keeping and paying for large armies is an unavoidable part of life, as the need to protect ones nation form unruly and aggressive neighbors is always there in the background. Extremely rarely anybody even thinks of the ways how one could cure or even tame the the unruliness and aggressiveness found in ones neighbors. It is as if there would be an international consensus for stating that it is impossible to stop wars and unruly and aggressive neighbors just always will be there.
There just might be so much vested interests in keeping up the war-machinery that the systems for keeping people from not doubting it has been perfected a long time ago. The claims that are used to justify this system are learned like religion in an early age. Many people never gain the ability to look at them critically, as is the case with religions also. Very few people dare even dream about universal mechanisms that would make the unruly and aggressive nations not to attack their neighbors. Now almost all nations use a large part of their income to upkeep large standing armies just because of the faint possibility that unruly and aggressive nations will emerge some day. At the same time most people are quite willing to discuss all the possible mean to curb violence inside the society, even if the violence between nations does cause much more sorrow and grief, when and if it is let loose.
(This piece was Grammarly-checked at 31.1.2012)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza "Baruch de Spinoza (November 24, 1632 February 21, 1677) was a Dutch Jewish philosopher. By laying the groundwork for the 18th century Enlightenment and modern biblical criticism, he came to be considered one of the great rationalists of 17th-century philosophy. His magnum opus, the posthumous Ethics, in which he opposed Descartes' mind body dualism, has earned him recognition as one of Western philosophy's most important contributors. Spinoza was raised in the Dutch Jewish community. In time he developed highly controversial ideas regarding the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible and the nature of the Divine. The Jewish religious authorities issued a cherem (a kind of excommunication) against him, effectively dismissing him from Jewish society at age 23. His books were also later put on the Catholic Church's Index of Forbidden Books."
by jaskaw @ 01.02.2012 - 00:25:23 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/01/31/baruch-spinoza-on-peace-as-a-virtue-12593282/
Feedback for Post "Baruch Spinoza on peace as a virtue"

atheistbruce pro 14.02.2012 @ 20:01 The majority pay taxes to maintain the security apparatus (police, judicial system, secret services & military) which ensures that the rich & powerful are protected from the envy of those paying taxes. Visitor [Visitor] 10.03.2012 @ 13:05 This piece was Grammarly-checked at 31.1.2012 but the last "lose" should read "loose" I guess | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 10.03.2012 @ 15:10 Corrected it!
Tenzin Gyatso (aka. Dalai Lama) on philosophy of kindness

