Table of Contents

Windows on Humanity.......................................................................................................................................1 Epicurus on the unnecessary fear of death.......................................................................................................2 Marcus Aurelius on bearing misfortune...........................................................................................................5 Marcus Aurelius on fearing future....................................................................................................................8 Epicurus on future............................................................................................................................................11 Marcus Aurelius on rejecting the sense of injury..........................................................................................14 Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on rejecting the sense of injury".................................................17 Epicurus on pain and pleasure........................................................................................................................18 Epicurus on overindulgence.............................................................................................................................21 Bertrand Russell on pursuit of a vision ...........................................................................................................25 Marcus Aurelius on harmony and universe...................................................................................................28 Marcus Aurelius on the privilege of being alive.............................................................................................31 Marcus Aurelius on moral actions..................................................................................................................35 Marcus Aurelius on fountain of good ..............................................................................................................38 Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on fountain of good"...................................................................42 Bertrand Russell on dogma and evidence .......................................................................................................43 Oscar Wilde on pure and simple truth...........................................................................................................46 Feedback for Post "Oscar Wilde on pure and simple truth"..................................................................49 Robert G. Ingersoll on truth............................................................................................................................50 Feedback for Post "Robert G. Ingersoll on truth"..................................................................................53 Bertrand Russell on values and science..........................................................................................................54 Hippocrates on the difference between opinions and science.......................................................................57 Bertrand Russell on the mistakes of Aristotle................................................................................................60 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on the mistakes of Aristotle ".....................................................63 Marcus Aurelius on living among lying men ..................................................................................................65 Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on living among lying men "......................................................68

Table of Contents
Bertrand Russell on the interdependence of humankind ..............................................................................69 Bertrand Russell on preoccupation with possessions....................................................................................72 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on preoccupation with possessions"...........................................75 Bertrand Russell on free intellect and fanaticism..........................................................................................76 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on free intellect and fanaticism".................................................79 Marcus Aurelius on living well........................................................................................................................80 Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on living well"............................................................................83 Marcus Aurelius on nature and humans........................................................................................................84 George Orwell on patriotism and nationalism...............................................................................................88 Feedback for Post "George Orwell on patriotism and nationalism"......................................................92 George Orwell on money..................................................................................................................................93 Feedback for Post "George Orwell on money" ......................................................................................96 Thomas Paine on the value of earth................................................................................................................97 Howard Winters on "we" and "them".........................................................................................................100 Epicurus on possessions ..................................................................................................................................104 Marcus Aurelius on happy life .......................................................................................................................107 Epicurus on fame and status..........................................................................................................................110 Feedback for Post "Epicurus on fame and status"...............................................................................114 Epicurus on gods.............................................................................................................................................115 Feedback for Post "Epicurus on gods" .................................................................................................118 Bertrand Russell on teapots in orbit.............................................................................................................119 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on teapots in orbit" ....................................................................122 Epicurus on prayer.........................................................................................................................................123 Thomas Paine on New Testament.................................................................................................................126 Robert G. Ingersoll on prisons of the mind..................................................................................................129 Marcus Aurelius on noble life........................................................................................................................132 Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on noble life"............................................................................136 Bertrand Russell on science and philosophy................................................................................................138

ii

Table of Contents
Bertrand Russell on vastness and fearful passionless force of non-human things...................................141 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on vastness and fearful passionless force of non-human things".................................................................................................................................................144 Marcus Aurelius on causes of controversies.................................................................................................145 Bertrand Russell on conquering fear............................................................................................................148 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on conquering fear"..................................................................151 Epicurus on fears of the mind........................................................................................................................152 Epicurus on living wisely and honorably and justly....................................................................................156 Marcus Aurelius on good and evil.................................................................................................................160 John Ruskin on the consequences of beliefs.................................................................................................163 Marcus Aurelius on loving those who wrong you........................................................................................166 Bertrand Russell on the authority of the sacred books...............................................................................169 Thomas Paine on the approval of slavery in religions.................................................................................172 Feedback for Post "Thomas Paine on the approval of slavery in religions " .......................................176 Walter Lippmann on dangers of thinking alike...........................................................................................179 Anaxagoras on the idea of ownership...........................................................................................................182 Diax on wanting things to be true ..................................................................................................................185 Author's friends..............................................................................................................................................188 About the author.............................................................................................................................................190 Pageviews.........................................................................................................................................................191

iii

Windows on 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)

Some of my own thoughts on the quote: 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. There is no pain of fear after that. The fear of death in itself is the enemy, not the inevitable death. Death 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 understand. However, the easiest way to diminish fear is to stop thinking unnecessarily about things that one does really fear. This is especially true if thinking does not really change anything, but only makes one fear a thing one needs not to fear. Epicureans 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. They even often 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 death. It is all about how we personally deal with the idea of our own death. The loss that is inevitably 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 punishment for our sins. After death one does continue to exist in a way. However, one exists only as a memory of you and your actions in other people's minds. A person who leaves good memories with good actions will live for a long time in memories of others after he or she is gone. What is even more important a good person will will also be remembered fondly.

(This piece was refurbished on 27th of August, 2012)

by jaskaw @ 29.11.2009 - 19:48:53 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. However, he was also a Roman emperor. The Stoic way of thinking which Marcus Aurelius did embrace is all about controlling ones own feelings and ideas. Stoics want to make the best of even the bad and unfortunate situations in life, where one is helpless to change things by one's own actions. There just are all many kinds of situations where ones needs to face hardship and trouble that are not of one's own making. They are too often brought about by bigger forces that mold societies, history and nature and most of all because of pure chance and bad luck. However, this does not mean that Stoics would have thought that people should accept all things just as they come. There just are, however, inevitably 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.

In certain situations even this is an achievement that is well worth striving for. (Added 27th of August 2012) The importance of this quote has grown tremendously during the last year for me personally. For nearly a year I have struggled with an incurable cancer of liver and lungs and also with the horrible side-effects of the chemotherapy that has kept me alive. I can now say from my own experience that the very simple idea of holding ones head high in the face of death and pain can really keep a man going even in the darkest hours of life.

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 refurbished on 28th of August, 2012)

by jaskaw @ 29.11.2009 - 19:50:21 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/marcus-aurelius-on-misfortune-7480732/

Marcus Aurelius on fearing 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: Emperor Marcus Aurelius presents one of the very central themes of the Stoic philosophy. Stoic philosophy is all about removing unnecessary ballast from ones mind. Inflicting oneself with an unnecessary fear of unknown and uncertain future 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. One just really needs to put some effort into making it happen. Marcus Aurelius does not say that this would be an easy thing to do at all. He just says that realizing the amount of unnecessary fears that do fill our minds will help us to cope with the reality. This marvelous quote does also say that if one has made it thus far, there is no reason to think that one would not succeed in the future also. The only thing that he sees as a necessary requirement for achieving this goal is to take the full use of rational mind. A rational attitude when we think about the future also helps. Of course, any kind of full rationality is just a pipe-dream. After all we all are mere humans and humans are always driven by instincts and emotions also. 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 28th of August, 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. 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 - 19:51:44 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/marcus-aurelius-on-future-7480741/

Epicurus on future

"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 (VS, 48)

My own ideas on the quote: Of course, we can never know what does really wait for us in the future. However, Epicurus says that if we can trust in the idea that we can 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. This quote is all about not worrying unnecessarily about the future, as nothing good will come out of it. It is about 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. It is a more peaceful and purposeful state of mind. It can, in fact, be achieved from even trying to make a difference in the course of our own lives. However, this quote is not about forcing oneself or others to do something differently against our or their will. It is 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 - 19:58:03 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 in "Meditations"

My own thoughts about the quote: Naturally there are also mental injuries that are so deep that we just cannot wish them to disappear. However, Marcus Aurelius suggests 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 be seen as worthwhile ultimate goals that one can strive for. So, also striving for them without ever reaching the goals can be a really worthwhile enterprise. Marcus Aurelius is not suggesting here that all mental injuries can go away by just wishing it to be so. One must often do a lot of work to overcome them. However, if we do not realize that we often do not need to drag those mental wounds with us, we will miss an important opportunity. One can simply 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. However, one can well strive for 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. One also can get rid of them with using one's mind. Marcus Aurelius is essentially just suggesting here that the less one does allow mere words to bite, the less they can actually wound. (This piece was completely refurbished on 29th of August, 2012)

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 - 19:59:14 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 @ 21:04 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 @ 00:59 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 @ 01:32 You are quite right, Rita, I think.

Epicurus on pain and 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 the body or of mind or of both together." - Epicurus (Principal Doctrine number 3)

My own ideas on the quote: This simple sentence gives new light to something that is probably the most commonly misunderstood thing in the whole of Epicureanism. The sad fact is that willful misinterpretation was originated quite on purpose by first Platonist's and Stoics. It was done later even more forcefully by the early Christians. They 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 thing to avoid. Again, it is not

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." - Epicurus in "Principal Doctrines", 8

My own thoughts on the quote: This Epicurean doctrine is one of those which is commonly forgotten. Some people just still try to portray Epicureanism as hedonistic and reaching only for the unlimited pleasures. This doctrine just is about the harmful side-effects that striving for too much of any 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 or to one's relationships with others and the society. One just 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 pleasure that it does bring. Epicurean way of thought is based on a expectation of a strong self-discipline and the ability to analyze ones own actions. This is in direct contrast with Christianity. In it a

person is not supposed to make this kind of personal valuations at all. The 'disturbances' mentioned in the quote are all those things that can put a person off-balance in any way. This can happen 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. Christianity 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. 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. A person can be tremendously active and productive at the same time when he or she is striving for 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. The central idea in this quote is a process. In it a person avoids things that can disturb one's 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 29th of August, 2012w)

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."

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 through 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. However, he got never tired of trying to improve the society where he did live in. When one does what one can do to make a personal impact on things, one can rest assured that one's life has not gone to waste. Bertrand Russell most certainly did feel something of this kind at the end of his long and extremely productive life.

Bertrand Russell was no saint at all. However, he was a champion for the downtrodden, a tireless defender of the cause of peace and a first and foremost always a rational thinker. 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 even 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 refurbished on 29th of August, 2012)

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. 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 - 00:50:43 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: Marcus Aurelius does express an extremely straightforward but extremely powerful thing in this quote: Accepting what and who we really are will get us a long way towards accepting also other people as what they really are. On the other hand, only after we accept the importance that other people have to our life, can we even dream of some kind of universal harmony in our own lives. This idea is also a very central message in the Buddhist way of thinking too. One must at very first point reach some kind of state of harmony within oneself. It is the very first necessary step if one really wants a create a state harmony with other people. If you are in harmony with your immediate surroundings, the harmony with the universe will inevitably 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 faraway corner of the universe of course expands and retracts according to how world around us does evolve and change. However, the only really important and indispensable part of

our whole universe can often be contained in a single room. (This piece was refurbished on 30th of August, 2012)

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 - 19:08:42 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: Marcus Aurelius is saying something extremely important in this quote. It just is all too easy to forget that just being alive for another day makes one a member of a very privileged group. We just all too easily take for granted so 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. Noticing this needs a conscious effort. The true importance of people like Marcus Aurelius lies in just this ability to raise our level of 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, you do not need 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 just for for a moment that can make a 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. PS. I was diagnosed with an incurable cancer of liver and lungs 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 did over-live that immediate crisis. Thanks to an intensive chemotherapy the illness is now 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. Jaakko J. Wallenius

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)

(This piece was heavily edited 3oth of August, 2012)

Marcus Aurelius on moral actions

"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 that there is no reason or no excuse for giving up, even if one has been unable to reach the highest levels of excellence in things a person wants to achieve in life. We should remember also that standards which 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 there just needs to be unreachable goals also in life. Marcus Aurelius reminds us 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, the really big thing here is that one should remember that no human can never be and never has been perfect. Anybody who claims perfection 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 says that all humans can always develop themselves. They can do this if they just really want to, even if they failed 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. However, it is always still there, if we just find the will to seek it again. (This piece was completely re-written on 30h of August, 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 @ 01.12.2009 - 14:53:50 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." - Marcus Aurelius in 'Meditations'

My own thoughts of the quote: This idea is simply the deep essence of a humanistic world-view. Humanists do think that deep buried in all humans there is the ability to do good also. However, 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 see a person how he or she really is, one should be able to look at that person separate from the features that are brought about by the social, political or religious group he or she belongs to. 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. This is, of course, quite impossible at times.

A centrral thing in humanism is the belief in the ability of humans to change. A true humanist thinks that 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. Happily they are extremely rare exceptions. These kinds of conditions are commonly caused by very deep psychological problems and traumas. However, these people are not showcases for the basic human condition, but they just show how it can be changed and perverted by traumas and often quite uncontrollable things like mental illness. However, such people are so rare that books are written and movies are made about the exceptional 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 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. On the other hand, also you will be easily seen as such also. Of course, it is all too easy just to 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 really exist a hidden fountain of good inside that other person also. (This piece was completely reworked on 31th of August, 2012)

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."

Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on fountain of good"

Outi [Visitor] 15.02.2012 @ 23:23 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: Bertrand Russell presents the very basic requirements for a good decision-making process. Decisions should not be based on dogmatic beliefs only. They should be done based on the real world evidence and merits of the issue at hand, as far as it is possible. An instant reaction that is based on some old and well-known dogma is admittedly often the quickest way to reach a decision. However, Bertrand Russell says that when we get forget that 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, and not on what has

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? After all, we 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. It is reached when we use all of our current knowledge and current tools for this discovery. The best possible answers that are provided by science will change if a better answer or better explanation is ever found. 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 ordinary men. They were made up to create answers to questions that did not have real answers at those ignorant times.

On the other hand, 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, in fact, 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 - 22:08:53 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 @ 19:34 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 @ 14:14 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 @ 19:44 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 @ 22:36 Me too mate. I'm not arguiing to refute. I'm just arguing..

Robert G. Ingersoll on truth

"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)

My own thoughts on the quote: Inherent in this quote is also a warning for a unbelievable callousness of many religious people. They simply claim to know the final and unmoving answers to question that are in real world impossible to answer in the real world. However, they often claim to have the final and unmovable truth of for example how things should be arranged in a life of a human being. It just takes a lot more guts for 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. One of the main selling points of these religious just is a claim to have certainties in issues where they simply do not exist. On the other hand, science is not at all about being absolutely certain and finding 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 that are offered so easily and eagerly by religions.

Feedback for Post "Robert G. Ingersoll on truth"

Richard Prins [Visitor] http://richardprins.com 02.12.2009 @ 10:44 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 @ 10:47 A great quote, Richard, thanks!

FedupwithR [Member] 06.12.2009 @ 19:17 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:

Even if science does not determine values, it is possible to scientifically explore what concepts like "love" and "morality" really are, how they have evolved and what purpose they do serve. Most of all it is possible to find out what is the groundwork that is laid out by the physical and most of all cultural evolution of human species on which these ideas rest in general. By doing this we can achieve significant scientific insights into the nature of human values. It can be done 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. Classifying specific actions as 'loving' or 'moral' and others as 'unloving' or 'immoral' cannot in reality be done by scientific methods alone. The values that are in use in a society are created in a quite unpredictable cultural

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: Hippocrates does not say that people should not have opinions of their own. This must be stated, as some people have clearly interpreted this quote in this way. Hippocrates is just implying also here that also opinions should be based on facts as far as possible. On the other hand, merely forwarding opinions that are not based on known facts can not be science. In my mind Hippocrates does mean here by opinions those 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 that are, for example, based on differences in life experiences, different expectations and different views on the world as a whole.

However, 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. A society that is based on facts alone is in practice impossible. Passions and emotions have always played and will always play on important, or even decisive role in human decision making. However, merely understanding the 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. Even small steps towards that direction can make our world a little bit better place to live. (This piece was completely rewritten on 1th of September, 2012)

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 - 22:55:21 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. This is true, even if science 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. This can be the case, even if he or she can be on the right track on very many other things. So, the danger lurks at the 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 most fantastic thing about modern science is the fact that the critical analysis of the established facts and 'truths' is a nonstop event. Eventually, even if often slowly and laboriously, the right path can be found again. Mistakes that have been made by even eminent men and women can be 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, science unique among all of the enterprises humanity has embarked on during its long history. Aristotle thought that women are a lower species than men. 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. However, the openness and self-corrective structure of science can work wonders also in this respect. (This piece was refurbished on on 1st of September, 2012)

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 - 14:19:07 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 @ 17:44 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. Mark Weiss [Visitor] 01.09.2012 @ 13:44 Wrongly (I believe), Russell maintained that "Negroes were inferior to whites..." (that's a paraphrase) | Show subcomments TheAgent [Visitor] 02.09.2012 @ 08:20 That doesn't fit in with what I believe I know from Russel. Do you have a source to confirm your claim?

jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 02.09.2012 @ 10:47 Why do you refuse to believe that Bertrand Russell would not point out the failings of this Greek fellow? The quote is from ""The Impact of Science on Society" (1951). You can check it from there. In An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish (1943) Bertrand Russell wrote this; "If the matter is one that can be settled by observation, make the observation yourself. Aristotle could have avoided the mistake of thinking that women have fewer teeth than men, by the simple device of asking Mrs. Aristotle to keep her mouth open while he counted. He did not do so because he thought he knew. Thinking that you know when in fact you don't is a fatal mistake, to which we are all prone. I believe myself that hedgehogs eat black beetles, because I have been told that they do; but if I were writing a book on the habits of hedgehogs, I should not commit myself until I had seen one enjoying this unappetizing diet. Aristotle, however, was less cautious. Ancient and medieval authors knew all about unicorns and salamanders; not one of them thought it necessary to avoid dogmatic statements about them because he had never seen one of them." Russell also writes about Aristotle these things; "almost every serious intellectual advance has had to begin with an attack on some Aristotelian doctrine; in logic, this is still true at the present day" (160). "When we come to compare Aristotle's ethical tastes with our own ... we find ... an acceptance of inequality which is repugnant to much modern sentiment. Not only is there no objection to slavery, or to the superiority of husbands and fathers over wives and children, but it is held that what is best is essentially only for the few--proud men and philosophers" (183). "There is in Aristotle an almost complete absence of what may be called benevolence or philanthropy."

