Nostalgia & Sickness

I've noticed in my actions a tendency to provoke awkwardness. Perhaps more worthy of concern is the fact that I rather enjoy the very awkward moments that tend to be produced. For example, a couple of weeks ago I found myself sitting next to my flatmate's mother in a church. Two options present themselves. I can smile nicely and say pleasant things, thus forming a life long friendship with this insane woman. On the other hand, I can attempt to deny that I know her and her sons in the hope that she will not recognise me. I went with denying everything. It is unusual to say that you do not know yourself by proxy. It worked well, until after the service she came up to me and pointed out that we did know each other.... *awkward* However, given the lack of phone calls I have consequently received from her, I guess my behaviour must have paid of. Anyway, the point is that whilst this was happening, I found it quite exhilarating.

An attempt at some sort of self-explanation: I was rather unfortunately inspired by The Idiots. Dating an american tends to be an exercise in having embarrassingly personal conversations loudly in public places. I might not talk about girls I would like to sleep with in front of my nana, but I wouldn't think twice on a bus. And, I guess a final sort of explanation would be my realisation of how very retarded most social etiquette and convention truly is. Does anyone know if there is a name for this condition? And does anyone else feel nostalgia for their childhood when they're sick?

Trinity of the Philosopher's God

Truth - Epistemology
Beauty - Aesthetics
Good - Ethics

Three separate and distinct entities, or just differing aspects of a unified entity?

The Ethics of Indifference

Most ethics are normative, all telling you what you should and should not do, often highlighting that fact what you are doing is wrong or evil. *yawn* Some ethics are descriptive, more of an account of how people reason about moral situations. The ethics of indifference theory is like the latter type, but with the twist that it points out that most people don’t reason about moral situations.

Most people behave in pretty much morally acceptable ways. We don’t lie constantly, we don’t cheat on our partners, we don’t steal, we don’t kill people and stuff… mostly. But this is just because we are mostly indifferent to many of these opportunities. It is all very good to be faithful to your spouse if you don’t have some super attractive Lady trying to seduce you. And from what I gather (maybe I have depraved friends) when that choice is presented a significant number of people succumb to it. You might be a morally righteous vegetarian, but that is probably because you’re indifferent to eating meat in the first place. Most meat eaters do so because they profess that they aren’t indifferent, they really enjoy eating dead animals. I don’t shoplift, but that is because I have the money to afford to pay for the goods, or I just don't want the crap in the first place. Etc, etc, etc. I’m sure with a little effort you too can think of countless instances of so called good ethical behaviour really just being the application of indifference.

Now, I’m not sure if this is a good or a bad thing, I don’t actually care. But it is interesting to point it out, so I have.

Other unspoken things aside, I've been thinking.

Some people have already read Ishmael, and others I gather are interested in reading it. Perhaps we could organise to meet for a couple of nights to discuss it? If there is enough interest perhaps we could consequently meet to discuss the rest of the books in the series. And then even more consequently meet to discuss other interesting things; the state of the world, our place in it, what to do about it, etc. These are all things you might have guessed I've spent some time thinking about and have (strongish) opinions on.

WARNING: Reading such books and discussing such things has been known to break minds, lives, and dreams. Also many things I say are intended to have a similar effect. Sorry on both accounts in advance. (I'm sorry like your mum is when she gives you those horrible syrup medications.)

Because apparently not everyone reads my blog, I shall also email this message out to people who I think are likely to be interested.

Converting the New Zealots

Many streams of memes have found their way to my mind recently. Richard's post about "Fundamentalist" Atheists struck an interesting cord. Dawkins' The God Delusion became a gift to my father for his half century celebration (so I sneakily read a bit before I wrapped it, doesn't everyone?). Likewise, Colbert chimes in right on cue.

Last night I meet with the Heretics to discuss whether they should convert heathens to Christianity. My own conclusion (not strongly voiced at the time) is that unless they can show that their beliefs have a firm (rational and based on evidence) foundation, then they should not. Conversely, any position that can claim such firm foundations has a licence, perhaps obligation, to convert non-believers.