This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.
- Tenzin Gyatso or the 14th Dalai Lama. Dalai Lama is his title in the religious organization. His real full name is Jetsun Jamphel Ngawang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso which is shortened normally into Tenzin Gyatso.
Happily this leader of the Tibetan Buddhist religion has renounced his true religious heritage; the merciless oppression of peasants to pay for the upkeep of a huge class of monks and compared with the size of Tibetan population immense number of monasteries. At its worst, there were over 6,000 monasteries in Tibet. That is the upside of having to be in exile; one can start building a clean slate. This change of heart can also mean a lot for the future of the whole of his ancient religion. This man has much stronger position in his religious organization than even the Pope has and his enlightened views can change the whole religion for the better. On the other hand the current Dalai Lama has been publicly speaking of leaving his official responsibilities. It just might be that the views expressed in the quote above are just a bit too much for the rank and file of the Tibetan Buddhist organizations. There are many sources in the Internet for more information on the Tibetan Religion: Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth, The Shadow Of The Dalai Lama, Sexuality, Magic, and Politics in Tibetan Buddhism Not only freedom: The dark ethnic side of the Tibetan Buddhist revolt Another View On Whether Tibetan Buddhism Is Working In The West Criticisms of Buddhism There is a cult of Tibetan Buddhism as something nice and somber, which is made much easier by the fact that most people have never heard of the true history of the Tibetan Buddhism. I'm afraid that many of those who will hear of it now will simply deny it. Many westerners have simply built quite fantastic ideas in their heads concerning the nature of Tibetan religion. Changing this ideal seems to be impossible for many people and all contrary evidence is simply discarded.
Tenzin Gyatso can now pick only the smartest things that are present in the core philosophy of Buddhism. It is, in fact, at its original form it is more of a school of philosophy quite like Epicureanism than any of the modern religions. Unfortunately most of all the Hindu tradition of supernatural has crept into Buddhism during the 2500 years of existing side by side in the same cultures. Buddhism is one of the finest of modern religions in it that it actually can co-exist with other religions, and do it peacefully. Buddhist are normally not at all as believing Christians, who are so often live in a simplistic world with a naive certainty of having found the only 'truth'. The following quote is reported as 'disputed' in Wikiquote; but I'd like it to be by Buddha, as this quote would rise him to the class of philosophers I respect the most; Epicurus and Marcus Aurelius, Bertrand Russell and Karl Popper:
"Believe nothing, O monks, merely because you have been told it or because it is traditional, or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide."
The fact that this quote exists does tell that at least some Buddhists do think as this quote suggests, and they have my true respect! This disputed Buddha-quote was reported in Life in March 7, 1955. It is, however, reported in the class of 'unverified' in Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations (1989).
by jaskaw @ 19.02.2012 - 18:18:16 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/02/19/tenzin-gyatso-aka-dalai-lama-on-philosophy-of-kindness-12827531/
Feedback for Post "Tenzin Gyatso (aka. Dalai Lama) on philosophy of kindness"
atheistbruce pro 19.02.2012 @ 18:48 You confirm what I had read earlier, that Tibet before the Chinese occupation was a brutal, oppressive theocracy. But I think this does not excuse the Chinese action? | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 19.02.2012 @ 18:52 No and NO!!! A old wrong does not make a new wrong right! Two wrongs do not make right; I thing it was George Orwell who said this... | Show subcomments atheistbruce pro 20.02.2012 @ 16:43 I think it was Richard Nixon who said: "If two wrongs don't make a right, then try three!"
jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 19.02.2012 @ 20:02 http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet "Religions have had a close relationship not only with violence but with economic exploitation. Indeed, it is often the economic exploitation that necessitates the violence. Such was the case with the Tibetan theocracy. Until 1959, when the Dalai Lama last presided over Tibet, most of the arable land was still organized into manorial estates worked by serfs. These estates were owned by two social groups: the rich secular landlords and the rich theocratic lamas. Even a writer sympathetic to the old order allows that a great deal of real estate belonged to the monasteries, and most of them amassed great riches. Much of the wealth was accumulated through active participation in trade, commerce, and money lending. 10 Drepung monastery was one of the biggest landowners in the world, with its 185 manors, 25,000 serfs, 300 great pastures, and 16,000 herdsmen. The wealth of the monasteries rested in the hands of small numbers of high-ranking lamas. Most ordinary monks lived modestly and had no direct access to great wealth. The Dalai Lama himself lived richly in the 1000-room, 14-story Potala Palace. 11 Secular leaders also did well. A notable example was the commander-in-chief of the Tibetan army, a member of the Dalai Lamas lay Cabinet, who owned 4,000 square kilometers of land and 3,500 serfs. 12 Old Tibet has been misrepresented by some Western admirers as a nation that required no police force because its people voluntarily observed the laws of karma. 13 In fact. it had a professional army, albeit a small one, that served mainly as a gendarmerie for the landlords to keep order, protect their property, and hunt down runaway serfs. Young Tibetan boys were regularly taken from their peasant families and brought into the monasteries to be trained as monks. Once there, they were bonded for life. Tash-Tsering, a monk, reports that it was common for peasant children to be sexually mistreated in the monasteries. He himself was a victim of repeated rape, beginning at age nine. 14 The monastic estates also conscripted children for lifelong servitude as domestics,
dance performers, and soldiers."
jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 19.02.2012 @ 20:03 http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet "As in a free labor system and unlike slavery, the overlords had no responsibility for the serfs maintenance and no direct interest in his or her survival as an expensive piece of property. The serfs had to support themselves. Yet as in a slave system, they were bound to their masters, guaranteeing a fixed and permanent workforce that could neither organize nor strike nor freely depart as might laborers in a market context. The overlords had the best of both worlds. One 22-year old woman, herself a runaway serf, reports: Pretty serf girls were usually taken by the owner as house servants and used as he wished; they were just slaves without rights.18 Serfs needed permission to go anywhere. Landowners had legal authority to capture those who tried to flee. One 24-year old runaway welcomed the Chinese intervention as a liberation. He testified that under serfdom he was subjected to incessant toil, hunger, and cold. After his third failed escape, he was merciless beaten by the landlords men until blood poured from his nose and mouth. They then poured alcohol and caustic soda on his wounds to increase the pain, he claimed."
jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 19.02.2012 @ 20:05 http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet "In 1959, Anna Louise Strong visited an exhibition of torture equipment that had been used by the Tibetan overlords. There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, gouging out eyes, breaking off hands, and hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disemboweling. The exhibition presented photographs and testimonies of victims who had been blinded or crippled or suffered amputations for thievery. There was the shepherd whose master owed him a reimbursement in yuan and wheat but refused to pay. So he took one of the masters cows; for this he had his hands severed. Another herdsman, who opposed having his wife taken from him by his lord, had his hands broken off. There were pictures of Communist activists with noses and upper lips cut off, and a woman who was raped and then had her nose sliced away."
atheistbruce pro 06.03.2012 @ 22:23 Just goes to prove how religion is the source of all moral authority...
Hundovir [Member] 08.03.2012 @ 11:12 The "disputed" quotation is actually from the "Kalama Sutta", part of the Pali Canon of Theravada Buddhism. (Angutarra Nikaya 3.65) It is as "authentic" as any other part of the Canon. (Wikiquote does actually reference it.) Of course, scholars debate to what extent these scriptures are "the actual words" of the Buddha. But they are not on the same level as many of the "new-agey" quotes attributed to him. Full text here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 08.03.2012 @ 11:20 Thanks for the info, Hundovir.
Oscar Wilde on language as the only feature that separates us from other animals
There is no mode of action, no form of emotion, that we do not share with the lower animals. It is only by language that we rise above them, or above each other---by language, which is the parent, and not the child, of thought.
Oscar Wilde in The Critic as Artist (1891), Part I.
My own thoughts on the issue of language: Words are commonly agreed descriptions of reality. Words can change quite summarily, but the reality is generally not changed by changes in these descriptions. Words are attached to things and ideas by humans. Of course, how we see reality can be changed by these descriptions that we call words. Changes in language can change the way we see things even in a major way. However, the reality remains unchanged by these changes in language, as long as we do not change our actual behavior because of these changes. Only our actions can change reality. Naturally, these actions are always based on how we see the world, and language plays a crucial role informing our view of reality. The individual perceptions or even a perception-chancing ideas that have overwhelming following on a national or international level do not change the reality or the way how the world actually is formed. Language is just a common agreement of how to describe things, actions and ideas. Not all members of a society need to agree to follow these agreements. However, just to be understood by others one needs to follow at least some of the rules that are often set by the preceding generations. People do invent new words. These new words can also become generally accepted, if they satisfy an existing need for a new word. If language does restrict the way I see the world, only my view of it is restricted, but the reality remains the unchanged for many others. This is true as long as I am not able to convince them that they should see the reality in similar restricted way as I do.
Distorting the view of reality with the use of language is quite possible. In fact, it is one of the methods of how the religions do work their 'miracles'. People can fool their senses. They can fool also others not to believe in their senses and to believe in, for example, fantastic supernatural ideas. Taking things to unneeded level of abstraction can make them strange and shadowy, when understanding reality can be quite simple.
Language is a city to the building of which every human being brought a stone.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson in Letters and Social Aims (1876)
by jaskaw @ 06.03.2012 - 21:07:50 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/03/06/oscar-wilde-on-language-as-13075800/
Feedback for Post "Oscar Wilde on language as the only feature that separates us from other animals"
atheistbruce pro 06.03.2012 @ 22:29 I love Oscar Wilde. He said so many clever things. One was used by the best man at my wedding: "A wife can be of great help to her husband in dealing with the problems he would never have had had he remained single." Jai [Visitor] 06.03.2012 @ 22:38 How about mathematics? Mathematics is the most perfect description of reality - it is as if it exists completely independent of human thought. The universe itself appears to be mathematical, and the fact that humans can 'tap into' that is something hugely significant and differentiating from animals. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 06.03.2012 @ 22:53 Mathematics does not describe anything as such. It is just a abstract tool that has to be applied to real world to achieve any results. Mathematics does not exist independent of humans, but it was wholly and totally invented by humans. The world of pure abstract numbers just has a logic of its own that does lead to same results every time. The whole fabric of theoretical mathematics, however, had to be invented by humans before they could use it. Also mathematics does lose it absolute nature every single moment when it is applied to real world objects, that are never absolutely perfect and unchanging, as is the abstract world of numbers where theoretical mathematics does operate. Jai [Visitor] 07.03.2012 @ 01:21 Mathematics describes every aspect of the physical world - it is truly a strange phenomenon that we humans, mere animals, can know these things. The physical world is built on mathematics - for some reason, we appear able to detect it. Mathematics - and, in a broader sense, all logic - is something that exists independently of human beings, perhaps in the world of Plato's forms. Most scientists and mathematicians are implicit Platonists. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 07.03.2012 @ 11:29 Mathematics is a descriptive language, Jari. It is a tool that is used to describe the basic structure of our universe. However, the thing is quite other way around than you say; mathematics can be used to describe the physical world, as the structure of the physical world does follow certain models, that are easiest to describe using mathematical models. Mathematical models are created by humans to describe things that do exist universally, but these mathematical models do not exist without humans, even if the things that they do try to describe with them do.
Most scientist are not and have never been Platonists and they don't care for this Greek and his basically very totalitarian ideology at all. Jai [Visitor] 07.03.2012 @ 01:36 How do we know that reason, logic, or mathematics is true? Only because it corresponds exactly to 'reality'. But how do we know reality is true? We do not. Jai [Visitor] 07.03.2012 @ 13:51 I do not mean that they are 'political' Platonists in the sense that they subscribe to the ideology of the Philosopher King etc, but in the sense that they, through their own logic, have come to the conclusion that the physical laws of the universe exist transcendently. They implicitly subscribe to his theory of forms, not his theory of government. I really suggest you read 'The Mind of God' by Paul Davies - it's mostly about the history of science and physics, but there is an excellent explanation of the transcendent existence of mathematics and logic. tall penguin [Visitor] http://www.tallpenguin.com 09.03.2012 @ 22:33 "Taking things to unneeded level of abstraction can make them strange and shadowy, when understanding reality can be quite simple." This. So much this. I've been spinning lately in deeper and deeper levels of abstraction and have forgotten about the simple basics of reality. Thanks for the reminder. Jennifer Hancock [Visitor] http://www.jen-hancock.com 18.03.2012 @ 16:35 The problem is that we now know that language is not what makes humans unique. Other animals are able to understand syntax and complex linguistic concepts. In fact, we've had to redefine what constitutes language several times because of how adept certain animals are an basic language skills. Additionally, there does not appear to be any advantage to linguistic ability that made it selected for. That is an assumption. I had a professor in college who postulated that what was actually selected for was a tertiary representation system and that language is epi-phenomenal to that. And we're pretty sure, other animals are capable of tertiary representational ability. Personally, I think understanding our humanity in the context of our inherent animalness is actually more inspiring than the idea that we are somehow special or apart from the rest of nature. We aren't. We are still pretty cool animals, but we are animals nonetheless. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 18.03.2012 @ 20:25 The USE of language is still unique to humans. Only humans do use language to share and most of all store ideas and inventions permanently. This is the fact that gives humans their advantage over other animals until they develop similar ability. The abilities that you referring to, Jennifer, are quite useless as independent phenomena, without the ability to
take also real advantage from them.
John Stuart Mill on silencing dissenting opinions