"Even at the present day, all Catholic teachers of philosophy and many others still obstinately reject the discoveries of modern logic, and adhere with a strange tenacity to a system which is as definitely antiquated as Ptolemaic astronomy. This makes it difficult to do historical justice to Aristotle. His present-day influence is so inimical to clear thinking that it is hard to remember how great an advance he made upon all his predecessors... Aristotle ... is still especially in logic, a battle-ground, and cannot be treated in a purely historical spirit" (195). "I conclude that the Aristotelian doctrines with which we have been concerned in this chapter are wholly false, with the exception of the formal theory of the syllogism, which is unimportant. Any person in the present day who wishes to learn logic will be wasting his time if he reads Aristotle or any of his disciples" (202) Russell, Bertrand (1967), A History of Western Philosophy, Simon & Schuster, ISBN 0671201581

jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 02.09.2012 @ 18:31 Mark Weiss; "It is sometimes maintained that racial mixture is biologically undesirable. There is no evidence whatever for this view. Nor is there, apparently, any reason to think that Negroes are congenitally less intelligent than white people, but as to that it will be difficult to judge until they have equal scope and equally good social conditions." Bertrand Russell, New Hopes for a Changing World (London: Allen & Unwin, 1951, p. 108) | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 02.09.2012 @ 18:32 Responding in 1964 to a correspondent's inquiry, "Do you still consider the Negroes an inferior race, as you did when you wrote Marriage and Morals?", Russell replied: "I never held Negroes to be inherently inferior. The statement in Marriage and Morals refers to environmental conditioning. I have had it withdrawn from subsequent editions because it is clearly ambiguous." Bertrand Russell, letter dated 17 March 1964 in Dear Bertrand Russell... a selection of his correspondence with the general public, 19501968. edited by Barry Feinberg and Ronald Kasrils.(London: Allen & Unwin, 1969, p. 146)

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." - Marcus Aurelius in 'Meditations'

My own ideas on the quote:

A wise person will not let fears and negative emotions 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 understand 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, for example, 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 say. However, mere understanding the real value of patience is a start. On the other hand, passion is a quite different animal than anger. 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. However, when passion is let completely 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 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. If i can get past this phase, I can concentrate on things that I am about to accomplish in the future. (This piece was completely refurbished on 1st of August, 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 - 18:15:51 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 @ 18:41 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 @ 12:02 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 @ 16:29 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: Bertrand Russell says 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. 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. There just are s many different ideas of how the relationships between humans should be organized. Bertrand Russell was way ahead of his time, but 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. However, it was at that time talked about and appreciated as much as it is just now. It was, in fact, a

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: The word "preoccupation" is the keyword here. It is the lack of moderation that is the core problem, and not the ideas of possession and ownership as such. Bertrand Russell was not against the idea of private property. He just saw how totally the quest for wealth can preoccupy the minds of men and women. It can reach a degree where creating a just society is much, much more difficult. This is of course an 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. Bertrand Russell does not say that private ownership is a bad thing. He simply says that total preoccupation with collecting more and more possessions can heavily burden a person. Most of all it can burden one's mind quite unnecessarily. This idea certainly touches a central and also acutely painful nerve in our society. This discussion is not going to die out anytime soon. On the other hand, it will quite probably never lead to any kind of final conclusion

either. This kind of discussion is, however, sorely needed, as no single central area of our society should not be taken as granted. In the end, who can truly say what is the right level of consumption that is needed to keep modern society up and running? Who can say what level of consumption is needed so that this society is able to support those of its members who need support? (This piece was completely refurbished on 2nd of September, 2012)

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 - 20:32:26 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 @ 07:55 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! read more [Visitor] http://linefeed.org/ 25.06.2012 @ 21:42 After I originally commented I seem to have clicked the -Notify me when new comments are addedcheckbox and from now on each time a comment is added I get four emails with the same comment. Is there a means you can remove me from that service? Thank you! http://direct-tv.webstarts. com/

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:

The level of fanaticism is the crucial thing here. The exact policies and ideologies that the fanatics do further are of a secondary importance in this context. Bertrand Russell speaks of the closed mindset of a fanatic of any possible persuasion. In this closed mindset, only the information that does support ones existing views is accepted. 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.

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

Erkki [Visitor] 06.10.2010 @ 18:37 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 @ 01:42 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 @ 07:38 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." - Marcus Aurelius in 'Meditations'

My own thoughts on the quote: This quote is not about blindly accepting all the things that destiny does throw at us. Some people seemingly tend to read this quote in this way. 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. Such situations are, regrettably, quite common in human life. However, 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 personal feelings of hurt and despair have always been powerful forces for driving change. There is also always the danger of missing the possibility for initiating change in one's circumstances. This can happen even when a window of opportunity to change things finally does arise, 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. However,

Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on living well"

Spanito [Visitor] 11.09.2011 @ 17:50 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." - Marcus Aurelius in 'Meditations'

My own ideas on the quote: This is not an easy idea to accept at all. Good old Marcus just means here that the human species has evolved to cope with all the things that this members of this species commonly will encounter in life. After all, 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. However, 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. They were thoughts that were based on just observing the extraordinary variety of myriads of different life forms. They were based also on thinking how this all could have happened and wondering why all the different creatures

George Orwell on 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. George Orwell tries to explain this difference in his magnificent essay. In quite similar manner, the Christian or even Islamic faith in itself need not to be a cause of any bad things as such, if they

are 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 even patriotism can be a quite healthy thing. However, overdoing it will lead into trouble. Overdoing any strong ideology will lead to quite similar trouble. In general 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. However, the formation of European Union is a great example how erasing the ill effects of nationalism and patriotism really is possible. It is no coincidence that this process did happen just in Europe. After all, it had been completely 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. The European Union was and still is a grand step forward towards achieving real and lasting peace. After all, it was created to a continent that has been ravaged by continuous wars for thousands of years. (This piece was completely refurbished on 3rd of September, 2012)

George Orwell is also in Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/orwellblair 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."

by jaskaw @ 06.12.2009 - 19:02:06 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/06/george-orwell-on-patriotism-7521607/

Feedback for Post "George Orwell on patriotism and nationalism"

Term Paper Writing Help [Visitor] 04.01.2011 @ 10:01 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 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. All too often they do not want even to know about your existence. George Orwell really did know extremely well what he was talking about. He namely did have a very hard period in 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. However, he dropped out, when he realized what he was really doing in the colonial Burma. This happened also because 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". This period of utter and desperate poverty that he did experience has surely influenced this quote. Later on he mostly led life of a typical freelance writer. 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. His best know work or '1984' was published in 1949, only a year before his death of tuberculosis in 1950. (This piece was completely re-written on 3rd of September, 2012)

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 - 11:23:44 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/07/george-orwell-on-money-7526043/

Feedback for Post "George Orwell on money"

Little Richardjohn [Visitor] http://littlerichardjohn.wordpress.com/ 03.09.2012 @ 20:33 Orwell liked fusing Christian radicalism with Marxist economics. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 04.09.2012 @ 00:32 No, he did nothing of the kind. He just saw them as equally dangerous.

Thomas Paine on the value 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 statement present 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. It happened because this quote reminds us that we all are, in fact, just at the end borrowing something, when we claim to have ownership over land or water. We just need to understand that we need to return that borrowed property in good condition to its rightful owners. In the case of land, these owners are the future, 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 mothership Earth because we just did not care enough of its future, the children of our grandchildren just may have nothing left. We must be allowed to improve and use land to our own benefit to be able to live decently. However, we

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 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 this development is not brought about by any single ideology or process. It is a result of many simultaneous developments, and this process does not benefit any single ideology. Most of all, noticing this important trend does not fit the ideology of very many people. This is true 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 find out the bigger picture that exists behind an individual historical event. It tries to find the deepest trends and changes in human behavior that do ultimately propel

along also the 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. There is an ongoing simultaneous creation of global "digital tribes". It 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. Now you can really hang out and even "live" on a daily basis with your digital "tribe" in the Net. This global tribalization is not without its own grave dangers. However, the important thing is that it is slowly eating away the lifeblood of the extremist nationalism. In the end, extremist nationalism does 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 extremism that is based on physical divisions of humans. Of course, we will never reach any kind of Utopia. One is admittedly hinted in the original quote. However, as even when old fault lines that divide humans to opposing groups now will disappear, new ones will quite inevitably arise. However, weakening of the power base of extreme nationalism can do only good for humanity as a whole. This is true, even if this process will not solve all of our problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_history (This piece was completely overhauled at 4th of September, 2012)

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 - 12:47:49

Epicurus on possessions

"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. They are happily serving the mobs in, for example, in Hollywood or tabloids 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. It can be seen most of all in the middle-level 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. They 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 do not need often constantly show their servitude. They just need to do their work well, and this can be a different thing altogether. Epicurus is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/epicureanphilosopher (This piece was completely refreshed on 4th of September, 2012)

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 @ 08.12.2009 - 23:25:56 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." - Marcus Aurelius in 'Meditations'

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. He also was certainly very familiar with them. This maxim simply is pure Epicureanism. This is true, even if Stoicism was a rival of Epicureanism in the field of philosophies. They did, in fact, for a long time actively compete for 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. One just needs 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 that comes from acquiring new things depends very often more on one's expectation

and not on what happens on reality. The real value that new things themselves do really bring plays often a smaller role. Many modern 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. Of course, reaching even a momentary state of happiness was certainly unbelievably more difficult in Auschwitz 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 even there. (This piece was completely refurbished on 4th of September, 2012) Marcus Aurelius is also on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/aureliusphilosopher

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 - 13:51:01 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. This happens if that status is not based on the real approval of others. Epicurus is does not say that achieving fame and status would be bad things as such. He just says that they must be achieved in a way in which one can trust that the 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, people become more dependent on others and less free as an individual. 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. This is the case, if one really seeks a true peace of mind. Of course, not everybody is after such a peace of mind at all. For many fame and status are so often worthy goals as themselves. Careful reading shows that this doctrine is not about the inner feelings of a person him- or herself. It is about how the social status of a person is ultimately decided by other members of the society. Epicurus states how an insecure and wrongfully or forcefully achieved social status can cause more pain than it is really worth. 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 just lead to more mental pain and anxiety. (This piece was completely reworked on 4th of September, 2012) Epicurus is in the Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/epicureanphilosopher

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."

Feedback for Post "Epicurus on fame and status"

Zuhal [Visitor] 14.10.2010 @ 20:40 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 @ 20:59 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 gods

"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. 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 a book that was 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. 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. However, Lactantius was perhaps not far away from the truth in his assessment. In fact, not a single one of the 40 Epicurean Principal Doctrines does necessitate any kind of need for some kind deity or depend on any kind

Feedback for Post "Epicurus on gods"

Winston Brown [Visitor] http://weightlossgodsway.weebly.com/ 14.12.2009 @ 07:02 God has been helping me lose weight - lately http://weightlossgodsway.weebly.com/ | Show subcomments Jervis Dacia [Visitor] 15.12.2009 @ 02:26 "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 @ 00:58 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 classic quotation has been in use for over half a century now. Sadly, the need to use it 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 even the basic claims in their religion are just human ideas made by quite ordinary humans.

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on teapots in orbit"

Karen [Visitor] 11.12.2009 @ 02:18 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 @ 08:50 He is, undoubtedly the most influential figure in my life. Ashley Moltzan [Visitor] 11.12.2009 @ 22:16 I love this! This man is an inspiration. Amin Farhadi [Visitor] 05.01.2010 @ 19:52 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 @ 20:33 Fascinating! I love him! raffan [Visitor] 29.09.2011 @ 12:49 A great man and a fine teapot.

Epicurus on prayer

"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. Again, Epicurus states his ideas in a very straightforward manner. Epicurus simply did not believe that pleading to some kind of higher or supernatural powers would help people in their 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 care about how a life of a human goes on. This true, even if he had a concept of gods as models of perfect beings in some of his earlier writings. In other words, he basically says 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. It can be interpreted in a way that prayer is not needed in 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.

Thomas Paine on New Testament

"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 also a Deist. 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. After all, he published it in a world where Christian religion was still in a position of quite total mental hegemony. He had a 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 in general. 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. One could even say the opposition that Thomas Paine had towards religions did develop later into a hatred of all dogmatic religious beliefs. However, this fact was generally suppressed in the United States for nearly two centuries. There seems to be many people in the United Stated who do not know have the faintest idea of where Thomas Paine really stood in religious matters. 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. (This piece wan completely refurbished on 6st of September, 2012) Thomas Paine is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/painethomas 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 - 20:31:47 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. In it 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 an 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. He did this, even if 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. He did this, even if he was asked and even pleaded to stand for election many times. He knew very well that a person who rejects organized religions in a way in which he did could not get elected even in the United States of his day. This is true, even if it was a 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. These thing just surprisingly often go hand in hand. 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. However, history has vindicated most of his ideas. (This piece was completely refurbished on 6th of Septemberr, 2012) Robert G. Ingersall is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/ingersollorator

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 - 02:17:11 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/13/robert-g-ingersoll-on-prisons-of-mind-7564086/

Marcus Aurelius on 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 in this quote 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 wholly concerned on the impact of human ideas and human activity in our real life. He did not write 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. Their 'god' is the force of life that fills the universe. It was a very pantheistic notion. This Stoic 'god' is not an active participant in life of humans at all, in stark contrast to the 'god' of the Abrahamic religions like Judaism, Christianity or Islam. The Stoic idea of a god has, in fact, nothing in common with the Christian god. This is true, even if quite confusingly the same word is used for both. Of course, the writer of these few lines just implies that one should not burden oneself unnecessarily with abstract ideas kike 'gods'. 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. 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 6th of September, 2012) Marcus Aurelius is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/aureliusphilosopher

Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on noble life"

sandor [Visitor] 13.12.2009 @ 16:49 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 @ 19:11 That is exactly how I have always felt. gimmeabreak [Visitor] 13.12.2009 @ 19:31 abstract ideas like science? | Show subcomments Kirk [Visitor] 13.12.2009 @ 23:12 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 @ 20:05 @ 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] 11.11.2010 @ 23:08 The key word here is "virtue." Where would this virtue for 'living the good life' arrive from?

jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 11.11.2010 @ 23:18 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 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 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. 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. Their true origins and real meaning can become quite blurred. 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. 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. What is seen as important often depends just on the viewpoint that used to look at the issue at hand at a given time. There are no universally accepted paradigms in philosophy, as there are in many other fields of science. That naturally is the way it should be. In the end, philosophy is forever querying the contents of the human mind in its never ending quest for better answers on question like: why we are as we are. (This piece completely refreshed at 7th of September, 2012) Bertrand Russell is in Facebook also in: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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 - 13:02:06

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 a 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 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. However, it is also about the unbelievable force of human imagination can bring forward in a person. The 'passionless force' in this quote is a reminder of that nature in itself does not have purposes, morality or emotions. These thing are human inventions that evolution has aided to evolve and which do serve us well as

humans. Aided by these emotions and ideas we have achieved all the little things that we have achieved thus far on this little blue dot that lies unnoticed in a remote corner of the vast and boundless universe. However, one too easily projects 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. (This piece was completely refurbished on 7th of September, 2012)

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 - 22:37:32

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 @ 16:16 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: 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, 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 in a modern society. The world of hunter-gatherers, sheepherders and small-time farmers just could have been even several magnitudes easier place to grasp than the everchanging, 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 clinging to the answer one has once accepted, even if reality

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 a 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. By 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. A level of fear just has to be 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 an already a standard feature when nations prepare themselves for conflicts. This is a standard way in which one's own followers are peppered up for the fight. The flipside 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. 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 also 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 8th of September, 2012)

Bertrand Russell is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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 - 20:21:36 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 @ 10:10 This is brilliant Pauline Burke [Visitor] 08.09.2012 @ 19:53 And how do you conquer fear? Surely wisdom is the goal and if conquering fear is the beginning, explain please how to conquer fear.

Epicurus on fears of the mind

"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: This Epicurean doctrine draws together some of the ideas that are presented in many other Epicurean doctrines into a bigger whole. It presents the essence of the Epicurean method for achieving mental stability and peace. In fact, Epicureans say that forgetting the religious explanations for earthly phenomena can greatly pacify one's mind. One's mind can be troubled quite unnecessarily by the religious method of explaining natural phenomena as divine responses to human actions. Human mind can be even greatly pacified, when one understands that natural phenomena are not punishments

for sins committed by humans. Instead they be can fully explainable in a rational way. Most of all important for Epicureans is to overcome the irrational fear of death. This fear 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. Fear of death is natural thing for humans. However, with conscious actions we can 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 can diminish this fear in real life. For these promises to 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 present any kind of contradictory evidence are a threat to them. On the other hand, it is quite easy to understand that what we think or not think of death does not change the its inevitability in any way. However, the fear of death can damage our lives here on earth. It can happen, if we just allow it to take a hold in our minds. An important thing for Epicureans is to develop a sufficient level of self-restraint. With its aid one does not hurt oneself or others with just filling his or her desires. Being able consciously to limit ones wants and desires is the key. Getting new things does, in the end, only momentarily fulfill the human wants and needs. New desires 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. In the end, the doctrine simply says that getting rid of fear, but also of over-indulgence are the necessary cornerstones for a balanced life and happiness. However, Epicureans 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 9th of September, 2012) Epicurus is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/epicureanphilosopher

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 - 16:15:56 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." - Epicurus (Principal Doctrines, 5)

My own ideas on the quote: There are striking similarities between the Epicurean way of thinking and the 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 is 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, when one does analyze 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. This can be the case, if the state of development of the respective societies is similar enough. Humans are after all at the very heart of it very similar products of the same evolutionary processes

everywhere. Cultural developments and cultural artifacts can jiust hide this very basic fact from clear view. The modern Buddhist approach is 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. These 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 the 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 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 was the original message of Gautama Buddha. (This piece was completely refurbished on 9th of September, 2012) Epicurus is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/epicureanphilosopher

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."

John Ruskin on the 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 refers here to the simple fact that things that happen in only in our minds do not really matter to others. This is true if these thoughts are ever even vocalized or are never translated into any kind of real world actions. 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. This is a very difficult concept to accept especially for very

many of those who are brought up to believe in the Jewish, Christian or Islamic religions. 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 thinking is a very central part of a grand strategy of these religions. After all. 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 exist without having thoughts of a sexual nature that are strictly forbidden by these religions. A religion can make one believe that even having this kind of thought is a mortal 'sin'. They commonly also claim that only the religion in question can redeem one from these 'sins'. In fact, these religions have thus created a fool-proof win-win situation for themselves by doing this. 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. A person can absolutely honestly believe that he adheres to a religion full of absolute love for ones neighbors. However, he can even threaten to kill others just because of their lack of faith in this love for ones neighbors. In many situations things that we claim to believe just are of very little consequence. The only important thing for others is what we really do. (This piece wan completely refurbished on 10th of September, 2012)

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 - 11:33:16 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." - Marcus Aurelius in 'Meditations'

My own ideas on the quote: This thought is a reminder of how the ability to accept and interact with those people who you feel to have wronged you at some point of your life is possible. It is, in fact, an extremely important skill for all those people who live 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 the extremely human ability to take offense of things that other people have not meant to be offensive. One can so very easily feel that he or she is even deeply wronged, even if in real life these wrongdoings are quite imaginary. This all is naturally just my own interpretation of the quote. However, also this idea is in my mind deeply embedded in this terse sentence. Life in a modern complex society is mentally extremely demanding. A multitude of social interactions does create the possibility for friction and conflicts all the time. The ability to get over the social conflicts (real and imagined) one encounters is a very basic survival skill in any modern society. Marcus Aurelius just gives a very basic recipe for success in the social arena.

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 only on the surface similar to the Christian call for 'loving thy enemies'. That Christian idea just is one of the most hypocritical statements in the history even of all religions. This Christian idea can give one a comfortable feeling of moral superiority. However, the idea just is quite impossible to implement in practice. An 'enemy' is normally a person who intentionally wants to hurt you. In practice, loving or even forgiving such a person is quite impossible, at least as long as he wants to hurt you. Marcus Aurelius' idea is more about forgiving and forgetting the past individual wrongdoings (imagined or real) of others. One should notice that Marcus Aurelius speaks about actions, not classes of humans. The Christian version does put some people in a category of 'enemies' when Marcus Aurelius talks about actions, which is a quite different thing. Marcus Aurelius is, however, much deeper in the hard core of the matter. His version of the idea can really have practical implications also. In reality the Christian idea is just an admirable, but in practice quite unreachable fable. (This piece was completely refurbished on 10th of September, 2012) Marcus Aurelius in Facebook also in: http://www.facebook.com/aureliusphilosopher

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 - 21:10:55 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: At first glance it seems even very odd that Bertrand Russell has added law-books and jurists to this company. However, the process of simple deduction is the issue that is important here. The main point is not the nature 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. The basic idea, however, is how deriving the right answers just from the existing texts works. Laws are of course created by humans to protect other humans and human societies. The main thing here is

that they are not based on any kind of higher and absolute 'natural law', but they are just products of human endeavour. On the bother hand, a true professional lawyer just might not really be concerned 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. The laws that did make Jews second class citizens in the Germany of 1930's were quite valid laws, and they 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. He would just have been 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 using the system of deduction, where new things like new court decisions or views on moral issues are derived just from existing texts. 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. It just is the only way it really can work properly in any advanced human society. Happily, in a democracy at least laws can always be altered if they are found in due time to be unjust by a big enough majority. 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 here 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. This happens in a quite similar way as science changes when our real knowledge of the world changes. (This piece was completely refurbished on 11th of September, 2012) Bertrand Russell is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

by jaskaw @ 24.12.2009 - 09:59:03 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 speaks naturally mostly about Christian holy books here. However, also the holy book of Islam has nothing at all against slavery either. In fact, it just gives a lot of good advice on how slaves should be treated. The Christian Bible is choke full of passages in which the angry god of the Israelite's gives his direct support for the tradition of human slavery. The basic humanist ideas of equality of all humans and undeniable human rights took first hold in the western

Europe and later in America. Only after this had happened did also 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. One should also remember 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. It 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 12th of September, 2012)

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 - 00:01:06

Feedback for Post "Thomas Paine on the approval of slavery in religions "
Ken Burchell [Visitor] http://kenburchell.blogspot.com 14.10.2011 @ 15:43 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 @ 00:35 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 @ 11:37 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 @ 11:50 ______________________________________________________________________________ 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 @ 16:40 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

My own ideas on the quote: The suppression of different ways of thinking has been a cardinal sin of all of the major human ideologies. This normally happens as soon as they claim 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 statewide level have had and still have. In Athens of the antiquity, there was no such single overwhelming religious ideology. There was 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. 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.