My reasoning runs something like: When forming beliefs people should only accept as true things that can be rationally demonstrated to have firm foundations. This is indifferent to whom in particular you happen to be. Thus, if you have stood fast to this method of forming and screening beliefs, then you are in a position to rationally argue with other people, attempting to convince them of your beliefs. If they are rational, and your reasoning is correct, then they should consequently assent to your beliefs. Any belief based upon faith is thus ruled out as sort of thing you should convert people to.

(Note on what arguments are: When two people disagree this must either be the result of either one, or both, of them not having reasoned correctly, or having not taken some relevant information into account. A rational argument will then take the form of either trying to show the flaw in the other persons reasoning, or trying to introduce new and relevant information for the other person to take into consideration.)

Is it the case that I have blind faith in Rationality? No, unfortunately I don’t think questions about whether we should be rational can be honestly or coherently asked. Consider the question ‘Is this statement meaningful?’ In the act of asking it you give lie to the fact that you are already committed to the answer. Likewise, if anyone answers ‘no’, then we know that they are either being dishonest or just plain stupid. Similarly, asking whether you should be rational is something that commits you to rationality, thus making it a false or hollow question.

Anyway, if I’m not too mistaken about what precedes, then it is the case that I am allowed to convert people to my beliefs, but religious people are not. I wonder if maybe I actually need to show that religious beliefs have no foundation, meh. Once again philosophy comes down to having your cake and eating it too.

Side note: has anyone seen Hard Candy that could tell me how it ends? I fainted about half way through and do not want to try watching it again.

Mental Masturbation.

Firstly a pleasant topic: Would anyone be interested in turning my back yard into a vege garden? Kinda like a community project. Then everyone can share the produce and stuff. And we would all learn how to grow food in the process. I thought I'd throw the idea out there. If there is enough interest we can see about actually doing something. You would have to live in chch though. If I can find someone with one of those camera things I'll take a picture so you can all see how stupidly big and empty it is at the moment.

Title topic: How much of academia these days is nothing more than an elaborate excuse to do nothing while using big words?

if it isn't true, why is it so popular?

Surely the fact that it identifies something deep and meaningful to so many people must show that there is some truth in it...

Case 1: Astrology.

I have enough faith in intelligence that I hope I don't need to spell this one out. I'll just mention it.

Case 2: Forer effect.

You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic.

[When you present someone with vague or ambiguous information, they process it to suit themselves. The higher the level of authority people associate with who gave it, or how it was worked out, the more likely they are to fit it to themselves.]*

Case 3: The Bible.

So full of contradictions that there is literally something for everyone, if they look for it. And of course we all know how often people so selectively read it; ignoring misses and emphasizing hits.

Today’s Hypothesis: just like the Forer Effect explains astrology’s popularity, so it explains the Bible’s popularity. Discuss.

*[edit: added an explanation for lazy people]

waiting impatiently

The end of the world has a strange sort of attraction to it. For a while now people have constantly predicted that the world would end in the near future. Of course, they were wrong, and now we look back condescendingly on various cults. In my lifetime I have seen a couple come and go. There was the whole millennium thing, something about bird flu, something about sars, a super flu, a bunch of global conflict, and so on and so on. Each coming along in tight-fitting brightly coloured packaging and sold to us through mass media hype. Oh and there is peak oil, and of course global warming nowadays. It reminds me of that fable by Aesop about the mass media that cried Armageddon! Then when a real wolf came along no one believed him. /emo

It remains a puzzle as to why there is this sick fascination with the end of the world. I suspect for some people it is a mere analogy to their messy bedroom; they could clean it up, but then it would just get messy again. I gather that for some people the end of the world is followed by eternal bliss, and they feel that the sooner we are stuck in an infinite period of time the better. For others, no doubt, it is nothing more than the natural progression from humanity to the end of the world; assuming we are the whole point, why should there be anything after us. For people in positions of power having a catastrophe just around the corner sets you a comfortable position, at least until it actually happens. And I suspect many people have realised that our mode of living, which requires infinite growth to continue, has to end at some point, and it is probably about time it did. So much for speculation.

Personally, I think it is easier to trip the giant in the direction he walks, than to tackle and force him backwards. The sooner our civilisation ends (let us be honest about what ‘the end of the world’ really means), the sooner we can get on to creating a world worth living in.