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
Some of my own ideas that were raised by the quote: A fatal and all too common mistake in life in general and most of all in all kinds of discussions is to suppose that others have access to the same information as we have. We all too often have the illusion that they will base their views on similar facts and ideas as we are. Unfortunately, this can happen quite automatically, as we will look at others through our own mind. The main yardstick that we will use to evaluate other people and their ideas are our own ideas and ourselves. However, this situation will often lead to the idea that other people are acting as they are because of some kind of willful distortion of the facts. This idea can be strong in one s mind. All too often the real reason is that they have been offered different set of facts on the issue at hand in the past. The human tendency to self-censure things that one does say or write about the ideas of one s friends will create dangerous echo-chambers for ideas. The real danger is that discussions that lack all dissent will amplify ideas until they become absurd or even dangerous. It is a natural tendency of all humans to enjoy consensus and see it as a normal situation. A person who disturbs consensus is all too easily seen as a nuisance. However, most of even all thing and ideas in life can be seen from different angles and in a different light. Dissident is one of the most important assets that an open society and democracy in general need to survive. Even the most benevolent and useful ideas can turn into monsters if they are left to grow for a too long time in
an echo-chamber that totally lacks any dissenting voices. The phenomena are most prevalent among the totalitarian ideologies. However, any idea or ideology can grow to grotesque forms if its followers do not allow any kind of critical voices to be heard.
by jaskaw @ 19.03.2012 - 23:26:44 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/03/19/john-stuart-mill-on-silencing-dissenting-opinions-13218125/
Feedback for Post "John Stuart Mill on silencing dissenting opinions"

Myrtle [Visitor] http://vimeo.com/39189456 12.04.2012 @ 11:18 Our Dharma Middle is on the busy route. The trainer (one of several Dalai Lama's monks) shows us how the outside noise is extremely helpful... when many of us FORGET it's there, when we do not attend into it at most, then we know that we have been properly emphasizing our meditation.
Epicurus on absolute justice

There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made in mutual dealings among men in whatever places at various times providing against the infliction or suffering of harm.
- Epicurus (Epicurean Principal Doctrine 33)
Morality is a property of the society. The accepted version of morality in use in a society is instilled to the individual members of the society through education at home and through the institutions like day-care and school. However, in modern societies the idea of accepted behavior (read: morality) is gained most of all through literature, television, movies and other media. Every single human society on earth needs to have and has a written or unwritten rulebook of allowed and not allowed behavior. We often call this necessary and mostly beneficial social need with the name of "morality". We also often are under an illusion that it comes from us and not from the needs of the society. This is so, because this illusion has been built with great vigor by very many people in the past, and this idea is now commonly believed. The basis for all morality in individual members of the society is the fear of being caught, as the Greek philosopher Epicurus already noted 2400 years ago. According to Epicurus a person can strive for tranquility and happiness only when he does not even secretly do things that society forbids. Epicurus also noted that unjust laws need to be changed, but also if and when the needs of the society do change. Unjust and outdated laws just cannot expected to be followed in the long run. However, according to many scientific findings all humans do have certain shared instinct for fairness and justice. Also, the other great apes have such universal traits. They are products of evolution. Having these feelings of justice and fairness have given a clear evolutionary edge to those groups of humans
who have shared things more fairly with others and have really cared for other members of the group. These universal feeling of fairness and justice are, however, often suppressed by society. This needs to happen if the society is based on unfair and unjust division of wealth like most of all the feudal societies were and still are. Religions have been often important tools in this process. The usage of religious 'morality' has often in the long past of humanity in practice meant the suppression of true human instincts of fairness and justice.
Never esteem anything as of advantage to you that will make you break your word or lose your self-respect."
I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."
- Bertrand Russell in "Why I Am Not a Christian" (1927)
by jaskaw @ 18.04.2012 - 14:51:49 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/04/18/epicurus-on-absolute-justice-13535905/
Feedback for Post "Epicurus on absolute justice"