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 a main source of friction, problems and difficulties in the human societies was not invented by Karl Marx. This fact has been known by many thinking men for a very long time. This is true, even if the stark fact is that there really is nothing much that we can do to remedy this problem anymore. Our societies just are extremely strongly based on this idea. It has been with us for thousands of years. However, there is strong reasons to believe that this new concept of personally and permanently owning things like land was born only with the first agricultural societies. A hunter-gatherer can really own only the things he or she can carry. In a 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.

Anaxagoras is not saying that it would be possible to abolish the idea of ownership. However he does notice those 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. A philosopher can hopefully make people also think why things as they are and could there be other ways for doing things. Of course, one needs a bit of intellectual flexibility to be able to 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 14th of September, 2012)

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 - 20:44:33 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 too many of the things we all choose to believe to be true we might believe just because 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, undeniably extremely tempting to believe that there is life after death. It would also be so extremely nice, if all the bad things we have done would be forgiven, if we just choose to believe in a certain religious ideology.

Alas, as this is not quite probably the case, we just need top make the best of the only life we have and try to live as justly and honorably as we can. 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'. (This piece was completely refurbished on 15th of September, 2012)

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 - 20:49:40 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/30/diax-on-beliefs-and-truth-7664404/

Table of Contents
Windows on Humanity.......................................................................................................................................1 Philip K. Dick on reality.....................................................................................................................................2 Feedback for Post "Philip K. Dick on reality".........................................................................................5 Bertrand Russell on rejecting certainty............................................................................................................6 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on rejecting certainty" ...................................................................9 Ryszard Kapuscinski on achieving goals........................................................................................................10 Richard Feynman on not fooling oneself........................................................................................................13 Feedback for Post "Richard Feynman on not fooling oneself" ..............................................................16 Bertrand Russell on reason and courage........................................................................................................17 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on reason and courage" ...............................................................20 Molly Ivins on the lack of order in democracy ...............................................................................................21 Feedback for Post "Molly Ivins on the lack of order in democracy" .....................................................24 Thomas Jefferson on the rights of mankind...................................................................................................25 Friedrich Durrenmatt on state as a mythical entity......................................................................................29 George Orwell on truth as a revolutionary act..............................................................................................32 William Hazlitt on love of liberty and love of power.....................................................................................35 Thomas Paine on renouncing reason..............................................................................................................39 Feedback for Post "Thomas Paine on renouncing reason"....................................................................42 Bertrand Russell on virtuous and wicked nations.........................................................................................44 Robert G. Ingersoll on happiness...................................................................................................................48 Feedback for Post " Robert G. Ingersoll on happiness" .........................................................................51 Robert Owen on the common interests of human race.................................................................................52 Feedback for Post "Robert Owen on the common interests of human race".........................................55 Steven Weinberg on the effort to understand the universe ...........................................................................56 Jared Diamond on patriotic and religious fanatics ........................................................................................59 Baron May of Oxford on dangers of fundamentalism..................................................................................62 John Stuart Mill on discovering new truths...................................................................................................65

Table of Contents
Marcus Aurelius on the needless fear of death..............................................................................................68 Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on the needless fear of death".....................................................72 Epicurus on the origins of science...................................................................................................................74 Robert Owen on the spirit of universal charity ..............................................................................................77 Bertrand Russell on man as a credulous animal............................................................................................80 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on man as a credulous animal"...................................................83 Mark Twain on customs...................................................................................................................................84 Stephen Weinberg on why good people do bad things..................................................................................87 Feedback for Post "Stephen Weinberg on why good people do bad things" .........................................90 John Stuart Mill on want of ideas..................................................................................................................91 Bertrand Russell on exact science and approximation..................................................................................94 George Orwell on war-propaganda................................................................................................................97 Epicurus on giving credence to myths..........................................................................................................101 John Stuart Mill on exercising power over individuals ...............................................................................104 Feedback for Post "John Stuart Mill on exercising power over individuals"......................................107 Marcus Aurelius on poverty and crime........................................................................................................108 Robert G. Ingersoll on the tyrant in heaven.................................................................................................112 Bertrand Russell on dogma and natural kindness.......................................................................................116 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on dogma and natural kindness"...............................................119 Marcus Aurelius on giving wealth away.......................................................................................................120 Sinclair Lewis on woes because of the devil.................................................................................................123 . Feedback for Post "Sinclair Lewis on woes because of the devil"......................................................127 Thomas Paine on the institutions of churches..............................................................................................128 Mark Twain on being dead............................................................................................................................132 Feedback for Post "Mark Twain on being dead "................................................................................136 Marcus Aurelius on constant change...........................................................................................................153 Marcus Aurelius on rejecting the sense of injury........................................................................................157

ii

Table of Contents
Thomas Paine on securing liberty.................................................................................................................161 Bertrand Russell on science and philosophy................................................................................................164 Bertrand Russell on love and knowledge......................................................................................................167 Mark Twain on loyalty to petrified opinions ................................................................................................170 Feedback for Post "Mark Twain on loyalty to petrified opinions"......................................................173 Bertrand Russell on authority in science......................................................................................................174 Bertrand Russell on being cocksure..............................................................................................................177 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on being cocksure"...................................................................180 George Orwell on highly civilized human beings trying to kill him ...........................................................181 Feedback for Post "George Orwell on highly civilized human beings trying to kill him"..................185 Bertrand Russell on unnatural advances in civilization ..............................................................................187 George Orwell on the futility of revenge .......................................................................................................190 Feedback for Post "George Orwell on the futility of revenge" ............................................................194 Thomas Paine on owning earth.....................................................................................................................195 Feedback for Post "Thomas Paine on owning earth" ...........................................................................199 Bill Bryson on the unity of all life..................................................................................................................200 Feedback for Post "Bill Bryson on the unity of all life"......................................................................203 Bertrand Russell on abandoning reason.......................................................................................................204 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on abandoning reason".............................................................207 Robert G. Ingersoll on ignorance..................................................................................................................208 George Orwell on atrocities...........................................................................................................................211 Feedback for Post "George Orwell on atrocities"................................................................................215 Bertrand Russell on skepticism and dogma.................................................................................................216 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on skepticism and dogma"........................................................220 Seneca on crimes committed by nations.......................................................................................................221 Feedback for Post "Seneca on crimes committed by nations " ............................................................225 Marcus Aurelius on revoking external pain.................................................................................................226 Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on revoking external pain" ........................................................230 Karl Popper on correcting errors in science................................................................................................231

iii

Table of Contents
Richard Feynman on explaining mysteries with gods.................................................................................235 Feedback for Post "Richard Feynman on explaining mysteries with gods"........................................239 Karl Popper on dangers of Utopias...............................................................................................................241 Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on dangers of Utopias" .....................................................................245 Mark Twain on traditions..............................................................................................................................247 Bertrand Russell on the virtue of enduring uncertainty.............................................................................251 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on the virtue of enduring uncertainty ".....................................254 Epicurus on the accumulation of pleasures..................................................................................................255 Feedback for Post "Epicurus on the accumulation of pleasures"........................................................258 Iris Murdoch on how to make things holy....................................................................................................259 Adam Smith on governments defending the rich .........................................................................................263 A.C. Grayling on kindness, compassion, affection and mutuality ..............................................................266 Feedback for Post "A.C. Grayling on kindness, compassion, affection and mutuality".....................270 Marcus Aurelius on finding refuge from trouble .........................................................................................271 Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on finding refuge from trouble"................................................275 A. C. Grayling on whipping up lurid anxieties for money..........................................................................276 Voltaire on dangerous opinions.....................................................................................................................280 Feedback for Post "Voltaire on dangerous opinions"..........................................................................284 Bertrand Russell on birth control.................................................................................................................288 Erich Fromm on greed as a bottomless pit...................................................................................................292 Kurt Vonnegut on death as form of popular entertainment .......................................................................296 Feedback for Post "Kurt Vonnegut on death as form of popular entertainment"................................300 Author's friends..............................................................................................................................................301 About the author.............................................................................................................................................303 Pageviews.........................................................................................................................................................304

iv

Windows on Humanity

Philip K. Dick on reality

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick in "How To Build A Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later" (1978)

My own ideas on the quote: What Philip K. Dick says here is an extremely basic and universal truth. However, we still seem to need somebody to put it in words so that we can really appreciate the idea. After reading this sentence, one may even think that everybody should quite naturally understand its meaning. However, there are people who seem to 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 become true. People have naturally all kinds of reasons for doing this. Reality just might be often too harsh place to be faced without the safety nets that are offered by a soothing and comforting set 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, in fact, 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

Feedback for Post "Philip K. Dick on reality"

Kristine von Denffer [Visitor] http://www.aska.fi 16.09.2012 @ 15:23 Brilliant Philip K. Dick, R.I.P. Have all his books, both in English and in Finnish. Love to reread 'Blade Runner' and 'Ubik' at least once every year...Are we approaching his visions in 2012?

Bertrand Russell on rejecting certainty

"Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality."

- Bertrand Russell in "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?" (1947)

My own ideas on the quote: Bertrand Russell sets here one of the most difficult tasks any man or woman can face. It is the need to avoid accepting and nurturing absolute certainties. Only after we accept this basic idea can we 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. It is not always even possible. However, only by setting this kind of unreachable goals can we really improve the human existence. We can be extremely 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. 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'. They are, after all, quite normally marketed as absolute and

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on rejecting certainty"

Ryan [Visitor] 19.09.2012 @ 04:16 Dont be so surenobody can be certain of anything. "One cannot be sure that one cannot be sure of anything. The pronouncement means that no knowledge of any kind is possible to man, i.e., that man is not conscious. Furthermore, if one tried to accept that catch phrase, one would find that its second part contradicts its first: if nobody can be certain of anything, then everybody can be certain of everything he pleasessince it cannot be refuted, and he can claim he is not certain he is certain (which is the purpose of that notion)." | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 20.09.2012 @ 11:02 Dear Ryan, it does nothing of the kind. That you cannot be FOREVER sure that some things that you believe in are ABSOLUTELY right does not at all mean that you cannot be sure ENOUGH of the correctness of certain claims and ideas to act upon these ideas in the real world. Absolute certainty exists only in a theoretical world, but we live in real world where most things are under influence of many different and often conflicting forces and the real outcomes of events are always under a varying level of uncertainty. We can know the general outlines of our universe and reality very clearly, but at the same time we very often cannot be absolutely certain of the outcome of an individual event.

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, Ryszard Kapuscinski says that humans should or even must have higher goals in life. This is an idea with which I wholeheartedly agree. Secondly, he says that just to strive for achieving those goals is the important in itself. Reaching any kind of meaningful ultimate or 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. This is as it should be. 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 usually stagnated because of these 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. One can have noble and worthwhile higher goals in life, even if one well knows, as Kapuzinski suggests, that they can never really be reached fully. The goals that people have will not become null and void because of this knowledge, but they can, in fact, become greatly enhanced from accepting this fact. This quote is also about rejecting absolutes. They are so dear to mathematicians, but unfortunately non-existent in human societies. (This piece was completely refurbished on 18th of September, 2012)

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 - 20:26:18 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"(1964)

My own ideas on the quote:

This quote draws together in one sentence much of the contradictions and also of the greatness which are inherent in the general scientific method. This method is the basis for all modern science. Science wants and tries to be as impersonal as possible. However, one must still accept the fact all the things that people do in the real world can become personal in the end. When a scientist thinks that one has discovered something really new and worthwhile, he or she will quite inevitably create a personal relationship with that discovery, whatever it is. A fact just is that science is also a personal thing. 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 through this process can new ideas 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 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. Scientific community as a whole just can achieve much, much more than scientist who would be operating singly could ever accomplish. 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 18th of September, 2012)

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 @ 07.01.2010 - 23:48:19 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 @ 07:51 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 @ 09:34 Thanks Mike, its corrected now! Hrothgir [Visitor] 08.01.2010 @ 14:48 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: This idea by Bertrand Russell is very hard to understand wholly, especially as the bad word "faith" creeps into the discussion here. However, the crucial point here is to understand what Bertrand Russell really means by "faith". It can be hard to believe that, for example, air consists of wide collection of different gases. In the end, you need a certain amount of 'faith' to believe that science can give reliable answers even to this simple question. Of course, this faith in science is based on thousands and thousands of well-demonstrated cases where science has proven to be right beyond any reasonable doubt. Still, deep down is the issue of "faith". However, the word "trust" just could 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 made. Science has simply succeeded in making our lives easier in many ways. It has also successfully explained the

world in meaningful ways. On the other hand, in the case of religions 'faith' is normally 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. 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. 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. However, 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 refurbished on 19th of September, 2012) Bertrand Russell is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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 @ 08.01.2010 - 23:53:04 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 @ 18:27 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 @ 20:15 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 @ 19:24 thelittlebook.blogs.fi is awsome, bookmarked Dog obedience training live tv [Visitor] http://direct-tv.webstarts.com/ 25.06.2012 @ 21:43 Hello there! I simply would like to give you a big thumbs up for the great information you've got right here on this post. I'll be coming back to your web site for more soon. http://direct-tv.webstarts.com/

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: 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. A hard fact remains that democracy can also fail miserably and it can and it will always produce wrong and mistaken decisions also. 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. All totalitarian systems do 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 feedback 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. 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. It happens even more certainly if decisions are based on warped set of data to begin with. 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 naturally 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. Whenever a change of government can be accomplished without shedding any blood, the society will always benefit in a big way. (This piece was refurbished on 20th of September, 2012) Democracy has its own Facebook-page at: http://www.facebook.com/democracypage

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 - 11:08:27 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 @ 21:49 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 @ 21:23 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 of them had emigrated to America just to escape the wrath of the official Anglican church. From this point it was much easier to take the next logical step forward. It was easy even to move outside the Christian religion altogether. Many of the Founding Fathers did really take this step. Thomas Paine was famously one of them. Thomas Jefferson had no certain religious affiliation. However, he is widely seen as a Deist, even if he sometimes classed himself as Epicurean. Epicureanism is not normally classed as a religion. This is true, 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 in an idea that some kind of higher force did create the universe. 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 naturally never be happy in a democracy either. However, there is a lot of real world evidence that the median level of contentment has been higher in democracies in the long run. Democracies are capable of change and development in a way that is mostly in-achievable in totalitarian systems. This can well be seen in the form of example of 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 21th of September, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_jefferson "Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 (April 2, 1743 O.S.) July 4, 1826) was an American Founding Father, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the third President of the United States (1801 1809). Jefferson was the first United States Secretary of State (1790 1793) serving under President George Washington. Elected president in what Jefferson called the Revolution of 1800, he oversaw the purchase of the vast Louisiana Territory from France (1803), and sent the Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804 1806) to explore the new west. In 1807, President Jefferson signed into law a bill that banned the importation of slaves into the United States."

by jaskaw @ 11.01.2010 - 22:01:46 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

My own ideas on the quote:

There seemingly still does exist a belief that some things just need to be left 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 to have in all societies. They are necessary because they are needed to assure the well-being of the inhabitants of that society and to keep the society going in general.

There really are people who think that some things should be labeled as sacred, and they should be left outside any allowed criticism. This could as well be just because some people think that certain features of society are so useful for themselves or the society that they must never be allowed to change. By declaring some things 'sacred' some people may try to keep certain important issues and ideas out of normal critical analysis. 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. Friedrich Drrenmatt is, however, just stating in this quote the fact that states and nations are useful tools. There just is nothing sacred or divine in them or their inner workings. Even states are just human creations. They have been created to serve humans, not the other way around. A great deal of all of the things we choose to believe are so often fiction, which we choose to believe because this fiction is so useful to us. Acknowledging that fact is, however, very hard. It is 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 22th of September, 2012)

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 - 21:03:18 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 (attributed)

My own ideas on the quote:

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 notice when this happens. So often 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. Sometimes 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 to raise

their voices. PS. No source for this extremely widespread quote has been found among Orwell's own writings. In fact, the earliest published source found on Google books is a snippet from p. 35 of New Statesman and Society, Vol. 3, Issues 133-136 (1991). (This piece was completely refurbished on 23th of September, 2012) George Orwell is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/orwellblair

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."

by jaskaw @ 13.01.2010 - 20:50:39 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 in "Political Essays" (1819)

My own ideas on the quote: This is loaded with many different kinds of meanings, but for me the central theme 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. This responsibility is simply handed over to the authority that is controlling your life. This release from responsibility is 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. The success of radical Marxism, radical Islam or radical Christianity does show how many people desperately want nothing more than to be liberated from the need to think by themselves. On the other hand, freedom and liberty require a great deal of responsibility, as without a degree of responsibility freedom simply does not work. When one is not just forced to do certain things in a certain way by an authority a person needs to think about the consequences of one's own actions in a quite new way. 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. However, a free society can be personally much, much more demanding place to live in. However, a totalitarian system is basically egoistic. The ease of life that a person achieves is in the end accomplished by taking away the freedom of choice from all. (This piece was completely refurbished on 24th of September, 2012)

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 - 19:55:08 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 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." - Thomas Paine in the "The American Crisis" (1776)

My own ideas on the quote: This quote just does not need any further explanation as such. The message is as clear as it can get. There is 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 familiar with the Internet-debates of today. However, anybody even with a passing acquaintance with the world of debates that are raging in thousands of mailing lists, chats and comment-pages will instantly recognizes the type of person that Thomas Paine speaks about. Thomas Paine seems to speak 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. It can well happen that they start slowly sinking in at some point. This effect is of course quite impossible to measure. However, it just can be there, given of course that we have the patience not to offend and ridicule people who's ideas we see as silly at that 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 25th of September, 2012) Thomas Paine is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/painethomas

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 - 20:45:25 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 @ 21:29 This is hilarious and great timing. Thanks. Anders [Visitor] 15.01.2010 @ 22:27 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 @ 17:05 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 @ 20:57 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 @ 02:07 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. Don [Visitor] 25.09.2012 @ 21:22 I haven't met anyone who has "renounced" the use and authority or reason. I haven't met anyone who does not stubbornly cling to some opinions. I don't think I've ever witnessed anyone convince anyone of anything in a debate. What I do witness, everyday, is people who believe that their side is right and the other side is not just mistaken, but irrational, acting in bad faith, or mentally ill. Most debate, from the perspective of both participants, is like talking to a brick wall, on both sides. Was Paine's experience different? Did he have a circle of highly flexible rationalists who adopted the best position without prejudice? Not from my perspective. Instead, it looks like the early intellectional leaders in the United States argued endlessly about federalism, slavery, rights, and every other issue, both major and minor, without persuading one another of anything. In the end, they were practical enough to compromise in the name of necessity. In other words, they didn't insist on the intellectual purity that Paine's comment implies. It feels good to give the finger to one's opponents, can call them idiots or dead men. Of all Paine's good ideas, his giving into this tendency is one of the least useful. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 25.09.2012 @ 23:57 Don says: "I haven't met anyone who has "renounced" the use and authority or reason." I say: Good for you, Don, if you have never met a person who believe that scriptures tell the only and final truth about everything imaginable. You haven't missed a lot though, as such persons are normally quite incapable of any kind of coherent conversation.