abrham [Visitor] 18.04.2012 @ 15:02 i have been reading your blog for some time and must say i enjoy your insight even if i read it on the southern tip of africa Mary Griffis [Visitor] 18.04.2012 @ 18:59 If absolute justice is based on a majority vote then I am afraid we don't stand a chance because the world today as you can see is governed by greed. Greed is thriving that is why there is so many poor countries who can barely feed their people. So I disagree that there is such thing as absolute justice, it is a good thought but it is a naive notion. I do agree that the basis for morality is the fear of getting caught.. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 18.04.2012 @ 19:35 It has always been that way, dear Mary. Either the members of a non-elected ruling elite or democratically elected representatives have always decided the laws that are in use in a society and these laws in the end decide what kind of behavior is allowed and what is not allowed (or is deemed moral or immoral) in that particular society. Taghred [Visitor] 18.04.2012 @ 19:59 (Religions have been often important tools in this process. The usage of religious 'morality' has often in the long past of humanity in practice meant the suppression of true human instincts of fairness and justice.) I come from Arabia where religion has the upper hand. These few lines I quoted threw me in state of confusion. I agree that religion is used, at least where I come from, as a tool to suppress justice and fairness. However,I think that religion, by itself and regardless of how human are utilizing it, is helping in instilling moral instinctive values. I believe the problem is that people now are worshiping religions NOT God! Their form of worshiping is using it as a tool to suppress justice. Genuinely, religious morality and instinctive morality hold the same values! Why would religion, per se, suppresses something it calls to! My argument is that it's not religion! it's the way we perceive it and use that might lead to suppressing justice! Or do you mean that why would we have a religious morality since we are instinctively moral? Thanks for this provoking blog. annia [Visitor] 19.04.2012 @ 10:48 It is true that human beings do have, to a certain level, a shared instinct for fairness and justice. From my understanding and observation, human beings possess the quality of selfishness and greediness ... and it is
these qualities that are clouding our sense of morality every now and then. Every religion has its virtue and flaw ... but the fundamental issue is not about religion alone, but it is rather about the fact that religion is being utilized to fulfill the agendas/interests of the few. Thanks for sharing an insightful article!
Eric Hoffer on being rich without depriving others

The real "haves" are they who can acquire freedom, self-confidence, and even riches without depriving others of them. They acquire all of these by developing and applying their potentialities. On the other hand, the real "have nots" are they who cannot have aught except by depriving others of it. They can feel free only by diminishing the freedom of others, self-confident by spreading fear and dependence among others, and rich by making others poor."
- Eric Hoffer in The Passionate State Of Mind, and Other Aphorisms (1955)
My own ideas on the quote: I fear that I need to go to a more personal level this time than has been my habit in commenting these great quotes of the past. I simply feel this quote very deeply, as I have never enjoyed direct competition in any form. In fact, I have always shied away from it. However, I have always got immense pleasure from learning something that I have not known before. I have always really liked only competing with myself. I must have a strange inverted psyche, but I really have never got any pleasure from defeating somebody else in an open competition. This must be also because of my very deep inner insecurity. However, I am also cursed with a overblown sense of empathy. This defect of character does all too often force me to think how the defeated would feel, and I just can't help it. My solution has always been to avoid direct competition as long as it is possible. However, I have had no trouble for example in competing for a place in university or for a job. In these instances my situation is made much easier when I do not know the other people in the competition. The situation is made much easier by the fact that I never get even to see the ones who did not get to the university or did not get the job because of me. However, I have never competed in sports or sought promotion in workplace. There has always been people
that I know who have been interested in the same job. So, the lack of a competitive urge in a person is not without negative consequences. On the other hand, being a little boss a bit further up in the organization would not have been my thing, after all, I think. On a more general level, I think that my personal example does show that not all humans are competitive animals. This is true, even if we are quite universally led to believe that joy of defeating other people in competition is a thing we all just thirst to do. Naturally, this claim will be true for many people. However, nobody really knows how much of this desire is learned during the long of years of competitive indoctrination in school and many kinds of playing-fields. People who learn us to be competitive seemingly think that they are doing us a major service when they succeed in diminishing our empathy for the losers and in creating worship of the winners. Even this just might not be a universal truth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hoffer "Eric Hoffer (July 25, 1902 May 21, 1983) was an American social writer. He was the author of ten books and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in February 1983. His first book, The True Believer, published in 1951, was widely recognized as a classic, receiving critical acclaim from both scholars and laymen, although Hoffer believed that his book The Ordeal of Change was his finest work. In 2001, the Eric Hoffer Award was established in his honor with permission granted by the Eric Hoffer Estate in 2005."
by jaskaw @ 29.04.2012 - 20:49:52 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/04/29/eric-hoffer-on-being-rich-without-depriving-others-13595703/
Bertrand Russell on reason, faith and persecution

If you think that your belief is based upon reason, you will support it by argument, rather then by persecution, and will abandon it if the argument goes against you. But if your belief is based on faith, you will realize that argument is useless, and will therefore resort to force either in the form of persecution or by stunting and distorting the minds of the young in what is called "education". This last is particularly dastardly, since it takes advantage of the defencelessness of immature minds. Unfortunately it is practiced in greater or less degree in the schools of every civilised country.
- Bertrand Russell in Human Society in Ethics and Politics (1954)
I would like to add to this fantastic quote that to be really able to speak out freely a writer should be able to forget for the brief moment of writing that one has friends or relatives. As soon as one starts to think how somebody else would react to the ideas, a writer is not able to speak freely anymore. This kind of self-induced censorship can be even one of the main reasons why people like Bertrand Russell are so rare. It is not because his level of intellect would be impossible to achieve, even if also it is undoubtedly a major challenge. Of course, what ones bosses or co-workers will think is also one of the most important sources for self-censorship for all of us who are not self-employed. Being a freelance-writer like Bertrand Russell was in his later years allows much more freedom to most people. However, even there is always the wishes of the publisher and the buyers of books to be considered. If one takes this idea to the utmost, one sees that a really free thinker and writer must be a person who does not write for money or even fame, but who just writes of what he or she really thinks. A fine example of this is Marcus Aurelius, who s book Meditations' was found among his belongings only after his death. In our own age, getting ones thoughts to many others to read is easier than it has ever been in human history. This is thanks to blogs and all the other channels for self-publishing that are offered by the Internet. Of course, there are masses of rubbish published in the net. However, there is also a lot of great and fresh thinking that we would perhaps never have or know of, if these new methods for self-publishing with even for no cost would not be available. It is true, that the subconscious part of our mind will never be completely free. We will undoubtedly take into consideration what others think of us on the subconscious level, even if we try to be as free as possible on a conscious level. However, even trying to be more free will undoubtedly result in freer way of thinking than not even trying. https://www.facebook.com/russellbertie
by jaskaw @ 07.05.2012 - 22:08:30 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/05/07/bertrand-russell-on-reason-faith-and-persecution-13642756/
Will Durant on present as merely the past rolled up and concentrated

"It is a mistake to think that the past is dead. Nothing that has ever happened is quite without influence at this moment. The present is merely the past rolled up and concentrated in this second of time. You, too, are your past; often your face is your autobiography; you are what you are because of what you have been; because of your heredity stretching back into forgotten generations; because of every element of environment that has affected you, every man or woman that has met you, every book that you have read, every experience that you have had; all these are accumulated in your memory, your body, your character, your soul. So with a city, a country, and a race; it is its past, and cannot be understood without it."
- Will Durant as quoted in "The Gentle Philosopher" (2006) by John Little at the Will Durant Foundation
One of my biggest sorrows has always been to notice how so many people disregard and disrespect history. All too many people seem to live in on the environment where there is no real past and no future; just the present. The biggest danger here is how this kind of thinking can lead into missing the idea of change. However, I think that if a person is unable to understand change, he becomes unable to judge so very many things that do happen around him or her. The most important thing is that if one does not understand that people really can and do change, a major portion of human resources can go to waste. Then people can end judging other people on grounds of what they once were, but not based on what they really are now. One thing that really irritates me personally is the quickness of how some people dismiss even first class thinkers and writers over trivial matters. They can do this just because they have at some point of their life thought and written something thing later turns out to be foolish or silly. A person s whole lifework does not turn into nothing simply because he or she does something that at a later time point is deemed as silly or wrong. The thing is more so if the thing that makes a person susceptible at our eyes has been socially accepted at that time. However, for me the main point Will Durant does make here is that we are living on a top of an iceberg. We normally just can see the part that is over the water. The real mass of an iceberg is always under water, and it can take time and effort to see what is hidden there. We cannot project how the iceberg will behave in the future without knowing the sunken part of it. Similarly, trying to foretell the future without knowing the past is a doomed adventure. Our knowledge has expanded incredibly especially during the last hundred years. The massive influx of new information has had also had negative effects. There clearly are people for whom all this is just too much. One way to avoid being buried under the mass of new information is simply to reject it and its worth. The rise of radical conservatism and radical religiousness can also be seen as reactions to the immense rise of our knowledge. People see new information also as a threat to traditional values. However, I fear that simply the requirement to understand immensely complex new ideas and scientific theories can lead to a backlash, where people just reject new information out of hand. Sticking to the bronze-age religious ideas just does make life so much easier for many people in this respect. It just does give them a respectable reason to reject the influx of new information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Durant "William James Durant (November 5, 1885 November 7, 1981) was a prolific American writer, historian, and philosopher. He is best known for The Story of Civilization, 11 volumes written in collaboration with his wife Ariel Durant and published between 1935 and 1975. He was earlier noted for The Story of Philosophy, written in 1926, which one observer described as "a groundbreaking work that helped to popularize philosophy."
by jaskaw @ 13.05.2012 - 23:14:07
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/05/13/will-durant-on-present-as-merely-the-past-rolled-up-and-concentrated-1367345
Bertrand Russell on human race as one family

For love of domination we must substitute equality; for love of victory we must substitute justice; for brutality we must substitute intelligence; for competition we must substitute co-operation. We must learn to think of the human race as one family."
- Bertrand Russell in the "New Internationalist Magazine"
My own ideas on the quote: I can only add to this wonderful quote the idea that I do not think that competition is the only or even major force that has driven humanity and progress especially in the field of science. With whom did Newton or Einstein compete when they did their findings? I think, in fact, that they were driven by intellectual curiosity and most of all their inner need to understand and know more. They were not competing with any other people, but with just their former selves. The need to improve one's thinking and mind is not dependent on competition with others. I even think that the need and will to improve oneself is one of the greatest forces that have driven mankind forward. Pure intellectual curiosity and the need to understand more have been the biggest motivators of all great minds, I think. The rewards in the form of money or fame have been secondary in all really big innovations, even if industry-level small-scale innovation can be motivated with them also. http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie
by jaskaw @ 17.05.2012 - 13:36:53 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/05/17/bertrand-russell-on-human-race-as-one-family-13695378/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on human race as one family"

Tom Campbell [Visitor] 17.05.2012 @ 13:58 Competition is fine in sports but should not be applied to other human endeavors. Russel encapsulates the human aspiration to co-operation rather than competition in this quote. I would add one of Peit Hein's 'grooks' to this debate: 'Evolution, always seeking after something good, reversion always dragging evolution in the mud!' T.
Robert G. Ingersoll on the freedom of speech

I am a believer in liberty. That is my religion to give to every other human being every right that I claim for myself, and I grant to every other human being, not the right because it is his right but instead of granting I declare that it is his right, to attack every doctrine that I maintain, to answer every argument that I may urge in other words, he must have absolute freedom of speech."'
- Robert G. Ingersoll, at the trial of C.B. Reynolds for blasphemy (May 1887.
Some of my own current thoughts on the issue of freedom of thought: A really free person should be able to value ideas and actions on their own real merits and not just based on how they fit into a ready-made ideology a person already has. This kind of state is naturally immensely difficult or even impossible to fully achieve. However, at least understanding the dilemma and setting freedom of one's own thought as a real goal can give immense rewards, I think. Every person does have a basic view of how the world should be. However, it will inevitably change when life goes on. Thankfully, very often a person will see more and more shades of grey also when time passes, I hope. A real-world problem is that if you don't fully subscribe to any ideology, you will very easily left out in the cold by followers of all ideologies. So, a real search for a freedom of thought will be a lonely journey, I'm afraid. I am not speaking about morality here. Morality is always based on human opinions and needs of the current society and sometimes even very ancient human opinions. However, this is not the point here. The point is the ability to break free from any ideology that has stored ready-made, pre-programmed standard answers to your own brain. This is extremely difficult task, and a very basic level of response comes always from the gut (or level 1 reasoning according to Daniel Kahneman). However, I think that even noticing how ready-made ideologies can affect your own thinking is a major step forward if one wants to evaluate the world as it really is. Naturally, even the grand majority of people do not want to do it. The ready-made ideologies do offer safe-heavens, where one is spared from the heavy task of taking a stand and analyzing things by oneself. I do not say that is a bad thing at all. Life just is too short to find out everything and people do have different kinds of goals in life. Short-cuts do just make ones life so much easier.
On the other hand, people who gather around ideologies do initiate real changes in society. Ideologies have immense value as initiators and tools for political and social activity. However, I think that people who are seriously interested in how human societies and universe do really work need to be aware of the danger of ending up as a mouth-piece for a ready-made ideology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll "Robert Green "Bob" Ingersoll (August 11, 1833 July 21, 1899) was a Civil War veteran, American political leader, and orator during the Golden Age of Freethought, noted for his broad range of culture and his defense of agnosticism."
by jaskaw @ 28.05.2012 - 16:29:46 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/05/28/robert-g-ingersoll-on-the-freedom-of-speech-13761910/
Marcus Aurelius on achieving happiness by doing