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)

My own ideas on the quote:

Bertrand Russell attacks with this quote the hard core of jingoistic nationalism. One's own nationality is

always presented as being something that is inherently better and nobler than others. This happens even if there mostly is no real basis for such an 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. However, the biggest differences are always transient things. They are produced by accidental historical processes and unique situations. 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 is not a reasonable thing to say at all. One should not forget that only for a bit over a 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 of the state they simply forced a great deal of their fellow countrymen to take part in their evil 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 exist 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. Many people simply 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? Without the existing 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 need not face the terrible possibility that a ruthless enough gang of political psychopaths would succeed again in a thing like the Nazis. Then we need not fear the possibility that similar elements can always take over state machinery if it is geared into absolute obedience for the current regime, whatever that is. (This piece was completely refurbished on 26th of September, 2012)

Bertrand Russell is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie 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 - 17:46:01 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/16/bertrand-russell-on-virtuous-and-wicked-nations-7767061/

Robert G. Ingersoll on happiness

"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. This quite does present some of the central ideas in the Epicurean way of thinking, but also part of the Stoic philosophy. The secret of happiness is in big part in simply not worrying unnecessarily about the future. Nobody just can not know what it will bring. Worrying about the future will not generally change it for better. However, unnecessary worry can, in fact, make it worse. Robert G. Ingersoll also reminds that personal happiness is not enough. 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. It is 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 27th of September, 2012) Robert G. Ingersoll is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/ingersollorator

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 - 17:17:17 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/17/robert-g-ingersoll-on-happiness-7773488/

Feedback for Post " Robert G. Ingersoll on happiness"

Mikel [Visitor] http://atheistyogi.com 17.01.2010 @ 18:51 Lovely blog! I will check back here often.

Robert Owen on the common 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 a person who has risen high over the moral landscape of his own day. However, Robert Owen did not need any kind of supernatural beliefs to guide him in his quest for easing the lot of his 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. 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 not the norm in the business-world of his day. In fact, 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 28th of September, 2012) Robert Owen is in the Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/robertowenwriter

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 - 11:58:52 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/18/robert-owen-on-the-interests-of-human-race-7779141/

Feedback for Post "Robert Owen on the common interests of human race"
jose joseph [Visitor] http://www.atheistnews.blogs.fi 18.01.2010 @ 12:33 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 @ 17:54 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 the effort to understand the universe

"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: 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, with the help of science we can marvel freely at the remaining mysteries of nature. We can do it with an 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 make preposterous claims of having all the final answers on the origins and the nature of our physical universe. Science can and will never make such claims.

Science is 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, when we look back at what science has already accomplished, we can be assured that our knowledge will steadily grow. This is true, even if it will never be perfect or final. (This piece was completely refurbished on 29th of September, 2012) Steven Weinberg is inf Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/weinbergscientist

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 - 20:25:27 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 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 special field of interest in history. 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 written by Jared Diamond have opened at least my eyes into seeing many things that I would 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 reason for this is naturally 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. This is the big change which Jared Diamond is referring to in this quote. 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 who just wants to lead a bit better life (also on expense of the defeated) does not benefit from destroying his opponent. However, a man who wants 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 29th of September, 2012)

Jared Diamond is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/diamondwriter

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 - 22:26:34 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. Authoritarian systems are good in preserving social coherence and an orderly society. However, 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 statelike communities. These new communities began to emerge after the innovation of agriculture made it possible to support an armed ruling

class. This new class could now 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 to take over weaker ones and the idea of a modern state was invented. This kind of bonding did serve these early societies well. A very real problem is that they got to be too good in their job. Religions became closed systems or change-resistant memes. They got better and better in creating intensive group cohesion and defining borders between different groups of people. However, they did soon turn out to be a real problem in situations where co-operation with strangers was needed. All too often only the 'true believers' could be accepted as equals. In a globalized world everybody is more and more dependent on other people. Religiously motivated tribalism is all too often a real liability and not an advantage at all anymore. (This piece was refurbished on 29th of September, 2012)

Robert May, Baron May of Oxford is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/robertmayoxford

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 - 19:24:11 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. 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 thought 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. This new kind of Christianity had been radically changed by the ideas of secular humanism. In the Anglican church emerged the vibrant new antislavery movement. This did happen, even if in that the

very same church had only a little earlier been a bastion of opposition to all kind of change in the society. This movement in the end did put the end to slavery in the whole of British Empire. This opposition to slavery 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 the thinking of certain prominent members of the church was changed by the new, emerging humanistic ideas. 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. That requires that religion is 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 30th of September, 2012) John Stuart Mill is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/jsmillphilosopher

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 - 19:35:03 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). Their promise of "life after death" seems to give great comfort to many people. The promise of "conquering" death is, in fact, one of the main selling points of all of these religions. Many people simply cannot deal with this inevitable part of life. This is true, even if death is a necessary part of the life cycle of all living creatures. We also commonly assume that human species is the only species that spends time pondering about its own death. In reality we do not know if other advanced species do have ideas of their own about death or not. The ability to realize the end of our life can be seen as a price that we pay for our highly developed intellectual machinery. We can do a lot of things that other animals are unable to do, but as said, there is a

steep price attached to this mental ability. 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 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 fear is used to the maximum by the Abrahamic religions. They benefit greatly from the heightening of this fear of death. Marcus Aurelius does, in fact, attack one of the central pillars of Christianity in this quote. 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. (This piece was completely refurbished on 30th of September, 2012) Marcus Aurelius is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/aureliusphilosopher

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 - 21:38:44 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 @ 14:35 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 @ 17:12 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 @ 19:53 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 @ 12:13 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 @ 12:43 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. Trish Ramirez [Visitor] 30.09.2012 @ 21:19 I don't think that ANYONE can truly be free of the fear of death, it is a natural part of human life as we tend to fear anything we don't understand - particularly when it pertains to us. That being said, turning to baseless and unfounded beliefs to help avoid fearing death and writing your entire life story based upon those beliefs in an effort to calm your fear is really a waste of life. You spend the limited time you have worrying and preparing for future time that may not exist for you at all...

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 also for the birth of modern science. Epicurus is simply saying that fear of the 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. Epicureans say that if we accept the religious explanations for the things around us, we would not need no more explaining. 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 did open 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 placeholder 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. This happens, 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 get real answers to questions of our own origins and the real nature of our universe. (This piece was refurbished on 1th of October, 2012)

Epicurus is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/epicureanphilosopher

/> 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 - 21:28:56 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 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. All of his earlier achievements as a philanthropist and idealist were not negated by the fact that towards the very end of his life he did become entangled with all kinds of spiritualist and mystic ideas. 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 in some kind of afterlife. In fact, it can be claimed that goodness that exists just in the hope of some kind of personal reward is not real goodness at all. 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. 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 1th of October, 2012) Robert Owen is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/robertowenwriter

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 - 22:10:15 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 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 feudal system of 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. With time they emerged 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. In this situation religions had two different survival strategies open to them. They could either deny the importance of the new scientific findings, or they could adapt themselves to a new world that was being built 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. These organizations concentrated in giving solace and certainty for people who live 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 that was 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 of the scientific world to confront them. All too many people 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 2th of October, 2012)

Bertrand Russell is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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 Welsh

by jaskaw @ 27.01.2010 - 21:53:13 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"

gelschter User [Visitor] 28.01.2010 @ 17:06 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 @ 14:21 Love is just one emotion of many and is hardly a cure for whatever "ails" humanity.

Mark Twain on customs

"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. He did became an agnostic and even an atheist in his later years. It is not very commonly known even now, as this secret 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 who did come out in these matters was simply asking for trouble in his time. Majority of his 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. All in all, 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 the extraordinary force of tradition. For even many of the secular Jews Jewishness consists simply of mechanical repetition of certain acts in given moments of the year. However, the reason why these acts really are seen as necessary is not 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. I have used Judaism only as a concrete example, as a similar process is at play in all religious traditions.

(This piece was refurbished on 3rd of October, 2012)

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 @ 28.01.2010 - 23:19:50 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 naturally 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 the others have believed in a wrong kind of religious dogma or have had no dogma of their own 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 3rd of October, 2012)

Stephen Weinberg is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/weinbergscientist

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 - 20:27:11 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 @ 04:08 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 @ 22:41 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 (attributed) as quoted by Ira D Cardiff in "What Great Men Think of Religion" (1972)

My own ideas on the quote: A great quote can include in one sentence ideas that can take a whole book to explain. This quote is one of those that can make one see the whole phenomena of religions in a new light. This quote highlights 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. The answers that have been provided by religions have simply been better than no kind of answer at all. Of course, this function is still present. This is true, even if the mysteries in our physical environment do not really need a separate religious explanations anymore. 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 ideological questions. Answers to questions like this are based on values and not on bare facts alone. There are no right or "true" answers for these questions. However, answers to them are all too often chosen according to their efficiency in giving

comfort. Religions are on the surface good at giving answers to these deepest metaphysical question. 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, 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 religions. Modern secular humanism is based on established philosophical ideas. It does provide a good set of answers for of all major ethical questions that are commonly troubling people. However, they are not final truths. They are just the best answers at a given moment, and they are based only on the knowledge that we really do have. (This piece was refurbished on 4th of October, 2012) John Stuart Mill is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/jsmillphilosopher 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 - 14:38:08 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." - Bertrand Russell in "The Scientific Outlook" (1931)

My own ideas on the quote: The idea presented in this quote may seem even odd at first glance. We simply have often learned to see science as something very exact and rigid. The current central findings of science are too often falsely presented as some kind of absolute truths. This can happen for example in schools.

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. There just must always exist the possibility to take every single scientific fact and theory under new scrutiny. It is always possible to modify and correct any single one of the old theories, if they prove to be wrong in some way. For example, also the current theory of gravity will be corrected, if there emerges new data 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. However, they never are final and unchanging. As Bertrand Russell says, science is art of approximation that is based on available facts. As the facts do change, must the answers given by science change too. Of course, a degree of rigidity is inbuilt in this system. To change even any of the most well-established scientific findings one needs just 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. 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 religious and other strong 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)

Bertrand Russell is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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."

2 February 1970) was a

by jaskaw @ 31.01.2010 - 21:10:36 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/31/bertrand-russell-on-exact-truth-7912715/

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. This 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. 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 an 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 today, 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. This indoctrination has got most people to accept the states "right" to use violence when the leaders of a state see any kind of political need for it. Even questioning this "right" means standing outside the boundaries of a socially accepted behavior at the moment. A sad fact is that universal acceptance of state-sponsored violence will continue as long until a large enough group of people decides that it must be stopped. However, also slavery did finally come to an end. It happened, 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 5th of October, 2012)

George Orwell is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/orwellblair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_orwell "Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 21 January 1950), known by his pen name George Orwell, was an English novelist and journalist. His work is marked by clarity, intelligence and wit, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and belief in democratic socialism. Considered perhaps the 20th century's best chronicler of English culture,Orwell wrote literary criticism, poetry, fiction and polemical journalism. He is best known for the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four

(1949) and the allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945), which together have sold more copies than any two books by any other 20th-century author. His book Homage to Catalonia (1938), an account of his experiences in the Spanish Civil War, is widely acclaimed, as are his numerous essays on politics, literature, language and culture. In 2008, The Times ranked him second on a list of "The 50 greatest British writers since 1945". Orwell's work continues to influence popular and political culture, and the term Orwellian descriptive of totalitarian or authoritarian social practices has entered the vernacular with several of his neologisms, such as doublethink, thoughtcrime, and thought police."

by jaskaw @ 01.02.2010 - 22:26:42 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. 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 religionlike 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. The big difference was that Epicureanism was based on reason and reasoning, when Christianity was anchored on strongly emotionally laden things like fear of death and promises of eternal life. They were in turn based on promoting that 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 big thing is that when this explanation is based on science, it can be allowed to develop and change with the 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 7th of October, 2012)

Epicurus is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/epicureanphilosopher

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 - 22:54:18 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." - John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty" (1859)

My own ideas on the quote: This thought by John Stuart Mill is surely one of the most quoted thing that he ever wrote. At the same time, it is one of the most disputed one of all of his ideas. This is true, even if many of ideas that John Stuart Mill did propagate at the early 19th century have been quite universally accepted in western democratic societies. 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. However, 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 thought that society can take even strong action to protect and save a person from his or her own lifestyle if this lifestyle just is seen to include some kind of a health hazard. This is 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 individual's life must be. Maximizing the longevity of all possible members of a society has been raised to a position of a main goal 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 really 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. John Stuart Mill had a clear answer to this question. (This piece was completely refurbished on 9th of December, 2012)

John Stuart Mill is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/jsmillphilosopher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill "John Stuart Mill, FRSE (20 May 1806 8 May 1873) was a British philosopher, political economist and civil servant. He was an influential contributor to social theory, political theory, and political economy. He has been called "the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century". Mill's 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. Mill was also a Member of Parliament and an important figure in liberal political philosophy."

by jaskaw @ 04.02.2010 - 22:12:45 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 @ 21:36 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 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. However, understanding the reasons why individuals do retort to crime differently in different kinds of societies could be a major step forward in finding ways really to fight crime. We can already statistically show without any doubt that there is always less crime in affluent societies. There simply is always less crime in societies which share wealth more evenly than in societies that do not share 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 inequality. Inequality is after all inevitably created by the basic structure of any kind of modern economy. However, its effects can be treated

in different ways. The sociopaths and psychopaths are of course present in every society. A crime-free society is simply impossible. But poverty that is forced on individuals by economic and social circumstances is always one of the main reasons why also mentally quite stable people choose a life in crime. Of course, there are also self-inflicted addictions that do make people unable to make an honest living. However, 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 we know of. There will undoubtedly be crime as long as humanity exists. However, clear evidence does show that the we can affect the 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, this is much easier task in a just than in an unjust society. (This piece was rewritten on 10th of October, 2012)

Marcus Aurelius is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/aureliusphilosopher

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

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 terse sentence 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. This new Christianity 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 has finally 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 idea 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 Christianity was forced to adopt these new ideas to stay in touch with the changing society This process of change of Christianity was not instantaneous, but a long process. During it many of the old core dogmas were quietly dropped. Many other 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. However, in it the process has been left halfway. This is 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. However, 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. Western societies have become more and more tolerant and rationality-based, but in Islam there has been almost no ability to change with times. (This piece was refurbished on 10th of October, 2012) Robert G. Ingersoll is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/ingersollorator

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 - 00:01:47 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 in Philosophy and Politic, in Unpopular Essays (1950)

My own ideas on the quote: One of the biggest contradictions in all of the modern Abrahamic religions or Christianity, Islam and Judaism is that they profess to bring the message of kindness and goodness into the world. However, in reality they have also been major sources of aggression, hatred and strife, The reason for this apparent disparity is the simple fact that kindness and goodness are generally reserved for those who adhere to the exactly same version of the religion in question. Other people are often seen as dangerous, strange and in ultimate cases even 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. However, 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. They are simply seemingly unable to understand how some people of their religion really do behave outside the immediate circle of true believers. 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 already accepted this very basic humanistic concept of universal human value and dignity, However, 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 can 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. Their 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 of religious organizations can 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 11th of December, 2012)

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." 2 February 1970) was a

by jaskaw @ 07.02.2010 - 20:55:03 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] 08.02.2010 @ 23:15 Well said.....& right to the point! Love this site, & thanks so much for some great reading!!! shahid siddiqui [Visitor] 22.03.2010 @ 05:37 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 @ 16:21 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 @ 16:43 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." - Marcus Aurelius in "Meditations"

My own ideas on the quote: The basic idea in this quote is, of course, quite simple. You can always lose your material wealth in an instant 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. However, if you have done nothing worthwhile with that wealth, there is not much even to remember. I do not see this quote only as a call for individual philanthropy, but also as a call for general sharing of wealth. The problems of unequal distribution of wealth in modern economic systems just cannot be corrected with personal acts of generosity. It can be done 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 commonly invested into unneeded objects of status or just put into safekeeping. The rich people of Scandinavia have lost nothing important when they have accepted the higher level of

taxation in the past. In fact, they have gained a new level of security and safety in the society they do live in. However, the rich people in Mexico, for example, give a tremendously smaller part of their income to the state. 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. They also know that their children will be able to enjoy similar conditions, as well. In the true spirit of Marcus Aurelius; by giving some of their wealth to others they gain something of value that is present also after their own physical demise. (This piece was refurbished on 12th of October, 2012) Marcus Aurelius is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/aureliusphilosopher

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 - 21:34:58 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. There is, however, the issue with intellectual honesty. Presenting missionary work purely as selfless good work is 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. 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. Behind this mask they can continue rooting out of the 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 normally provide any kind of means for living by the new values. Normally nothing that is done by the missionaries will boost the local economy, even if new medicines and schooling are often provided. Of course, many of those who take part in the missionary work can also be motivated by quite pure and selfless motives. 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. This explosion is threatening the future 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. Advances in health care do guarantee that more and more people are going to live to reproduce more. However, the normally very easy and readily available means to limit population growth are not used thanks also to the work of the missionaries. In the end, the missionaries must be held as in part responsible for the hunger catastrophes and deaths that are seen many of the developing countries. The spreading of odd dogmas on reproduction has contributed to the fact that the excessive population growth has not been stopped in time in many countries. (This piece was refurbished on 13th of October, 2012)

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 - 22:21:48

Feedback for Post "Sinclair Lewis on woes because of the devil"

Hector [Visitor] 09.03.2011 @ 23:33 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: Major modern religions have changed even immensely from the time of Thomas Paine. This has happened mainly because societies have changed also. In the time of Thomas Paine there was a open and unashamed coalition of the rulers and local religions. This direct connections has in our time largely been either broken down or diminished. 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. Religion were even major tools in keeping the absolute rulers of that day in power. Religions were extremely important tools in keeping up the feudal rule. They effectively denied even the possibility of ever questioning the existing social order, as it just was according to them divinely ordained. In

modern countries where where there are no feudal rulers anymore, also religions do not have similar functions any more. However, they still are commonly extremely conservative and change-resisting forces. In countries like Saudi-Arabia religion, however, still retains its role as a supporter of the feudal rulers. The words of Thomas Paine do still apply in these countries. However, it is always wrong to speak of religions as one big unmovable lump. All major religions have changed and evolved tremendously through ages. For example, Islam was in its birth even more aggressively expansionist and violent religion than the early Christianity. It can be hard to remember now that Christianity made converts for the first couple of hundred years of its existence mainly by personal conversion and persuasion. However, anybody reading Koran knows that Islam was spread by the sword from the very beginning. Islam has always supported the feudal rulers and ruling classes if they just chose Islam. 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. On the other hand, Christianity was 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. This fig-leaf helped to hide from view the immense power of the institutions 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 own expansive phase. The acts of violence that were committed to advance Islam were soon much more less plentiful than were those that were committed in the name of new expansionist and extremely violent version of Christianity of that 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 one must remember that both Christianity and Islam work on two quite different levels. There is the level of an individual believer. They can still well choose to believe in the original message of kindness and love. However, there is the higher level of organized religion. On that level quite different morality does apply. All too often use of violence to defend and spread the original message of love and kindness is allowed. Most of all this violence is seen a quite moral thing. (This piece was refurbished on 14th of October, 2012)