The happiness and unhappiness of the rational, social animal depends, not on what he feels but on what he does; just as his virtue and vice consist not in feeling but in doing.
Some of my own ideas on the subject of happiness. Unhappiness is normally a result of conflict between your expectations and reality. To achieve happiness you need to adjust either your expectations or the reality. Your choice normally depends on which one is the easiest thing to do in a particular case. However, if you choose not even try to do anything the state of unhappiness will too often just continue unresolved. By adjusting reality I mean things like chancing your job, taking up an interesting hobby or in general things and actions that will change things in your environment (or in other words reality) that can make you unhappy and which you can change by yourself. There are naturally a lot of things that you cannot change. There are always these two options and the other is always to lower one's expectations when they are unrealistic. This can happen if you, for example, feel yourself unhappy because you can't travel to faraway places, buy a bigger house or a more expensive car. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius "Marcus Aurelius (Latin: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus (26 April 121 17 March 180 AD), was Roman Emperor from 161 to 180 AD. He ruled with Lucius Verus as co-emperor from 161 until Verus' death in 169. He was the last of the "Five Good Emperors", and is also considered one of the most important Stoic philosophers." Marcus Aurelius also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/aureliusphilosopher
by jaskaw @ 03.06.2012 - 10:04:46 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/06/03/marcus-aurelius-on-achieving-happiness-by-doing-13796609/
Arthur Schopenhauer on free will

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.
- Arthur Schopenhauer in "On The Freedom Of The Will (1839).
My own ideas on the quote: I personally understand this marvelous sentence by Arthur Schopenhauer as explaining that we have a free will to a limited degree. We are driven but also restrained by our instincts, and most of all by the existing customs and codes of morality that are current in our part of society. These customs and codes of morality that will tie down an indivdiual free need not be the ruling ones. An ethnic, political or religious minority does very often create even more binding and even suffocating frameworks of allowed and forbidden actions than a ruling set of ideas does. We are normally really free to choose only the things which are available within this framework. It really depends on your definition of 'free' when you think that somebody has a free will or not on a given situation. There just is no absolute truth for even this problem. A person can have a definite freedom of will in some question and issues and lesser or no freedom of action in some others at the same time. I have a little string-theory of my own that is based on the idea that we have countless of little mental "strings". They are attached constantly to every individual when they live their lives. Some new ones will add up and some others will be lost during the whole duration of our lives. They may pull the person to also different directions. However, the sum of the forces of these "strings" largely decides what we will decide to want, as Arthur Schopenhauer says. In the end, it all boils down to the question of what we want to 'will' and from where these ideas do originate. On the other hand, philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote in his 'Meditations' this:
The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it."
I think that we can break free from some of the models of thought that will always try to tie down our thinking. As humans are most of all social animals no person will ever have a completely free will, even if a person can create an perfect illusion of having one. We can still at least strive for more intellectual freedom. However, this can happen only after we understand the limits for exercising free will that a human society will always set. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schopenhauer "Arthur Schopenhauer (22 February 1788 21 September 1860) was a German philosopher known for his pessimism and philosophical clarity. At age 25, he published his doctoral dissertation, On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which examined the four separate manifestations of reason in the phenomenal world. Schopenhauer's most influential work, The World as Will and Representation, claimed that the world is fundamentally what humans recognize in themselves as their will. His analysis of will led him to the conclusion that emotional, physical, and sexual desires can never be fully satisfied."
by jaskaw @ 05.06.2012 - 23:57:21 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/06/05/arthur-schopenhauer-on-free-will-13811785/
Feedback for Post "Arthur Schopenhauer on free will"

Tom Hershberger [Visitor] 06.06.2012 @ 01:29 Looks good.
Bertrand Russell on prejudices and thinking

"We all have a tendency to think that the world must conform to our prejudices. The opposite view involves some effort of thought, and most people would die sooner than think in fact they do so."
- Bertrand Russell in "The ABC of Relativity" (1925), p. 166
My own thoughts on the issue: The biological and most of all cultural evolution of humans has created so complex and varied subject that not one or ten or even twenty of the greatest existing explanations can wholly explain why humans and human societies are what they are. Most of all, no single explanation can wholly explain why humans will want humans and human societies to be in a certain way. A very basic thing is that what humans are and what they would want to be are two different questions altogether. We just so easily see things be as we would so much want them to be. Making us realize this will just make us angry. The world that would be as would like it to be just is so often much more to our liking than the world as it is. So often, it would all too painful to give up the illusion that we have nurtured and cherished often for a very long time. Therefore, we keep constantly finding support for our own illusions and rejecting all contrasting evidence. The other big problem with humans is that we seem to have an inner need to gain some kind absolute knowledge. We just cannot accept the fact such thing just do not exist in very many things. An unpleasant fact is that we so often have big trouble living with uncertainty. We easily accept explanations that seem to offer great certainty on the surface, but so often are just one way for looking at things. There can be fine, forceful, and beautiful explanations. However, very often other explanations can offer more but different insight to the same issue when it is just seen from a bit different angle. We(and this group naturally includes the writer of this piece) just do not have the nerve to accept the simple fact there just is no single ultimate answer to even most of the complex question that can bother us. We all are unable for some degree to face the fact that most questions that concern the nature and development of humans and human societies are bound to be extremely complex and will always remain without a single, definite, final answer, when things do also continue to change and evolve. There just will so often perhaps never be a single answer that will explain the big questions wholly. This is an extremely difficult thing to accept. We all are after all just humans. As humans, we will quite inevitably so often fall in love with beautiful and final-sounding explanations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS (18 May 1872 2 February 1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic. He is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy along with his predecessor Gottlob Frege and his friend Ludwig Wittgenstein, and is widely held to be one of the 20th century's premier logicians. Russell was a prominent anti-war activist; he championed anti-imperialism and went to prison for his pacifism during World War I. Later, he campaigned against Adolf Hitler, then criticised Stalinist totalitarianism, attacked the United States of America's involvement in the Vietnam War, and was an outspoken proponent of nuclear disarmament." Bertrand Russell in Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie
by jaskaw @ 08.06.2012 - 11:31:49 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/06/08/bertrand-russell-on-prejudices-and-thinking-13827390/
Rubn Blades on dying of ignorance