Thomas Paine is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/painethomas

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 - 21:21:43 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 one of the most resilient human ideas is that human life would somehow not end in the end of physical life. This phenomena happens even if life has a very clearly defined moment of beginning at the moment of conception. This odd situation can be explained by the simple fact that when we die physically, we continue to live on in the minds of those who have known us or our ideas. This presence that persists in the mind can very easily grow into a feeling that a person is really still 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 an 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. Tey extremely boldly promised eternal life in heaven for those (but for only those, of course!) who accepted fully and unquestioningly their newfangled 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. However, just this bold promise of personal immortality was one of the major reasons for the ultimate success of that religion. Mark Twain points out 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. This can happen 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 15th of October, 2012)

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 - 21:49:27 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 @ 17:06 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 @ 19:08 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 @ 11:02 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 @ 11:45 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. joe [Visitor] 04.09.2012 @ 21:52 Go on to your god my delusional friend. In reality you'll only find a dark hole. Live this life to the fullest and forget about your religion ball and chain. Durathror [Visitor] 18.02.2010 @ 20:38 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 @ 22:16 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 @ 22:02 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 20.02.2010 @ 23:23 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 @ 15:55 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 @ 21:13 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 @ 22:35 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 @ 20:25 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 @ 18:14 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 @ 10:46 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 @ 11:25 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] 02.03.2010 @ 23:04 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 02.03.2010 @ 23:53 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 @ 21:02 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 @ 21:11 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 @ 21:44 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 @ 22:09 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 @ 21:49 '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 @ 11:01 ...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 @ 11:02 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 @ 11:02 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 @ 11:03 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 @ 11:03 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 @ 11:04 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 @ 11:05 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 @ 22:09 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 @ 18:28 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 @ 21:25 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 @ 13:15 '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 @ 14:42 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 @ 11:02 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 always that everything is the result of a change, and get used to thinking that there is nothing Nature loves so well as to change existing forms and to make new ones like them." - Marcus Aurelius in 'Meditations'

My own ideas on the quote: The main point of this quote is to remind how extremely important thing change is. We just tend to see things as they are at the present moment. Too many people still believe that permanence and resisting change is the natural order of things. Some people have always seen that Marcus Aurelius is speaking of Universe as some kind of divine force in

the same sense that Christians speak of their own 'god', but I beg to disagree. Men did just express things like this in this way in Marcus Aurelius' times. The expression "Nature" just means that our universe has certain universal qualities that find their expression in different events of our physical world. It is, however, easy to understand why many theists have mistakenly inserted automatically "god" into the place of "Universe" in this quote for nearly two thousand years. However, this quote says, in fact, nothing of the ultimate causes why things work the way they do work. It just refers to how the basic structure of the Universe appears to humans. Good old Marcus did not think "nature" would have a "will" or "mind" of its own. 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, Basically it is just idea of a original cause and order of things. In Deism, there is no concept of any kind of personal god, eternal life or eternal punishment. In Deism there are, in fact, no gods that would interfere in human affairs. Deism or pantheism is in reality not a religion in a way in which we now understand religion. 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 Universe exist and how has it come 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. 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. Of course, we already 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 as so many followers of modern religions do. They eagerly proclaim their absolute knowledge over answers to questions which in reality we just cannot know yet. (This piece was refurbished on 16th of October,2012)

Marcus Aurelius is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/aureliusphilosopher

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 - 13:10:51 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." - Marcus Aurelius in 'Meditations'

My own thoughts on the quote: There are naturally also mental injuries that are so deep that you just cannot make them disappear from your mind whatever you do. However, Marcus Aurelius can be interpreted to say just that the less you dwell in your own mental injuries, the better you will inevitably feel in the long run. He does not speak about physical injuries. Marcus Aurelius speaks here about the mental injuries. They are often far more serious that physical ones, the more so as they often much more difficult to heal. Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic. A central idea in the Stoic way of life was to accept with dignity also the bad cards the life sometimes deals. Stoics just try make the best out of also bad situations. This is important as you never know when the tide will turn in the future. However, the problem with all philosophy is very often that it is spoken in absolutes. It is also 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 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. Just striving for this kind of 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 one's goals. This can be done just by even trying to reach some kind of greater goal. This process of improvement is the main thing here, not attaining any kind of fixed goals. Of course, nobody can ever promise that all mental injuries will just disappear, if you just forget them. However, I do not believe that Marcus Aurelius would be claiming such things. He just setts a goal on which one can aim for. That this may sound like a religious concept for some. However, it is a form of very pure and original 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. However, one can well see it as a religion of it own also. This is true, even if Stoicism 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. However, the Stoics did often harbor pantheistic ideas of a universal spirit, that can well be interpreted also as the Universe and Nature only. For example, the quote above is just a piece of 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 Stoic 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 17th of October, 2012)

Marcus Aurelius is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/aureliusphilosopher

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 - 17:22:10 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 that faces 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. 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. 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 it will slowly eat democracy away. A very basic question is why should anybody want to defend a democracy that is not a real 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. 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. (This piece was refurbished on 18th of October, 2012) Thomas Paine is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/painethomas

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 - 21:49:08 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. He was a very famous name in both fields 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. However, a very basic concept in modern science is that even the most established facts and findings must be replaced with new ones. This happens, if our knowledge is increased so that the old findings 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. However this 'truth' 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. Outside the field of formal logic philosophy is not about hard facts. 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'. Accepting a philosophical idea does not prevent one from accepting also other even very different philosophical ideas. These ideas can, in fact, also 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, outside the field of mathematics in the end, only religions can promise final and unmovable truths. 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 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. During this time the modern scientific search for new truths has constantly accelerated. (This piece was completely refurbished on 19th of October, 2012)

Bertrand Russell is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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 - 21:28:19 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: Religious people often claim that their religion is even the only real source of love and caring. Religious people just could be afraid of losing the feelings of love and affection that they have come to associate with their particular brand of religion. This can happen if 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. However, 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. He did not not just work to ensure the interests of his fellow believers or to forward the cause of his own nation. However, Bertrand Russell was not guided in his love of humanity by any kind of ancient religious dogmas. He was guided by the knowledge which he had acquired. This knowledge contained much information on the evolution, history and current state of the society in which he did live.

Bertrand Russell did also change many of his opinions several times during his lifetime. This did happen when he saw that he had been acting under insufficient or wrong information. However, a love for humanity and most of all knowledge did guide his life to the very last days. (This piece was refurbished 20th of December, 2012)

Bertrand Russell is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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 @ 25.02.2010 - 23:31:15 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 and never will."

- 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, and especially his strong negative opinions about the organized religions. However, Mar Twain was always aware of the dangers that the strong nonconformist private opinions can cause 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 of Mark Twain's more controversial are will see the light of the day on now, 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. Mark Twain was a progressive but also a pragmatist. He believed that the world could be a better place if reason would be allowed to guide human life. 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. Religion was slowing down the change this also when the time was ripe for feudalism to give way to more modern forms of government. Feudalism did ultimately fall when the economic and social progress of the societies did demand change and even conservative religion could not prevent change from happening. (This piece was refurbished on 21th of October, 2012)

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 - 22:32:17 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 @ 16:39 Nice quote!!!! David Antonucci [Visitor] http://tahoefacts.com 28.11.2011 @ 18:22 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. Patrice Marie [Visitor] 07.01.2013 @ 20:04 Rah -- Nice quote! ... "Mavericks of all kinds have always changed the course of their own lives, and sometimes the "scope" of the worlds "ordering" -- in the most amazing ways! Be your "own" "BEST PERSON"! - Patrice Marie

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." - Bertrand Russell in "The Scientific Outlook" (1931)

My own ideas on the quote: The idea which Bertrand Russell here calls the 'scientific technique' is nowadays better known as the 'scientific method'. This method is the groundwork on which all modern science is based. Scientific method 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. It can happen when scientists start to take 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 endanger the true advancement of scientific knowledge. Happily this

kind of bottlenecks are mostly just temporary things. The very basic secret of science is not respect for authority, but 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 when true scientific method is rejected as the basic tool, there is a real danger of science becoming like a religion with a set of Final Truths of its own. (This piece was refurbished on 22th of October, 2012) Bertrand Russell is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie More on scientific method at: 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 - 22:58:43 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 downsides of understanding that there just might be no real absolute and final truths is the need 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 from at least from two sides. We have achieved a lot when we understand that even some the most solid looking things, facts or ideas can change if there just is enough time. Most of all our perception of them can change even fundamentally. However, one very easily ends 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 solid truths can act in a much more straightforward manner than a person who does see the real complexity behind it all. People who believe in simple and straightforward explanations can find it much easier to convince other

people of their views. People just seem to love simple and easy to adopt truths. The validity and real truth-value of these 'truths' is very often a secondary importance. Many people will always choose soothing and empowering lies over troubling and ambiguous truths without giving another thought. 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 has risen to accept, but Bertrand Russell definitely is one of them. (This piece was refurbished on 24th of October, 2012)

Bertrand Russell is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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. Russell led the British "revolt against idealism" in the early 20th century. He is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy along with his predecessor Gottlob Frege and his protg Ludwig Wittgenstein. He 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. 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. 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 @ 10.03.2010 - 23:34:31 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 @ 21:54 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 01.12.2011 @ 23:27 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 face any thinking person is taking stand on the the system of controlled state violence that is called war. Most human beings instinctively know 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 society 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 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 and kill 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. After all, they were just ordered by the authority of the state to do things that they would never even have dreamed of doing otherwise. The basic pacifism and strong humanism of George Orwell shines 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. It is extremely hard to remember that they are humans 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 25th of October, 2012)

George Orwell is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/orwellblair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_orwell "Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 21 January 1950), known by his pen name George Orwell, was an English novelist and journalist. His work is marked by clarity, intelligence and wit, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and belief in democratic socialism."

Feedback for Post "George Orwell on highly civilized human beings trying to kill him"
Trimegistus [Visitor] 17.03.2010 @ 00:14 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 @ 02:35 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 @ 10:11 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 @ 14:16 I absolutely agree. Congratulations for keeping a rational and human point of view! andy [Visitor] http://www.siliconrockstar.com 28.03.2010 @ 20:46 '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 suspect that Bertrand Russell did not mean it as a joke at all. In fact, this short sentence contains an immense truth. The problem presented here 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 a god-given and highly natural part of life in the Christian lands also for nearly two millennium. This was true until the rise of humanistic thought made also many of the Christians accept the basic equality of all humans and turned them against this evil institution. Eventually even Islamic world was forced by the Western pressures to give up the inhuman institution of

slaver. Incidentally it 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 when they were new. The conservative mindset just often has a hard time adjusting to any kind of change. The fact is that during the last decades technical innovations have changed human lives in a faster pace than never before in the history of the human race. Conservatives have traditionally declared all kinds of new things as 'unnatural'. However, they have normally been forced to accept most of the innovations because of all of the benefits that they have brought with them. (This piece was refurbished on 26th of October, 2012)

Bertrand Russell is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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."

2 February 1970) was a

by jaskaw @ 21.03.2010 - 22:46:46 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 an extremely hard thing for many people to swallow. The idea of revenge is seemingly strongly embedded in many people's minds. This is true, even if in the real world getting your revenge will just all too often mean lowering yourself to the level of the original wrongdoer. This is also a rather Epicurean, but also a Stoic idea. In this kind of thinking 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. Raw emotions do play havoc on the minds of every human being walking the surface of this earth. However, understanding the core message of this quote can help in understanding the mental forces that are at play in 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. However, George Orwell did write these terse sentences on the futility of revenge just at that moment of history. One can well ask why he did this? George Orwell saw that punishing a nation is an act of similar injustice as punishing a whole family including the uncles and aunts because the things that their nephew has done. He saw that punishing those who were responsible for dragging this nation into mud would need be the real 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 how things can end up of people let emotions like need for revenge dictate real world policies. Nations will not go away, but they will still be there even after your sweet revenge is meted out. Also 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 27th of October, 2012) George Orwell is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/orwellblair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_orwell "Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 21 January 1950), known by his pen name George Orwell, was an English novelist and journalist. His work is marked by clarity, intelligence and wit, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and belief in democratic socialism."

Feedback for Post "George Orwell on the futility of revenge"

andy [Visitor] http://www.siliconrockstar.com 28.03.2010 @ 20:39 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 @ 01:22 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 that we all are just borrowing something, when we claim the ownership of things like land or water. In the end we must 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 the coming generations, the humanity as a whole and the Earth as an extremely interdependent ecosystem. We can just 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. However, 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 do not support abolishing legal ownership of land at all. There just should exist a deeper relationship with land and the whole earth.

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. However, it benefits the whole of humanity only when humans do take full responsibility for the lands that they claim to have legal ownership of. Similarly, a state is, in the end, 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. Similarly, the private ownership of land would disappear, if humans would lose confidence in its existence. Saying all this does not mean that I would oppose the private ownership of land or I would be against the existence of separate nations. It just 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 that these social conventions would not serve important purposes. However, realizing that we have invented these things by ourselves makes it much easier to have a look at these things critically. In the end, owning anything 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 28th of October, 2012)

Thomas Paine is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/painethomas

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 - 21:28:04 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 @ 04:29 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 @ 20:27 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 idea. This feature of evolution is, in fact, surprisingly rarely discussed. Discussion over evolution revolves often on the subject of interrelations between hominids and primates, but the real big picture is all too often forgotten. However, a fact is that even the lowest forms of bacteria and humans have common ancestors in the early misty days of life on Earth. All life on Earth has, after all, risen from the same source. Their evolutionary paths have just taken them to be strikingly different creatures. However, when you analyze the very basic chemical processes that keep the living organisms ticking, the common origin becomes clearly

visible time after time. However, the human mind is built in such a way the idea 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 on this issue in public. Some people have difficulty even in understanding that there is no real difference between different groups of modern humans. Then, accepting bacteria as relatives just could be a bit too much for many. (This piece was refurbished on 29th of October, 2012)

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 - 22:41:40 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 @ 15:07 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 @ 09:57 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 "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish" in "Unpopular Essays"(1950)

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 such thing. No, the important part is the part about abandoning one's own reason. Only this process can lead to relying solely on the force of authority. A 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 do have fewer teeth than men. The reason for this was that none other than philosopher Aristotle himself 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. This fact can much be even altered, as a life without trusted sources is just impossible. However, Bertrand Russell says 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? There is always one important question, Can the person in question have a some kind of hidden agenda that he or she tries to further by using just some facts but ignoring others? The danger of overlooking hidden agendas always arises when we start accepting things on face value. The hidden agendas are present everywhere. This all is made more difficult by the fact that the source of information is not always even conscious of the mental process that does lead to the picking and choosing of one's data to suit one's hidden objectives. One just might not be even aware of that influence. For example, many Christian scientist or historians may well think that they are perfectly objective. They can think so, even when they may quite systematically reject data that could be harmful for the interests of their ideology. They just might all too often be doing 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 naturally greatest when we are in agreement with 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 is human and it is also quite inevitable. However, being aware of the trap might help a bit sometimes. (This piece was completely refurbished on 30th of October, 2012)

Bertrand Russell is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie 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 @ 24.04.2010 - 19:50:26 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 @ 07:33 I sincerely hope you aren't finished with this wonderful blog. Rex Bennett [Visitor] 06.12.2011 @ 11:20 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 often became of limits of your true knowledge. Robert G. Ingersoll points out that only a person with a very limited view of all available knowledge can harbor a misconception of having found some final and unmovable answers to the really big questions concerning our universe. This 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. However, outside the realms of mathematics and some parts of 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.

This rule stands, even if a fact has been see as true for a long tine. This needs to be done, even if chancing some very basic findings or ideas can require rethinking of big chunks of knowledge. Absolute certainties are 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. (This piece was refurbished on 31th of October, 2012)

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." Robert G. Ingersoll is also in Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/ingersollorator

by jaskaw @ 19.05.2010 - 21:13:30 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:

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. This is the other side of the idea that Orwell brings up here. Perhaps the best current example of this thinking in action is 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 people 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. All too often people end up thinking that they must take a definite stand in an issue like Israel vs. Palestinians. When they have chosen "their" side they will never, ever see something wrong in the doings of their favorites. However, 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. However, it is possible to take the side of humanity. It is possible to even try to lessen the effects of the nationalistic fervor that feeds and inflames the ongoing conflict in Palestine on both sides. International politics is not a spectator sports, where to enjoy the spectacle one must choose your side to support. It is possible to condemn the atrocities and unjust deeds that are committed by the Israelis and condemn the atrocities and unjust deeds that are committed by the Palestinians at the same time. 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 to observe how people see only the stories that support ones "own side" as 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. Both sides simply must sacrifice some of their goals if a real state of peace is to be achieved. Sadly, at the moment they are 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. No real peace is ever possible if the Palestinians would not be involved in it. There just must be some kind of compromise, if a lasting peace is ever to be achieved. Either 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 1st of November, 2012) George Orwell is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/orwellblair

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 - 16:59:04 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 @ 22:15 ""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)

Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote:

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 based on claims of some sort of supernatural origin of the original dogma. However, the same thing can also well 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 the same as with theistic beliefs. The follower of a dogma has no personal responsibility, when he is just doing what the unalterable dogma requires. The basic problem is naturally in 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 do not commonly see the world and universe as the continually developing and changing process it really is, and over which we can always receive new and often also much improved information. This does not mean that one should reject all ideologies as equally dangerous. The crucial factor is the level of commitment to an idea. Humans need higher goals and ideologies do offer just the kinds of higher goals in life that humans need to prosper. However, one should just be prepared to face the possibility that even the ideology that one supports has can make mistakes 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 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, a lot is achieved if a person realizes that any of these ideologies does not contain the final and unmovable truth. 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 2nd of November, 2012)

Bertrand Russell is also in Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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."

2 February 1970) was a

by jaskaw @ 14.07.2010 - 15:46:07 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 @ 16:22 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 @ 19:50 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 @ 20:00 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 @ 18:40 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 @ 18:48 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 @ 19:37 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:

We need just now a whole new kind of peace-movement. A major problem is that the old peace movement was largely discredited in many people's eyes 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 old 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-defense. International peace movement has not yet wholly 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 a 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. 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. 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, one can well be peace-activist even if one accepts this inevitable fact of life. The core problem remains to be answered. It is how 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? A lot could be achieved if there could be a 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 ground rules should be created. Ultimately, such ideas could prohibit policy-makers even from planning to start new aggression without a public outcry if they would become common enough. (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 a new kind of 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. Still, a world without violence can be set as a ultimate goal. We must just remember that it is one of the hardest goals mankind can set to itself. To achieve real progress the current way of thinking needs to change in a quite extraordinary manner. It is not wholly impossible. Mankind has changed in an extraordinary manner before. Currently it is just very hard to see what would initiate such changes. 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. 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 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, 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 3rd of November, 2012)

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 - 10:07:45 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 @ 13:17 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"

- Marcus Aurelius in 'Meditations'

Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote:

This extremely simple and straightforward sentence 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 be saved, if people really just could have even a bit more realistic estimations of the things that do cause them distress. Alas, this goal is not that easy at all to achieve, but 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 how a person can have a better control over his or her mind. At some point they can at least endeavor to become masters of their own destiny. Of course, this all is extremely difficult to believe when the world around us is so full of uncertainty and unknown dangers. However, Marcus Aurelius does not say that it would be easy. He just says 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. He does not speak about physical stimuli or things like wanting something. This quote is about how we react to emotions and ideas of others. This reaction just is extremely important to social animals like humans. However, this maxim can be seen the other way round also. For example, when people say things like that posing in the nude degrades a person, they just cannot all too often fathom at all that THEY are the people who are doing all this degrading. 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. In the end, the real causes for that original degradation would slowly vanish. On the background, there is the basic human inability to see that prevailing opinions in society are formed by us all 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 by every single daily action we take and every idea we utter. 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 true change in society. (This piece was completely refurbished on 5th of November, 2012) Marcus Aurelius is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/aureliusphilosopher

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 - 01:40:08 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 @ 17:26 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 basis for modern scientific method is in the fact 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 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 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 will create any kind of scientific 'truth' just by himself. This is true, even if a successful scientist can initiate big changes in a scientific paradigm. 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. However, they can do it also by showing in practice that they really are masters in a given field of expertise. The basis of modern science is the scientific method. However, it really and fundamentally is a practical method only. It is not an article of faith at all. It can be altered or given up altogether if a better method for acquiring trustworthy knowledge of our reality is someday thought out. An undeniable fact is just is that the modern scientific method has been found out to produce the best possible results in practice. 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. You need to evaluate and create a level of trust for every single source of information you encounter during your whole life. Trust is 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, or 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 naturally also vary according to the specific issue. 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. This stands, even if our knowledge of the world has changed 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. 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. However, you need the religious kind of faith to believe in things whose very existence is impossible to show or verify. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

"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 6th of October, 2012) Karl Popper is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/popperphilosopher

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 - 21:49:26 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

Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote:

There really are people who quite honestly think that science cannot provide good answers on the extremely

thorny issue on the origins of our universe, but religions can. It is a real wonder that quite rational and sane people can think that the explanations that are given by their pet religion would somehow be more valid than the explanations that are given by science. It is amazing that there really are quite intelligent people who think that 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 who are working day and night with the best modern scientific tools to find out the real facts. These best minds of our own time can also build on hundreds of years of scientific work that has been done by the best minds in the past. The cold fact of course is that a thing like the birth of our universe is impossible to study directly. Things that have happened 13,7 billion years ago simply cannot ever be studies directly. It is simply impossible to get a final theory of a thing like this. The answers that are provided by science will always be only the best possible ones, and they will be based on the facts that are really known. The quantity and quality of these answers does improve with time. The answers that are provided by science will get better and better. However, a final and absolute truth will be quite impossible to achieve, even if many religions in their megalomania stubbornly claim to have already found one. We must might just need to humble ourselves to accept the reality that no final and absolute truth will perhaps never be available. There will, however, be very good or even extremely good theories on offer and their quality will improve 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 7th of November, 2012)

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 - 00:00:17 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 @ 04:46 "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 @ 10:50 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 @ 10:30 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 @ 08:49 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 tend to exclude followers of other beliefs. They actively build boundaries between people even in places where none would exist otherwise. The main problem is that religions quite universally set definite limits for allowed thinking. These often quite arbitrary limits do also lead to limiting the use of the true mental capabilities in a society. However, if one really opens his or her mind and looks at all of the ideas that are presented in philosophy and in all 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 universal 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 creation of

group-thinking just is one of the basic functions of religions. I personally oppose strongly also the ideas that made Stalin or Pol Pot do their evil things. In fact, I do 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. This is even more true as many of the evil things that were done in the name of communism had, in fact, nationalistic motives. They were just hidden from view. After all, in theory communists did oppose nationalism. However, it is extremely important to have universal and transcendental goals that are offered by different ideologies. Still, a too strong belief in any kind of Utopia is simply dangerous. All too often it will make people forget their basic humanity. Most of all it can make them attack the people who believe in a different kind of Utopia. I 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. All goes well 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. However, that does not mean that we should not oppose the spreading of things like extremist nationalism and communism too with all the peaceful means we have at our disposal. The need to oppose extremist nationalism, extremist communism and extremist religions does apply normally just to the extreme versions of all of them. The milder versions of any of them can be even 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 while respecting the general rules of an open society and respecting other ideas and ideologies. 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 8th of November, 2012) Karl Popper is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/popperphilosopher

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."

Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on dangers of Utopias"

Penny C [Visitor] 22.08.2010 @ 00:56 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. Dimitrios Kokkotis [Visitor] 01.09.2012 @ 09:47 "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." "ein gott ein fhrer"

It is more than obvious that nationalism derives from a mixture of patriotism and religious intolerance. The meaning of the patriotism was firstly introduced before the "French" revolution, as one's love for his country rather than love for a fictitious place in another, afterlife, world . This term as many other terms, had the same fate, it was distorted and abused by religious supremacy and expansionism, of the "true god", as the citizens became again the chosen people for this country. History cries out that religion in monotheistic terms is the cause of most of the deaths, massacres and slaughters that happened till now. But the worst thing is that monotheistic religions are the only responsible for the numerous ethnocides, during an old very rich ethnosphere.

Mark Twain on traditions

Often, the less there is to justify a traditional custom, the harder it is to get rid of it.

- Mark Twain in "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer", Chap. V (1876).

Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote:

There are so many kinds of traditions that speaking of tradition as one big lump is similar madness as speaking of religions as a single featureless lump. 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 traditions that tell people to fear and hate those who follow different kinds of traditions. Such traditions do not benefit the humanity at all. A very important part of western humanistic ideal is a basic respect for all different human traditions. In the

great modern humanistic ideals there is a deeply embedded desire to ensure that people are allowed to follow their own traditions. This is true, even if these traditions are silly or nonsensical. Only the clearly harmful and dangerous one s are normally forbidden. Any quest for uniformity in traditions is strictly frowned upon in humanism. This is important, as any tampering with other people s traditions so very easily leads into taking away of some of the very basic human rights also. In the end, only this kind of thinking can ensure the preservation of real open societies. In an real open society people are not forced to live according to any kind of single universal model. The difficulty arises when a tradition can be objectively seen to be a cause of direct and clearly discernible harm. Harm may come for those who practice it, even it tradition is not in direct violation with current laws as such. However, many people think that we should not openly criticize other peoples traditions at all. They think that traditions and customs are a private business. People also normally do bear the consequences themselves that come from following these customs. However, the freedom of speech is a important and extremely central value in all open societies. Just being offended by criticism of one s dear traditions cannot be used as justification for violating the freedom of speech. It just must be possible to analyze and also value all traditions in an open society. 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, anybody should never be allowed to force other people to renounce their traditions in an open society. This stands as long as these traditions are within the limits of what current law in a society. We have already seen that open discussion of the objective merits of human traditions is way too much for many. Many people just declare that they are offended, if their traditions are questioned in any way. This is, however, normally just a defensive strategy that is aimed to curbing any criticism of traditions. All people naturally have the right to be offended. However, taking offense of criticism is their own private issue. The existence of offense should not prevent others from speaking openly about all things that affect 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 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 our society should be built. The very core values of open society are endangered if there are important issues that affect the whole society that one is not able to discuss at all.

"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 9th of November, 2012)

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 - 21:24:53 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:

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 who would not have any kind of bad or redeeming qualities. However, 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 put them into two basic categories of 'good' and 'bad'. 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 all about separating those people who are useful to the actor and his or her goals from the people who are not as 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 the idea of change in people. The simpler the criterion's that are used to classify people are, the more unjust they will be. This happens when people who do not really fit into them are forced into these categories. Bertrand Russell reminds us 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. However, 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 10th of November, 2012)

Bertrand Russell is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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 @ 10.09.2010 - 17:35:24 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 @ 22:07 Judgement is the mother of necessity for black and white; reductio ad absurdum Mark Johnston [Visitor] http://syndicatedatheist.blogspot.com 10.11.2012 @ 23:34 Ah, Marcus would have said as much, if he would have had the time.

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." - Epicurus (Principal Doctrines, 9)

Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote:

We all have many kinds of needs and desires that we 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." His message is also that virtue is a virtue just because it is not easy to achieve. So, in the end a virtue is a thing that is commonly achieved with restraining some basic human desires. If we do not ever even try to slow down, we will just want more and more. This danger was already plainly visible for thinkers like Epicurus thousands of years ago. Wise people like him saw that there are many good things that we can want too much. Epicurus saw that one should combat the danger of overindulgence with self-discipline. He saw that one should use the power of reasoning to limit the endless and often insatiable needs. Epicurus saw that true

tranquility and peace of mind are not attained with having more, bigger and better pleasures. He saw that true tranquility can be achieved with limiting want. (This piece was refurbished on 11th of November, 2012) Epicurus is on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/epicureanphilosopher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus "Epicurus (Greek: , Epikouros, "ally, comrade"; 341 BC 270 BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher as well as the founder of the school of philosophy called Epicureanism. Only a few fragments and letters of Epicurus's 300 written works remain. Much of what is known about Epicurean philosophy derives from later followers and commentators."

by jaskaw @ 07.10.2010 - 23:30:40 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 @ 12:45 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 @ 18:20 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 @ 19:53 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)

Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote: Humans have always had a quite universal (even if quite irrational) 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 a good reason for this tendency. We know deep inside that no human can have supernatural powers and know all the answers. So, we have good reasons to suspect that all human writings will contain some of the common human failings. So, a text that is produced by mere humans cannot be a source of final and universal truths. However, many of us do crave to have absolute certainties in a world that is so full of uncertainty. There really is a market that serves people who desperately crave for things that seem to be of some kind of supernatural 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. 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 for many of a secondary importance. The most important thing is that our expectations are fulfilled. A fact of life is that many 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. However, it really does have an impact on some 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 that is mentioned in the text and the writer is just writing 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 12th of November, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_Murdoch "Dame Iris Murdoch DBE (15 July 1919 8 February 1999) was an Irish-born British author and philosopher, best known for her novels about good and evil, sexual relationships, morality, and the power of the unconscious. Her first published novel, Under the Net, was selected in 1998 as one of Modern Library's

100 best English-language novels of the 20th century. In 1987, she was made a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire. In 2008, The Times ranked Murdoch twelfth on a list of "The 50 greatest British writers since 1945".

by jaskaw @ 15.11.2010 - 22:15:48 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)

Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote:

Economic inequality has undoubtedly been one of the central forces that have been driving our societies forward. However, similarly 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. However, we do not have similar 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. However, one does very rarely hear similar talk anymore from modern economists. Of course, one of the reasons for this is the rise of socialism and communism which 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. This was because 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. Ideas that aim at greater economic equality have been under the stress test of reality for the best part of a century now. 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 even be done without provoking unrest among the rich. It is possible, if the rich do realize that it is in their own best interests to create a safer and stabler society. In the end, social stability in a society can be achieved by just giving away just a small part of their inherited privileges. This can be a small price for overall social peace and security in the society. (This piece was refurbished on 13th of November, 2012)

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 @ 22.11.2010 - 23:36:10 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 in an interview in The Australian (2010)

Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote: We seem to have an endless supply of pessimists in western societies. Pessimism seems to be a thing that grows 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. The changes for the better are normally initiated by optimists. This normally happens over the strong opposition from the pessimists.

Pessimists are the ones who enact harsher laws, or who make preventive arrests. Most of all: they fear freedom. A pessimist always fears that freedom will lead to bad things, even if they really do not know what will happen. A pessimist just knows that only bad things are to be expected from humans. Groundless optimism is of course also a danger. However, 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. The growth of moral behavior can happen to different degree than in a system which is based on the assumption that people basically are immoral and stupid and nothing else is to be expected from them. There many kinds of things that will always divide humanity into 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. There is big overlap among progressive optimists and conservative pessimists, but it is not so simple. There are a lot of progressive pessimists and conservative optimists too, but on a certain higher level one can draw conclusions. A society that is 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. 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 even 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/ A.C. Grayling is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/acgrayling (This piece was totally refurbished on 14th of November, 2012)

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 - 11:51:07 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 @ 07:21 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."

- Marcus Aurelius in 'Meditations'

Some ideas of my own on the quote: Many people seem to have difficulty in understanding the huge difference that exists between real philosophy and the Christian religion. Christianity is in part a illegitimate son of Greek and Middle Eastern philosophy, even if it mostly is a wayward daughter of Judaism. Basically the creators of the Christianity did just often loan and twist many observations on humanity and society that the older and more established philosophers had made to serve their own needs. The creators of Christianity also did offer different ideas to remedy some of the very basic human failings and societal ills.

Creators of modern Christianity had learned many of these ideas from the older Greek schools of philosophy. Platonism, Aristotelianism, Socratic method, Epicureanism and Stoicism are all much older than Christianity. They were well known for the creators of the Christianity. They also tried to reconcile some of these ideas with the old-fashioned Jewish traditions that hark back to the time of the herders and small-time farmers. In the end, they did create a brand new synchronistic religion in the process. It was finally completed when many ideas from the mystery cults of the time were also thrown in. A big difference between any real philosophy and Christianity is that these ideas are in Christianity claimed to be some kind of absolute truths. The Christian ideas 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 that is presented here above 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 dogmatic religions like 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. Many of these ideas are still quite valid strategies for enhancing the human existence in complex human societies. This stands, even if they are not god-given or any kind of absolute truths. The maximizing the control of one's own emotions that are 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, Stoicism is a thing that would fit all people. I do not think 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 that 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 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 15th of November, 2012)

Marcus Aurelius is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/aureliusphilosopher

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 - 22:55:55 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 @ 17:43 And if a man's troubles lie within? | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 28.12.2011 @ 19:54 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".

Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote:

One of the big questions of our time is if our perception of many issues has changed because of the one-sided information that we receive. 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 fact, in the United States the rate of serious crime per inhabitant is smaller now than in 1980 (see http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm ) and development has been similar also elsewhere. However, our perception of the general level of security in our societies just might have changed for the worse simply because the media has seen that big money is to be made from reporting more about crime. In my youth there was scarcely a mention of crime in the main evening news, when now crime is often even

the main subject. It is not crime as a social phenomena that are brought up. However, 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. This is true, even if a crime with much 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 even make crime to be seen as 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. 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 not kept up because of real concern for the humans who are really affected by crime. However, on the contrary, it is done 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 that keeping quiet about crime would be a good thing. I just ask if it really is necessary to spread the most disgusting details of human life in all of its gory details day after day? 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 well be also reported in a much subtler 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. There is a streak of cruelty and inhumanity in all of us that does feed on these displays of cruelty. Also, the act witnessing the worst features that humanity can produce can give us a feeling of being better persons than the the lowlifes on whose wrong-doings media feasts on. However, in many other things we need to refrain ourselves with great difficulty from following our lowest impulses, We do this to achieve a greater common good. Perhaps, we should keep in check also this despicable impulse of reveling in the worst things that the 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 witness horrible slaughter for their amusement only. 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. It is the consumer that decides what sells. When violence does not sell anymore, it will not be on sale anymore. This is just a pipe-dream for now, but anybody can stop buying into it it today and tomorrow and day after tomorrow without any real cost to oneself. If enough people would do likewise, the slaughter in the front pages would eventually cease. These horrid items would perhaps drop to page two or three or even lower given due time. (This page was completely refurbished on 15th of November, 2012)

A. C. Grayling is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/acgrayling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._C._Grayling "Anthony Clifford Grayling (born 3 April 1949) is an English philosopher. In 2011 he founded and became the first Master of New College of the Humanities, an independent 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). He is a Trustee of the London Library, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. He is also a director of and contributor to Prospect Magazine."

by jaskaw @ 14.12.2010 - 22:25:51 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)

Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote:

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 without doubt caused more human deaths than any plague has. Extremely strongly held opinions of their mission and their destiny did often drive these very dangerous men forward in their paths on the expense of humanity. One idea that was common to all of these men was the idea that their own nation was somehow outstanding. 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 naturally because it is one of the most

natural ideologies there is. People who live 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. 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 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. It seems that nationalism that is based on the appraisal of the great qualities of a given geographical area seems to be a less harmful thing than the kind of nationalism that it based on an idea of a nation formed by uniform 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 that is based on an idea of a uniform body of people seems to be a much more dangerous thing. It tends to become exclusive as people are all too often accepted or rejected based only on the accident of birth 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. 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 do arise most of all when the nationalistic ideas are used to justify oppression of other nations. Nationalism can also lead to 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. They are sanctioned if they just will further the interests this nationalistic idea. A basically beneficial idea can then become form of cancer that consumes whole nations in mindless and useless violence. (This piece was completely refurbished on 16th of November, 2012) "Voltaire - the best one-liners" is in Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/voltaireoneliners

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 - 12:31:25 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/12/18/voltaire-on-dangerous-opinions-10211088/

Feedback for Post "Voltaire on dangerous opinions"

liberal [Visitor] 18.12.2010 @ 12:58 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 @ 14:00 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 @ 13:11 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 @ 14:55 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 @ 15:27 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 @ 16:05 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 @ 17:16 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 @ 18:58 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 @ 20:42 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 @ 21:17 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 @ 08:42 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 just 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 reality, Bertrand Russell aimed the last paragraph at those who oppose population control on religious and ideological grounds. He was referring to those people 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 all kind of preventing pregnancy as a great sin. However, they all too often 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. One can also say this 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 of rigid and dogmatic ideas. The Jesuits or the Russian Comrades of the Central Committee did believe in very similar ideas. According to them striving for a really high-minded goal can justify the causing of any kind of human suffering. 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 lot of dogmatic people who oppose using these tools. This is because of their ancient religious belief or because of their sad nationalistic ambitions. 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. Sadly this does not all too often interest those who are protecting their own bronze age dogmas.

(This piece was completely refurbished on 17th of November, 2012) Bertrand Russell is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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 @ 28.12.2010 - 20:57:09 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:

This quote by Erich Fromm is a very Epicurean idea. However, there are people who seem to think that only a true Epicurean can express real Epicurean ideas. Erich Fromm was not an Epicurean, even if he undoubtedly had a good working knowledge of Epicurean philosophy. The best ideas of Epicureanism are not tied to this system of philosophy alone at all, but are, in fact, quite universal. This is naturally the case with all of the best ideas in philosophy. For me, the best philosophical ideas are such that one needs even not know who has uttered them to appreciate them. Many central ideas of Epicureanism are found also in the thinking of many other people also through ages. Epicurus did formulate and collect rational ideas over how to best live one's life. He did also create a coherent philosophy of life that was based on these idea. These ideas were universal human ideas and

models for individual behavior at the same time. Epicureanism is for me just one possible road to happiness. I do not think that it suits everyone, far from it. However, people who share a certain frame of mind and a certain life experience can often even greatly benefit from acquainting themselves with Epicurean ideas. They will at least not lose anything in the process. Personal greed is a central driving force in modern capitalism. However, I think that also capitalism where greed is tamed to a degree is 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."

Epicurus is on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/epicureanphilosopher More quotes by Erich Fromm in: 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 18th of November, 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 - 22:35:08 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)

Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote: Even majority of people in western societies 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 people do not know even where are these places of whose dramatic events they are told about and, in fact, often 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 that concerns a natural disaster does not improve much our knowledge of the real processes that do govern human life or human societies. Making them the most important issues that people do need to know is like saying that you do not need to know why you need to go daily to your workplace. However, you need more to know how some 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, knowing about them will very often not increase our real knowledge of the world at all. They will not help us live our lives any better.