I think we risk becoming the best informed society that has ever died of ignorance.
- Rubn Blades, in a conference at Harvard University (1993)
Some of my own thoughts on the subject: Human society is like a deep sea. Just a tiny part of it is visible on the surface. Even when it is high winds and massive waves at the top, there can be great calm all over in the deep recesses of this sea. As in a sea the winds on the surface can go to one direction while the deep currents deep under go unhindered to another direction. They can have flown for centuries quite unshaken by the changes of the winds on the surface. As in research of seas is done from mainly from the surface, so is the research of society. The direction of the prevailing winds is well known and often even predictable, but we still know surprisingly little of the deep currents. However, these currents do inthe end keep the whole system going on century after century. These deep currents change so slowly that their changes can be passed over quite unnoticed, but when they do break to the surface, they can have devastating effect. The problem is that the deepest changes are too slow to be noticed in the endless stream of information that does drown us daily. This onslaught can make us gasp for air after a day of being bombarded by violent things that are news because they so often just are so rare, not because they would be in any way important to us personally. In this endless bombardment, it is very difficult to pause and look around to search for the really important things. We may not even notice how the way we see other humans does change in this bombardment of meaningless violence. This thought comes to my mind sometimes: Who benefits from the fact that we are losing our trust and faith in other humans when we are subjected to constant and endless stream of violent images. This so often happens even if in our immediate neighborhood there can be nothing to be really afraid of. I do not have any answers, as I am not a follower of conspiracy theories. I m just afraid that humankind has a bad record of going carried away with the trade winds as long as the going is good. Humans can just go on forever without ever realizing what they are doing to themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_Blades
"Rubn Blades Bellido de Luna (Spanish pronunciation: [ ruen blez] born July 16, 1948) is a Panamanian salsa singer, songwriter, actor, Latin jazz musician, and activist. He holds a law degree from the University of Panama and a master's in international law from Harvard University. He managed to attract 18% of the vote in his attempt to win the Panamanian presidency in 1994. In September 2004, he was appointed minister of tourism by Panamanian president Martn Torrijos for a five-year term."
by jaskaw @ 08.06.2012 - 22:01:23 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/06/08/ruben-blades-on-dying-of-ignorance-13831073/
Feedback for Post "Rubn Blades on dying of ignorance"

tom merle [Visitor] http://www. cultureplaces. blogspot.com 09.06.2012 @ 01:22 He is also married to one of the great though unknown singers and actresses in the US of A, Luba Mason (from Long Island, NY--aint the global society wonderful). Here's a cut that they both sing on, taking one of the best known Irish songs and giving it a latin treatment.First the studio: http://youtu.be/cfj0XFz9Iv4 . then live. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0syM-DovJME Feel the emotion.
Kurt Vonnegut on behaving decently

"I am a humanist, which mean, in part, that I have tried to behave decently without any expectation of rewards or punishments after I'm dead. My German-American ancestors, the earliest of whom settled in our Middle West about the time of our Civil War, called themselves "Freethinkers," which is the same sort of thing. My great grandfather Clemens Vonnegut wrote, for example, "If what Jesus said was good, what can it matter whether he was God or not?"
- Kurt Vonnegut, in God Bless You, Dr. Kevorkian (1999)
Some of my own recent ideas on humanism: If we take an analogy from the world of computers, humanism is an antivirus-program. It is not an operating system like religions, who want to decide what other programs are allowed into the system. However, humanism will check and prevent hate-inducing, fear-mongering and abuse-inducing programs (ideas) from taking over the system. A humanist is free to use any other programs (ideas) that he on she sees fit. Humanism does not take away a person s freedom of choice. Accepting a humanistic basic attitude will, however, normally make a person reject violence and coercion as tools for advancing his or her personal interest or ideas. The basic ideas of humanism are a deeply buried respect for all humans and the idea of striving for a basic human equality. This is done in full knowledge of the fact that not all things that humans do not deserve respect and that humans have never been and will never be fully equal. A humanist just does think that acting humanely also towards those that we do not like or respect is our duty as humans. A true humanist will think that treating all people humanely will be paid back with dividends in the long run. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Vonnegut "Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. ( / v n t/; November 11, 1922 April 11, 2007) was a 20th-century American writer. His works such as Cat's Cradle (1963), Slaughterhouse-Five (1969), and Breakfast of Champions (1973) blend satire, gallows humor, and science fiction. As a citizen he was a lifelong supporter of the American Civil Liberties Union and a critical leftist intellectual. He was known for his humanist beliefs and was honorary president of the American Humanist Association." Kurt Vonnegut in Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/vonnegutwriter
by jaskaw @ 09.06.2012 - 18:31:13 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/06/09/kurt-vonnegut-on-behaving-decently-13835235/
Frank Herbert on worshiping life

"If you need something to worship, then worship life it! We're all in this beauty together!" all life, every last crawling bit of
- Frank Herbert in "Dune Messiah" (1969)
My own ideas on the issue: One of the things that bother me is how some people think that animals are just made to think and act like humans when we say that an animal is jealous or shy or reclusive. There is a fundamental misconception here; we share all (or at least all the very basic ones) of our basic emotions with other animals. Emotions are not something that humans need to teach to animals. Emotions are things that are shared by all animals that have passed beyond certain evolutionary level. We have these feelings and emotions because we too are animals and not the other way around. Of course, the extremely strong cultural evolution that originated from the invention of speech has molded the ways how humans handle and show and most of all control their emotions to a degree that is unknown in other species of animals. However, the very basic emotions have been developed by evolution during the hundreds of millions of years of development that has produced the species of animals that roam at the face of the earth at this moment. All emotions do serve a species in a very basic level. They help us cope with different kinds of situations and they keep us doing different things that will benefit us and the whole the species. Most of all in the long run they drive us to do things that emotionless animals would not even dream of doing. Emotions are sometimes seen as a disgusting animal-like force in otherwise rational humans. However, there is a very rational reason for the existence of every single emotion that we have. The problem is that emotions are also misused in ways that were unimaginable before the invention of language. Emotions are often used to make people do irrational things. This is, however, not a problem with emotions, but with the people who knowingly misuse them. Animals do have emotions and the more evolved an animal is the more like human emotions these emotions
tend to be. In the special case of dogs, there has been for many thousands of years a strong evolutionary pressure of selecting into breeding of those dogs who best in understanding human emotions. However, the fact that a dog can so well interpret human emotions is based on the simple fact it has quite similar basic emotions. The intensive breeding has just intensified this ability and now dog is a breed of animals that can read and understand human emotions better than any other breed of animals, I think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_herbert "Franklin Patrick Herbert, Jr. (October 8, 1920 February 11, 1986) was a critically acclaimed and commercially successful American science fiction author. Though also a short story author, he is best known for his novels,most notably Dune and its five sequels. The Dune saga, set in the distant future and taking place over millennia, deals with themes such as human survival and evolution, ecology, and the intersection of religion, politics and power. Dune itself is the "best-selling science fiction novel of all time," and the series is widely considered to be among the classics in the genre."
by jaskaw @ 10.06.2012 - 23:04:15 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/06/10/frank-herbert-on-worshiping-life-13839916/
Ursula K. Le Guin on the nature of ideas

"It is of the nature of idea to be communicated: written, spoken, done. The idea is like grass. It craves light, likes crowds, thrives on crossbreeding, grows better for being stepped on."
- Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed (1974), Ch. 3
Some of my own current thoughts on the subject of discussing ideas: There is a crucial difference between physical attack and a mental aggression. You normally just must respond to a physical attack, but a mental aggression can be often best be foiled by just ignoring it. In fact, all too often you will gain absolutely nothing if you are drawn into a meaningless battle of words with a troll, who likes nothing more than make other people angry. If they get no response, they will just fade away, as a troll lives and thrives on the anger of others. However, the chance to have a real and honest discussion with a person who just has a different set of ideas than you is a completely different matter altogether. It is a chance that one just must never miss. The chance of testing your ideas against a different kind of mind is an extremely valuable asset, if you ever want to develop them further. The difficulty, of course, is how to see when the other party is just out to search and destroy and when he is out to test his or her own ideas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_K._Le_Guin "Ursula Kroeber Le Guin ( / rs l kro b r l w n/; born October 21, 1929) is an American author of novels, children's books, and short stories, mainly in the genres of fantasy and science fiction. She has also written poetry and essays. First published in the 1960s, her work explores alternative imaginings of sexuality, religion, politics, anarchism, ethnography, and gender. She is influenced by central figures of Western literature, including feminist writers like Virginia Woolf, and also by modern fantasy and science fiction writers, Norse mythology, and books from the Eastern tradition such as the Tao Te Ching. She has won various awards, including the Hugo, Nebula, Locus, and World Fantasy Award multiple times."
by jaskaw @ 14.06.2012 - 14:16:46 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/06/14/ursula-k-le-guin-on-the-nature-of-ideas-13872599/
Howard H. Aiken on stealing ideas

Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats."
- Howard H. Aiken, as quoted in Portraits in Silicon (1987) by Robert Slater
Some of my own recent thoughts on the issue of ideas: Radically new ideas are the most difficult things there are to sell. One of the main reasons for it can be that when one just goes along with the old ideas people need really not know what they are and mean. To accept a radically new idea one needs know the field in question well. Most people just have the nagging fear that they do not know enough to step out of the crowd. On the other hand, we tend to think that other people know more than we. Most people also tend to hide away their lack of knowledge as well as they can. That can create a situation where most people think that others know more than they. Consequently, by just going in with the crowd people can best hide away their perceived lack of knowledge that can, in fact, be quite illusory at times. However, I think that one of the most personally liberating things a person can say is: "I do not know". Only after one is able to say this you can really learn from others. I know that it is very, very difficult, but I well remember the feeling of liberation which I did feel after I realized that I cannot and need not know everything. After that, I could concentrate just on the things that felt important to me personally. Before that, I had just accumulated knowledge, but now I could put it also into good use as a base for ideas of my own. I just fear that there are shortcuts for reaching this point. I fear that it can be reached just by living a life that shows you the limits but also the strong points in your knowledge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_H._Aiken "Howard Hathaway Aiken (March 8, 1900 March 14, 1973) was a pioneer in computing, being the original conceptual designer behind IBM's Harvard Mark I computer."
by jaskaw @ 16.06.2012 - 12:13:46 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/06/16/howard-h-aiken-on-stealing-ideas-13883977/
Author's friends
marjuski.blogs.fi
marjuski
GratisCogito
marjaliisa.blogs.fi
marjaliisa
grahnlaw.blogs.fi
Grahnlaw
About the author

Pageviews
Monthly history Month May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 Total Pageviews 9609 13152 10641 8587 11440 Total Visitors 5560 5974 5440 5219 6708

Little Book 2009-2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Little Book 2009-2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Table of Contents

A Little Book for Humanity

Epicurus on the unnecessary fear of death

fondly. (This piece was reworked on 24th of August, 2011)

by jaskaw @ 29.11.2009 - 20:48:53 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/epicurus-on-death-7480720/

Marcus Aurelius on bearing misfortune

by jaskaw @ 29.11.2009 - 20:50:21 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/marcus-aurelius-on-misfortune-7480732/

Marcus Aurelius on the unnecessary fear of the future

My own ideas on the quote:

by jaskaw @ 29.11.2009 - 20:51:44 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/marcus-aurelius-on-future-7480741/

Epicurus on making the future better than the past

My own ideas on the quote:

by jaskaw @ 29.11.2009 - 20:58:03 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/epicurus-on-the-roads-end-7480793/

Marcus Aurelius on rejecting the sense of injury

(This piece was completely refurbished on 28th of August, 2011)

Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on rejecting the sense of injury"

Epicurus on the limits of pleasure

- Epicurus (Principal Doctrine number 3)

by jaskaw @ 29.11.2009 - 21:25:34 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/epicurus-on-pleasure-7480956/

by jaskaw @ 29.11.2009 - 22:10:40 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/epicurus-on-overindulgence-7481220/

Bertrand Russell on pursuit of a vision

- Bertrand Russell in "The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell" (1967)

Marcus Aurelius on harmony and universe

- Marcus Aurelius in ' Meditations'

by jaskaw @ 30.11.2009 - 20:08:42 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/30/marcus-aurelius-on-universe-7486124/

Marcus Aurelius on the privilege of being alive

- Marcus Aurelius in 'Meditations'

Marcus Aurelius on imperfect humans

- Marcus Aurelius in "Meditations"

Marcus Aurelius on fountain of good

- Marcus Aurelius in 'Meditations'

Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on fountain of good"

Bertrand Russell on dogma and evidence

- Bertrand Russell in "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?" (1954)

Oscar Wilde on pure and simple truth

the early 1890s." by jaskaw @ 01.12.2009 - 23:08:53 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/oscar-wilde-on-truth-7493601/

Feedback for Post "Oscar Wilde on pure and simple truth"

Robert G. Ingersoll on intellectual honesty

- Robert G. Ingersoll in "Superstition" (1898)

Feedback for Post "Robert G. Ingersoll on intellectual honesty "

Bertrand Russell on values and science

Hippocrates on the difference between opinions and science

- Hippocrates (460 BC - 377 BC) in "Law"

Bertrand Russell on the mistakes of Aristotle

- Bertrand Russell in "The Impact of Science on Society" (1951)

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on the mistakes of Aristotle "

Marcus Aurelius on living among lying men

- Marcus Aurelius in 'Meditations'

My own ideas on the quote:

Bertrand Russell on the interdependence of humankind

by jaskaw @ 03.12.2009 - 23:19:37 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/03/bertrand-russell-on-interdependency-of-humankind-7506326/

Bertrand Russell on preoccupation with possessions

- Bertrand Russell in "Principles of Social Reconstruction" (1917)

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on preoccupation with possessions"

Bertrand Russell on free intellect and fanaticism

- Bertrand Russell in "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism" (1920)

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on free intellect and fanaticism"

Marcus Aurelius on living well

- Marcus Aurelius in 'Meditations'

Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on living well"

Marcus Aurelius on nature and humans

- Marcus Aurelius in 'Meditations'

George Orwell on the difference between patriotism and nationalism