In fact, knowing of all of this trivial information will just make you more acutely aware how life is based on chance. Increasing this knowledge will never make you a happier person, on the contrary. However, the question remains of 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. The horror-stories in the news are the easiest and cheapest things to produce. One simply needs to tell in an over-dramatic and overstated way what has happened to create the desired illusion of an important event. Making people believe that they must know of all of these horrid little accidents is of course a very central part of the marketing strategy of the modern media. Media organizations are in a very enviable position. Media has all of its pages and all of its news-minutes available to itself to be able to indoctrinate its clients into believing that the stuff their clients do receive from them is really important. The other factor is that this spreading of insecurity does paradoxically play into the hands of those holding power in a society. The more there seems to be insecurity in the world, the more important upholding the existing bastions of security may 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. However, in the media there is nearly always present the idea that a failing of an individual is the reason why bad things happen. This kind of reporting seems to build up the system which regulates the lives of individuals more and more. The more individuals are shown to fail, it even just might be that the less and fewer reasons there are to be looking critically at the basic structures in a 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 19th of November, 2012) Kurt Vonnegut is also in Facevbook at: http://www.facebook.com/vonnegutwriter

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 - 12:29:49 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 @ 17:47 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 @ 15:56 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 @ 22:11 Stephen, I can quite agree with all that you say! Jaskaw

Table of Contents
Windows on Humanity.......................................................................................................................................1 Bertrand Russell on intellectual stagnation ......................................................................................................2 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on intellectual stagnation"............................................................6 Karl Popper on the degeneration of philosophical schools.............................................................................7 Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on the degeneration of philosophical schools"..................................11 Benjamin Franklin on war and peace.............................................................................................................12 Feedback for Post "Benjamin Franklin on war and peace"...................................................................16 Karl Popper on science and reality.................................................................................................................17 Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on science and reality".......................................................................21 Harry Kroto on science as a philosophy.........................................................................................................23 Steven Pinker on the worst features of human nature..................................................................................27 Feedback for Post "Steven Pinker on the worst features of human nature"..........................................32 Confucius on becoming and acquiring ............................................................................................................35 Jacob Bronowski on the roots of war..............................................................................................................39 Feedback for Post "Jacob Bronowski on the roots of war "..................................................................43 Arthur Schopenhauer on the allegorical nature of religions........................................................................44 Feedback for Post "Arthur Schopenhauer on the allegorical nature of religions".................................48 Mark Twain on the atrocity of atrocities........................................................................................................49 Feedback for Post "Mark Twain on the atrocity of atrocities"..............................................................53 Montesquieu on being happier than others....................................................................................................54 Feedback for Post "Montesquieu on being happier than others"...........................................................57 Karl Popper on science as a game without end..............................................................................................58 Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on science as a game without end"....................................................62 Bertrand Russell on the human kind as one family.......................................................................................63 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on the human kind as one family ".............................................67 Bertrand Russell on democracy, trade unionism, and birth control...........................................................68 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on democracy, trade unionism, and birth control "....................73 Karl Popper on the paradox of tolerance.......................................................................................................74 Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on the paradox of tolerance ".............................................................79 Karl Popper on learning from criticism.........................................................................................................82 Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on learning from criticism"................................................................85

Table of Contents
Bertrand Russell on departures from convention ..........................................................................................86 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on departures from convention "................................................90 Bertrand Russell on passionately held opinions .............................................................................................91 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on passionately held opinions"...................................................94 Author's friends................................................................................................................................................95 About the author...............................................................................................................................................97 Pageviews...........................................................................................................................................................98

ii

Windows on Humanity

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: Even a modest level of belief in an "absolute truth" seems to be able to make one shrug off all things and new ideas that do not support this idea. This phenomena that so easily makes one stick to the first idea one learns in a given field is present everywhere. It does affect people in 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 issue just can put 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. 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. One can well do it now, even if in the Rome of antiquity the followers of these schools of philosophy were rivals. In fact, at times they hated the other group more than anything else. It just seems to be an overwhelming task for many people to accept that one can well at the same time appreciate the best features of capitalism, and also appreciate some socialist ideas, 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 in the real world many people just that. There are people who can try to blend Christian or Muslim ideas with the Buddhist ideas. However, 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 self-interest of ideology-based organizations is a primary reason why mixing ideas from different 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 . Life is just so much simpler when you can check what a ideology says about a certain thing and stick to it. It is much more difficult to go through and compare the merits of individual ideas of different ideologies. (This piece was completely refurbished on 20th of November, 2012)

Bertrand Russell is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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 - 18:10:21 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 @ 09:41 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 @ 02:10 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 @ 07:48 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:

If the knowledge and understanding one does acquire through learning philosophy is never applied to the real world it will go to waste. Karl Popper is in my mind implying just this in the quote. Really meaningful philosophy can never be based on study of philosophy alone. To be of real value it must be based on some level of real knowledge on how humans, societies and the universe do work. Philosophy is a method for thinking and most of all for developing one's thinking. However, most of all it is 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. Mechanics need to talk about the different types of front-axles and carburetors. However, the reality test for their true abilities comes when the 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 exercises. However, 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. There seem to be 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. Logic can be a tremendously attractive and wonderful thing to practice in artificial vacuum of a purely theoretical universe. However, it can have real meaning only 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. This happens, even if logical validness and the real truth-value of a quite logical claim are often two quite separate issues. The first thing is that extremely logical sounding ideas are often even extremely logically derived from false or wrongly assumed premises. Another problem 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 says here, the decay starts when we loose sight of the real universe that we do inhabit. We can start a slide into a theoretical universe, which we are also very skillful in creating if the need arises. (This piece was completely refurbished on 21th of November, 2012)

Karl Popper is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/popperphilosopher

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 - 20:03:13 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 @ 02:43 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)

Some ideas of my own that were raised by the quote:

Basically deep down we are still just highly evolved species of animals. However, we have also evolved culture that eventually has changed us beyond recognition. It is difficult to understand 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 invention. Behavior like this is quite unknown in other mammals. 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 new level. Now we can wipe out whole towns from the face of the earth in a blink of an eye. However, this kind of systematic and passionless violence is a purely human social invention, and humans

can 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 remember 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 still is the building up the military might of nations today. What happened? 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 millennial. The extremely powerful, emerging humanistic zeitgeist simply did ultimately turn also Christianity around in this matter too. 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 a similar vein, the Second World War was not started by the democracies to destroy Nazism, but by the Nazis 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. Use of organized violence towards other nations should just 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. This kind of development is not impossible. This is true, 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 an inevitable part of life. Even George W. Bush just might have thought twice before invading Iraq, if he should have known beforehand that he would face a fair international trial about this decision later on. (This piece was completely refurbished on 23th of November, 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 - 22:21:57 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 @ 00:14 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 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 falsification is just the last cross-checking procedure that follows after the long and winding road of the scientific process. Among other things, scientific process 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. 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 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. They 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 24th of November, 2012)

Karl Popper is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/popperphilosopher

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 - 22:37:54 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 @ 00:28 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 @ 21:12 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 @ 01:07 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 @ 16:40 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 @ 19:47 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 05.09.2011 @ 23:42 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 reliable source of knowledge that we have at the moment. However, if the level of real reliability of information is not seen as a goal, also the religious texts can, of course, be used as sources of information. One just must remember that these texts do mostly present ideas and claims whose true nature is not really known. Reliability is not something that is just 0 or 100 percent. It can be anything in between also. Some claims that are made in the name of the religions are necessarily more reliable than others. Some findings in science are also more unreliable than others.

However, one can safely assume that the general level of reliability of findings in science is even staggeringly higher than the general reliability of claims that are 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 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. They just claim to believe in the same original unchanging 'divine truths' century after century. One of most unreliable human sources of information is a personal testimony. This is even more true, if this testimony is not supported by a thorough analysis of the motives of the person in question. One need also real analysis of the circumstances that surround the incidents that are 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. 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. However, religions are largely based on just such sources. Progress in science has dramatically increased our capability to better fulfill all basic human needs. 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 25th of November, 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."

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. 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 are just now important especially in the world of Islam. Naturally, 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, the basic ideas in the society are never even allowed to be evaluated, even if world changes. When the world changes the old ideas do so often become obsolete. This is one of the main reasons why the political Islam is not a fit operating system for a modern society anymore. In life one just make must choices. The Islamic world faces a choice of clinging on to an out-dated medieval system of thought that oppresses the other half of the society (women) or of putting religion at last into its rightful place as a private 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. A full-blow secular democracy has an intricate system of checks and balances. Most of all it has an inbuilt error-correction that does require freedom of speech to work. To full make full use of these modern ways of running societies Islamic people need not to give up their religion wholly. They only need to remove religion from the public arena to the private domain. This development has already happened in Europe a long time ago. 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 inevitably mean that this society will be lagging behind in economical, social and political developments that do happen in the modern democratic world. Of course, one can decide that upholding religion is more important than economic, social and political progress. However, this decision should be made in full knowledge of all of the possible consequences. By choosing to keep Islam as a basic rule-book for a society one in practice does renounce even the possibility of building up of a stable, just and wealthy society in the modern European model. By choosing political Islam people just could 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. This can happen when this society would, in fact, need urgently to change to follow the changes that happen in the world around it. This was the process 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 societies where economic, political and social change were 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 basic and primitive form. They were societies ruled by a parasitic armed ruling class. These societies had no possibility to change rulers, even if the current rulers happened to be inept, corrupt, greedy or simply stupid. One should after all remember that all leaders can eventually degenerate to this level. 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. After all, this would normally 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. These elites relied on Islam to deliver the absolute subordination that their feudal rule needed. The greatest single thing in democracy is the inbuilt method for error-correction that is missing from every single 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 that a change of regime in

all too often achieved only with the 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 form 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 criticize 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 or apostasy is impossible, people in Islamic countries will not be really free. A universally and violently enforced ideology is simply not compatible with real democracy. However, even Islam can eventually be changed. It cab become a private matter. It can be removed from the public arena , as has already 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. However, religion does not shape European societies and does not dictate anymore what Europeans 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. 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. The best answers and solutions very often are amalgams of different ideas. Best answers are so often 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 and prosperity in the Islamic world, the mainstream Islam has to either change. The other option is that it will 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 just cannot be in place in a real democracy. This needs to change, if any kind of real democracy is ever to be sought after in Islamic countries. Before this does happen, there is no possibility to have an open debate that a successful democracy requires to work. (This piece was completely refurbished on 26th of November, 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 - 22:15:53 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 @ 19:57 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 08.01.2012 @ 23:26 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 @ 06:16 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 @ 01:39 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 @ 20:03 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. tom merle [Visitor] http://www. cultureplaces. blogspot.com 27.11.2012 @ 01:16 It societies must pass through stages of enlightenment that take generations then we cannot help but be very pessimistic about change in the Muslim world. Both China and Russia moved from authoritarian regimes pre communism to authoritarian regimes via communism. But both 'countries' have a younger populace open to the ideas floating around the Internet, as was noted. The web phenomenon may also help shorten the historical timeline in the Middle East. Zahid Khan [Visitor] 28.11.2012 @ 20:31 It is quite puzzling for me with my very limited knowledge to see how such comments like: "The demand for absolute submission of all members of the society to one set of religious ideas just cannot be in place in a real democracy." has been derived. Which Islam are we talking about. I was made aware by Stuart Croft, the writer of the book "Securitization of Islam" the other day that there are many 'Islamic scholars' who derive their understanding about Islam just by reading one quote or paragraph from the Qua-ran. I strongly want to believe that this is NOT the case here. Pinker on the other hand has been my fev for some time and I was even trying to get him for a seminar in my Uni to speak on a theme " Is the World Getting More Peaceful." | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 28.11.2012 @ 20:50 Zahid, do you know in which countries of the world the state can execute you for simply changing religion or there is "a demand for absolute submission of all members of the society to one set of religious ideas". Surprise, surprise: they are all Islamic states.

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. This happens often 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 the 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 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. 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. It is not so surprising that they did end 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 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 27th of November, 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."

Jacob Bronowski on the 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 as rather spontaneous or at least short-lived outbursts of violence. This kind of violence is very different from the real wars that the later agricultural societies did develop. Jacob Bronowski speaks here of systematic waging of war and not violence in general. After all, theyt are two

quite different things. 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 does not say that there would not have been violence before the advent of agriculture. He does not say that humans would have been less violent in the earlier stages of their development either. However, one needs to pause to ask here if chimpanzees will train their young for war, indoctrinate them to believe in their own 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 and they have border-clashes. They even have 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 endless amount of 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. It was a classical example of pure stupidity and incompetence of leaders of nations involved killing millions of people. The second 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 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 28th of November, 2012)

Jacob Bronowski is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/jacobbronowski

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."

Feedback for Post "Jacob Bronowski on the roots of war "

rasticak [Visitor] http://bestdirecthealth.com/cilas/cilas-australia.html 09.05.2012 @ 04:02 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 a Dialogue, Etc." 1860)- from "The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer; Religion,

Some ideas of my own on the quote: All religions do carry with them all kinds of recommendable ideas. However, a major problem for a modern

man is that they still quite universally claim 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 by a rational person. More and more people have rejected these supernatural claims even in religious circles. Many have become, for example, 'cultural Christians'. They admire the history and ideas in Christianity. However, 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 tradition and most of all the strong need to belong to an in-group are the main forces that keep up this old-fashioned belief in supernatural. These incredibly strong forces makes quite sane and intelligent people still to brush away the mass of contradicting evidence. Another extremely important role for traditional religions has been their use role as tools for social control. However, this role has been lost in modern welfare-states. It has been taken over by the secular society. In fact, religions are not generally needed anymore for this task. 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. Very similar ideas are present in Epicureanism too. In Epicureanism the goal is not complete rooting out of desires, but a rational control of them. This is achieved through a state of wise moderation and a state of tranquility through it, when traditional religions often strive for much more total and even extreme goals. Epicureanism is also a religion in a sense, but it makes no supernatural claims. Epicureanism 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. (This piece was completely refurbished on 29th 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 - 00:06:56 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"

gelschter User [Visitor] 26.03.2011 @ 07:28 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 @ 16:43 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 be people on this earth who could not accept the stark fact that the First World War was not a needless and bloody exercise in human vanity that was caused by a series of diplomatic blunders. Nobody who was involved in leading the major European nations of that day could control the forces that they unleashed. However, the hard fact is that the terrible atrocity lasted for years just because nobody had the guts to cut away their national pride and cut their losses.

It was a war where the human suffering was intensified heights that had never been before seen. It happened 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? The preservation of nationalism as a pure idea just so important that sweeping under the rug one of its most bitter and desperate failures just might be 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. Millions after millions of young men were slaughtered just because of the nationalistic ideas and ideals of that day. Still, there is a real reason why the utter lunacy of the First World War is so rarely brought up anymore. Is this because of a 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 Second World War is a still used to justifying, bolstering and intensifying of nationalistic fervor. This happens 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 1st of December, 2012)

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 @ 28.05.2011 - 23:10:03 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"

gelschter User [Visitor] 29.05.2011 @ 06:52 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 @ 22:09 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:

Charles de Montesquieu laments here the fact that this kind of comparison does happen. He does not say that it would be a good thing, even if the sentence can be misread in that way too. Charles de Montesquieu just says that we could be much happier if we just could stop comparing ourselves too much with others. This is also a central Epicurean idea. Montesquieu aims at a one feature out of a multitude of features which can prevent humans from achieving happiness. However, envy just might be a important 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 does not say how this can be achieved 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. It 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. This is true, even if this feature was at some point of human development needed for the simple survival of human species. New kind of societies just create all new kinds of demands for individuals. Our basic instincts have 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 is that we very often envy people for things that we THINK that they do have. However, in the real world we cannot know if they even really do 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 gets really close all things can become visible. We do not know of them because we all do carefully build walls around us. We just try to hide away our true status in many different ways. (This piece was completely refurbished on 2nd of DecemberJanuary, 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 - 17:58:48 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"

gelschter User [Visitor] 01.06.2011 @ 07:40 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. There are no absolute or 'final' truths in 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 worldwide and extremely open scientific community. Of course, 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, the current level of our knowledge is the best that we can have. Just now do not yet have no 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 when 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. Religions are based on beliefs in non-moving, final truths, when science is based on the ideas of discovery and change. A religion that is 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. This is true, even if some people do quite commonly talk about others having a 'religious' relationship with science. However, this is a quite different thing. Normally this means the same as 'religious' 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. Sometimes strongly held opinions and value-based ideas are, in fact, just dressed up as science. Happily science is based on critical thinking. It is not automatic acceptance of ideas even by people with position of authority. Given enough time, the false ideas will normally be weeded out with time.

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 3rd of December, 2012) Karl Popper is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/popperphilosopher

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 - 20:23:17 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 @ 21:45 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 @ 22:06 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: In the end, Bertrand Russell talks about strategies for survival of the societies in this quote. The very old way was just to ensure the maximum gain for oneself and one's family and leave the others fend for themselves. Taxes were at first used just for upkeep the 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 kind of greedy strategy will work only as long as enough people will believe that they can get someday to be among the rich themselves. This is normally quite impossible. However, the important thing is just keeping up the belief, and not its real truth-value. Crime is often rampant in such societies. It is often seen as a road to achieve the goal that is otherwise quite unobtainable in the real world. One can try to solve this problem also by putting more and more people in prison. However, 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 their 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. They can have a little less of wealth when they share some of it, but they can enjoy them in much greater security in a more stable society. On the other hand, the words of Bertrand Russell have an all new kind of meaning in the modern globalized economy. People are now paid a pittance for their work in India or China and elsewhere. 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 the developed world as cheap as it is in the developing world will never benefit any of the societies that choose erroneously to try it. It will just lead into a dramatic lowering of living-standards everywhere. 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 that something is really harmful, 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. The difference just is hair-thin at times. (This piece was completely refurbished on 4th of December, 2012)

Bertrand Russell is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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."

2 February 1970) was a

by jaskaw @ 27.08.2011 - 22:16:17 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/08/27/bertrand-russell-on-human-kind-as-one-family-11736721/

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on the human kind as one family "
jose joseph [Visitor] http://gmail 28.08.2011 @ 18:45 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 when he wrote this piece. 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 many countries that lie 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 an 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. There democracy has made it possible to divide at least a small bit of the enormous wealth. However, largely the weakness of the trade union -system in general has prevented a European-style rise of standard of living in the lowest income classes in the United States. United States would 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 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. This work moves to countries which have no labor movement, democracy or birth control. The lack of them is naturally a very basic reason for the cheapness of 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. They were 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. 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. 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. However, it also drives at the same time the productivity upwards. 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. However, there will be less of them in any individual corporation. The rise in service-sector has 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 the 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 6th of December, 2012)

Bertrand Russell is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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."

by jaskaw @ 02.09.2011 - 11:24:26 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/09/02/bertrand-russell-on-democracy-trade-unionism-and-birth-control-11767480/

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on democracy, trade unionism, and birth control "
Steve [Visitor] 06.12.2012 @ 18:35 I totally agree with your thoughts. The article still contains multiple grammatical and spelling errors, however. Steve [Visitor] 06.12.2012 @ 18:35 I totally agree with your thoughts. The article still contains multiple grammatical and spelling errors, however.

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. This idea is still a hard one to swallow for a person like me, who has preached tolerance all his life. The basic idea is that a tolerant society really can stay tolerant only if 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. 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. Popper'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 heaven 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 the 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 freely to 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 in the very moment when it is suggested that the followers of a certain ideology or religion are to be treated differently in a society than others, or on the other hand 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, 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. Followers of intolerant and monolithic ideologies just often seems to have great difficulty in understanding that ideas and people are totally different things. All too often they seem also not to realize that both ideas and people can always change. (This piece was completely refurbished on 7th of December, 2012)

Karl Popper is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/popperphilosopher

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."

Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on the paradox of tolerance "

jonaslaves [Member] 21.09.2011 @ 08:41 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 @ 11:04 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 @ 13:27 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 @ 13:33 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 @ 14:06 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 @ 14:18 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 @ 14:49 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 @ 05:23 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: Karl Popper is setting a very high ideal in this quote. It is very hard to imagine in practice that there would really exist people who would with joy accept serious criticism that is thrown at them. 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 in the 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. 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 of unreachable goals to oneself does not cause similar sense of deprivation as material goals. This is true even if we never will fully reach the goals that we strive for. In the world of ideas, the idea of human fallibility and incompleteness just could be easier to accept. The crucial point is to accept that even the most perfect-sounding ideas that fit nicely into our world-view, 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. This needs to happen even if it would entail changing some of ones very basic ideas. This is naturally 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 8th of December, 2012)

Karl Popper is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/popperphilosopher

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 - 10:07:09 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] 23.09.2011 @ 23:06 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 we will see other people as imperfect copies of ourselves. On the other hand, we simply can not avoid seeing the world through our own life experience. However, we see it 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 huge and extremely important. However, we cannot also forget the fact that 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 that are imposed by this phenomena. The more empathy and sympathy we do possess, the easier is to as to try to take the position of another human. We can at least try to understand how he or she does react to different situations. However, there is only our own perception of how humans are and how they should be that will guide us in many social situations. Humans and our predecessors have been social creatures for millions of years. We have many inherent mechanism and 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. They help us to act even in unfamiliar and new situations. It can be said that in the hard core of human culture (and 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. 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 (mostly without even of being aware of this tendency), that there should be only one allowed way to think and act. Thar 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 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, it may just mean expecting that actions of other people 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. Perhaps 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 of maximum level of uniformity is still a central goal. On the other hand, in modern open societies we would need 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 9th of December, 2012)

Bertrand Russell is in Facebook at:

http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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 @ 28.09.2011 - 09:44:51 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 @ 17:53 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 @ 18:16 Thanks Linda! Glad to hear at least somebody has benefited from my little labor of love. ken [Visitor] 21.01.2012 @ 19:27 "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 extremely difficult to analyze the level of passion rationally. A real danger always is that a wave of passion can 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. Bertrand Russell just might mean here by passion the uncritical, non-examined and emotion-based support for an idea. This kind of strong passion is often found in religions and in many extremist political movements.

He might mean by passion the unwillingness even to hear any facts that do not support your own ideas. In fact, he could really mean that the followers of 'absolute truths' are always prone to be extremely passionate about their pet ideas. Pure passion just does not form a good 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 should automatically suppress even knowledge of them outright, we would not be making objective decisions. In the field of decision making and most of all in making society a good place to live for all of its members, passion can be even a major enemy. Of course, the big thing is maintaining just the right level of passion. We all have a need for higher ideas. Often this need reaches the level of a passion. I think that 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 to detect this situation in oneself. (This piece was refurbished on 10th of December, 2012) Bertrand Russell is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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 - 21:22:14 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2011/10/10/bertrand-russell-on-passionately-held-opinions-11995644/

Table of Contents
Windows on Humanity.......................................................................................................................................1 Karl Popper on learning from discussions.......................................................................................................2 Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on learning from discussions"..............................................................5 Erich Fromm on nationalism as a form of insanity.........................................................................................6 Feedback for Post "Erich Fromm on nationalism as a form of insanity"..............................................10 Anaxagoras on the idea of ownership.............................................................................................................11 Feedback for Post "Anaxagoras on the idea of ownership" ...................................................................15 Baruch Spinoza on peace as a virtue...............................................................................................................16 Feedback for Post "Baruch Spinoza on peace as a virtue"....................................................................21 Tenzin Gyatso (aka. Dalai Lama) on philosophy of kindness .......................................................................22 Feedback for Post "Tenzin Gyatso (aka. Dalai Lama) on philosophy of kindness"..............................26 John Locke on words and ideas.......................................................................................................................29 Feedback for Post "John Locke on words and ideas"............................................................................32 John Stuart Mill on silencing dissenting opinions.........................................................................................34 Feedback for Post "John Stuart Mill on silencing dissenting opinions"................................................37 Epicurus on absolute justice............................................................................................................................38 Feedback for Post "Epicurus on absolute justice".................................................................................42 Eric Hoffer on being rich without depriving others......................................................................................44 Bertrand Russell on reason, faith and persecution........................................................................................48 Will Durant on present as merely the past rolled up and concentrated......................................................52 Bertrand Russell on human race as one family ..............................................................................................56 Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on human race as one family"....................................................59 Robert G. Ingersoll on the freedom of speech................................................................................................60 Marcus Aurelius on achieving happiness by doing ........................................................................................64 Arthur Schopenhauer on free will...................................................................................................................67 Feedback for Post "Arthur Schopenhauer on free will" .........................................................................71 Bertrand Russell on prejudices and thinking .................................................................................................72 Rubn Blades on dying of ignorance...............................................................................................................76 Feedback for Post "Rubn Blades on dying of ignorance"....................................................................80

Table of Contents
Kurt Vonnegut on behaving decently.............................................................................................................81 Frank Herbert on worshiping life...................................................................................................................84 Ursula K. Le Guin on the nature of ideas.......................................................................................................88 Howard H. Aiken on stealing ideas.................................................................................................................91 Bertrand Russell on the passions governing his life......................................................................................94 Samuel Johnson on age and judgment............................................................................................................97 Bertrand Russell on the tyranny of the fortunate........................................................................................100 Edward and Robert Skidelsky on making money as an end in itself.........................................................104 Jaakko Wallenius on understanding quotes.................................................................................................108 Feedback for Post "Jaakko Wallenius on understanding quotes ".......................................................112 E.O. Wilson on religions and tribalism.........................................................................................................113 Feedback for Post "E.O. Wilson on religions and tribalism"..............................................................117 John Lennon on imagining .............................................................................................................................118 Albert Einstein on work.................................................................................................................................121 George Orwell on controlling history...........................................................................................................124 Feedback for Post "George Orwell on controlling history".................................................................127 Isaac Asimov on violence................................................................................................................................130 Feedback for Post "Isaac Asimov on violence"...................................................................................133 Francis Bacon on death..................................................................................................................................134 Lucretius on death..........................................................................................................................................137 Buckminster Fuller on thinking....................................................................................................................141 Karl Popper on misunderstanding................................................................................................................144 Seneca the Younger on fortune......................................................................................................................147 Feedback for Post "Seneca the Younger on fortune" ...........................................................................150 Albert Einstein on violence............................................................................................................................151 Author's friends..............................................................................................................................................154

ii

Table of Contents
About the author.............................................................................................................................................156 Pageviews.........................................................................................................................................................157

iii

Windows on Humanity

Karl Popper on learning from discussions

"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 raise one's thinking and reasoning to new heights. What is most valuable, 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 a situation where one looks at one's own positions from a new angle. This can be only beneficial and can bring forward only good things in the future. The fruitfulness of a debate grows from the growth and development of debaters own ideas. It does not come from transforming or even affecting the opinions of the other party in the discussion, even if this can (rarely) happen. However, simply a exposure to new ideas in a debate can have very beneficial effects in the long run. These effects can be observed in all parties who are involved in an good intellectual discussion. Of course, the discussion needs to stay within the limits of integrity and does not degrade into a any kind of shouting-match. Amiable discussions with like-minded cronies are naturally often very pleasurable experiences. However, their value can on the worst be just on the side of entertainment. A very real danger is ending up in a loop of just finding more and more support for ones old ideas from people who already think alike. (This piece was completely refurbished on 11th of December 2012) Karl Popper is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/popperphilosopher

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 - 13:12:51 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"

barbara lipa [Visitor] 30.01.2012 @ 09:29 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 not be the same thing as having some form 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 in which nations really work together instead of just driving selfish nationalistic goals. The two world wars did show the limits and extreme dangers of the nationalistic Utopian visions. However, the legacy of this lost nationalist utopia does linger on in legal structures of these states. The modern West-European states are already wholly dependent on the other states of the continent in countless ways. This is the case 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 difficulty in understanding that modern national states themselves are products of a Utopian nationalistic ideology. This new and untried ideology finally gained 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) system of government. 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 can also be 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. It has build bridges between bitter old enemies and has worked excellently in this respect. It has created a strong economical area that 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. Most of all it can fail, 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, human ideas drive our societies forward, if only their followers just don't lose touch with reality and most of do not lose their ability to work and compromise with others who have different sets of ideals. (This piece was refurbished on 12th of December, 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 - 08:36:33 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 @ 20:52 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 majo0r 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. However, 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 does not say that it would be possible to abolish the idea of ownership. He does just notice 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. 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. He has the need to "own" them exists only in relationship to other people. However, if there is 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. In the end, ownership is just a commonly agreed social relationship. There is nothing absolute in it. 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 existing resources. However, history is full of instances where ownership is partially overturned in due process of law. For example, land has been often distributed more fairly. This can happen when the ownership of land has been concentrated in too few hands. 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 very well in real life. This does not mean that all other models of 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 of things that several people can use or can benefit from. However, 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 has no private owners. Ownership of man-made things has existed as long as people have been able to make new things by themselves. Ownership of land and water is a quite another issue altogether. Owning land or water means that the resources situated in these areas are reserved to its owner only, and the use of them is denied from others. Thomas Paine noted that nobody has created the land. 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 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 does live. Libertarians who completely deny this right are still a very small minority. The disagreement is often only over to what degree people are willing to sacrifice for the common good. People disagree over the specific things that 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 are mentally tied 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 seems

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 on 13th of December, 2012. This little essay was originally published in my own other major blog or Being Human -blog at http://beinghuman.blogs.fi in 2009, and the later completely re-written version is also in this blog.) Anaxagoras is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/anaxagorasphilosopher

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 - 17:28:10 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 @ 19:31 I just discovered your blog, and am loving it. Keep up the good work! Isabell Binny [Visitor] 31.01.2012 @ 23:20 Oh, I am so happy that you are in the world. Thank you!

cscheidegger [Member] 26.02.2012 @ 17:46 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: On the other hand war is the absence of benevolence, confidence and justice. War as we define it is initialed

by some nation or some more unofficial actor. They need to think that they can get something with the aid of violence that they believe that they can not 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 seem to be much more acceptable to us when they are used by a state. Most people quite consistently seem the think that states have the extraordinary right to use violence as they please. They do not see it inconsistent that individual members of that same state are not allowed to use violence under any normal circumstances. However, the first wars between the first states were also just organized stealing and plundering. The goal of subjugating victims to one s continued rule did give these endeavors a new kind aura of respectability. Outright stealing and plundering would not have similar respect in our eyes. The first real wars between organized states were quite probably fought 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 a ruler. 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 a larger amount of tax-payers to pay for the lavish life-style of the small ruling class. In fact, ordinary people paid for an army that was needed mostly to keep other tax-collectors away. Grim 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 a 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 mission for the defense of 'fatherland'. It is so easy to forget that these first city-states were quite artificial constructions. This is of course the case with most of the later states and nations until the rise of the modern nation-states that were based on a common language. Naturally also nation-states are products of a human ideas and ideology. However, sharing at least a common language gives a state much added credibility in our eyes. A nation state just feels real to us. It is not based on purely imaginary things as so many states were earlier in history. Quite abstract ideas like religion, monarchy or accidents of geography were used as means to divide the earth between different state-formations for millenniums on end. It is also quite easy to forget that the main aim of Roman legions for 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. The medieval states did carry little responsibility towards the people under their rule. However, 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 either for the right to tax new people or for keeping neighboring rulers from stealing old tax-payers away. For the people themselves the outcomes of these endless, quite unnecessary and pointless turf-wars were mostly extremely insignificant. Normally only 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. In the modern nation states that were mostly based on common language (even if not always) the states gained real functions. These new functions did really benefit the subject. They also differed from nation to nation so that there was soon real reasons for the population also to fight for their state. Before that there were also commercial interests at stake. However, wars were mostly 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. 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 had 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 not have lost their lives in pointless slaughter in the trenches. Well-educated and intelligent people often think that keeping and paying for large armies is an unavoidable part of life. They see that the need to protect one's own nation form unruly and aggressive neighbors will be always there. 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. This is unfortunately all too often 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 for the upkeep large standing armies. They often do it 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. This is the case, even if the violence between nations does cause much more sorrow and grief, when and if it is let loose.

(This piece was refurbished at 14th of December, 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' mindbody 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."

Feedback for Post "Baruch Spinoza on peace as a virtue"

atheistbruce pro 14.02.2012 @ 19:01 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 @ 12:05 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 @ 14:10 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.

My own thoughts on the quote: Happily the leader of 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 immense number of monasteries. At its worst, there were over 6,000 monasteries in Tibet. The liberal stand of Dalai Lama can be the upside of having to be in exile. One can start building a clean slate. The change of heart of Dalai Lama 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. 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. 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 many Hindu traditions of supernatural nature have crept into Buddhism during the 2500 years of existing side by side in the same cultures. However, Buddhism is still one of the finest religions as it actually can normally co-exist peacefully with other religions. Buddhist are normally not at all like the believing Christians, who so often live in a simplistic world with a naive certainty of having found the only 'truth'. 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 in the west that wants to see Tibetan Buddhism as something nice and somber. This 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. The following quote is reported as 'disputed' in Wikiquote. However, I'd like it to be by Buddha. 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 beingsthat 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). (This piece was refurbished on 15th of December, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalai_lama "The Dalai Lama is a high lama in the Gelug or "Yellow Hat" branch of Tibetan Buddhism. The name is a combination of the Mongolian word dalai meaning "Ocean" and the Tibetan word bla-ma (with a silent "b") meaning "guru, teacher". In religious terms, the Dalai Lama is believed by his devotees to be the rebirth of a long line of tulkus who are considered to be manifestations of the bodhisattva of compassion, Avalokitevara. Traditionally, the Dalai Lama is thought of as the latest reincarnation of a series of spiritual leaders who have chosen to be reborn in order to enlighten others. The line of Dalai Lamas began as lineage of spiritual teachers; the 5th Dalai Lama assumed political authority over Tibet. The 14th Dalai Lama remained the head of state for the Central Tibetan Administration ("Tibetan government in exile") until his retirement on March 14, 2011. He has indicated that the institution of the Dalai Lama may be abolished in the future."

by jaskaw @ 19.02.2012 - 17:18:16 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 @ 17:48 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 @ 17:52 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 @ 15:43 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 @ 19:02 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 @ 19:03 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 @ 19:05 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 @ 21:23 Just goes to prove how religion is the source of all moral authority...

Hundovir [Member] 08.03.2012 @ 10:12 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 @ 10:20 Thanks for the info, Hundovir.

John Locke on words and ideas

We should have a great many fewer disputes in the world if words were taken for what they are, the signs of our ideas only, and not for things themselves." - John Locke in "Essay on the Human Understanding", III. 10.

My own thoughts on the issue of language: Words are commonly agreed descriptions of reality. Words can change quite summarily. However, reality is normally not changed when these descriptions change. Words are attached to things and ideas by humans. Of course, the way how we see reality can be changed by these descriptions that we call words. However, changes in language can change the way we see things even in a major way. Reality remains unchanged by these changes in language. This is true as long as we do not change our actual behavior because of these changes. Only real actions can change reality. Naturally, these actions are always based on how we see the world. Language plays a crucial role on how we form our view of reality. The individual perceptions or even some 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 people see the world, only view of it is restricted, but the reality remains the unchanged for many others. This is true as long as a person is not able to convince others that they should see the reality in similar restricted way as he does. Distorting the view of reality that people have 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. Also taking things to unneeded level of abstraction can make things look strange and shadowy. This can be true, even if 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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_locke "John Locke FRS ( / l k/; 29 August 1632 28 October 1704), widely known as the Father of Classical Liberalism, was an English philosopher and physician regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers. Considered one of the first of the British empiricists, following the tradition of Francis Bacon, he is equally important to a social contract theory. His work had a great impact upon the development of epistemology and political philosophy. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence."

by jaskaw @ 06.03.2012 - 20:07:50 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/03/06/oscar-wilde-on-language-as-13075800/

Feedback for Post "John Locke on words and ideas"

Jai [Visitor] 06.03.2012 @ 21:38 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 @ 21:53 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 @ 00:21 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 @ 10:29 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 @ 00:36 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 @ 12:51 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 @ 21:33 "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 @ 15:35 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 @ 19:25 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. - John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty" (1859)

Some of my own ideas that were raised by the quote: A fatal and all too common mistake in is to presuppose 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 process can happen quite automatically as we will look at others through our own mind. The main yardstick that we use to evaluate other people and their ideas are our own ideas. 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. However, all too often the real reason is that other people have been learning a different set of facts. A very 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 things in life can be seen from different angles and in a different light. Dissident is, in fact, one of the most important assets that an open society and democracy in general need to survive in the long run. 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 is 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. (This piece was refurbished at 17th of December, 2012)

John Stuart Mill is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/jsmillphilosopher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill "John Stuart Mill, FRSE (20 May 1806 8 May 1873) was a British philosopher, political economist and civil servant. He was an influential contributor to social theory, political theory, and political economy. He has been called "the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century".

by jaskaw @ 19.03.2012 - 22:26:44 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 @ 10:18 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 that is in general use in a society is normally instilled to the individual members of the society through education both at home and in 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 a rulebook over 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 Epicurus already noted 2400 years ago. According to Epicurus a person can also 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 if and when the needs of the society do change. Unjust and outdated laws just cannot expected to be followed in the long run. According to recent research all humans share certain basic instinct for fairness and justice. Also, the other great apes have such universal traits. They are simply 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. The universal feeling of fairness and justice are, however, often suppressed by society. This needs to happen, for example, if a society is based on unfair and unjust division of wealth. Religions have been often important tools in keeping up class privilege in the name of 'morality'. The usage of religious 'morality' has often in the long past of humanity in fact 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."

- Marcus Aurelius in "Meditations"

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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus "Epicurus (Greek: , Epikouros, "ally, comrade"; 341 BCE 270 BCE) was an ancient Greek philosopher as well as the founder of the school of philosophy called Epicureanism. Only a few fragments and letters of Epicurus's 300 written works remain. Much of what is known about Epicurean philosophy derives from later followers and commentators."

by jaskaw @ 18.04.2012 - 13:51:49 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/04/18/epicurus-on-absolute-justice-13535905/

Feedback for Post "Epicurus on absolute justice"

abrham [Visitor] 18.04.2012 @ 14:02 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 @ 17:59 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 @ 18:35 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 @ 18:59 (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 @ 09:48 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 need to go to a more personal level this time than has been my habit in commenting these great quotes of the past. This quote just moves me deeply, as I have never enjoyed direct competition in any form. In fact, I have

always shied away from it. However, I get immense pleasure from learning something new and I have always really liked competing with past myself. I must have a strange inverted psyche, but I really have never got any real pleasure from defeating other people in an open competition. This must be also because of a very deep inner insecurity. However, I am also cursed with an 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 in competing for a place in university or for a job. In these instances, situation is made much easier when one not needs know the other people that take part in the competition. The situation is made much easier when one never gets to see the ones who did not get to the university or did not get the job because of me getting the spot. However, I have never competed in sports or sought personal promotion in the workplace. There has always been people that I know who have been interested in the same job and and I have seen them as just as worthy as I am for the 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. On a more general level, my personal example can show that not all humans are necessarily 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 can still be true for many other 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 teach us to be utterly 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. However, even this just might not be a universal trait of all humans. (This piece was refurbished on 19th of December, 2012)

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 - 19:49:52 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)

Some of my own ideas on the quote: One could 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 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 fully freely. This kind of self-induced censorship can be 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, the fear of what others will think is one of the most important sources for self-censorship for all of us who are not self-employed. The later career as a free writer gave new mental freedom also to Bertrand Russell. However, even there is always the wishes of the publisher and 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 about 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 naturally 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 know of, if these new methods for free self-publishing 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. (This piece was refurbished on 21th of December, 2012)

Bertrand Russell is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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. He is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy along with his predecessor Gottlob Frege and his protg Ludwig Wittgenstein. He 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."

by jaskaw @ 07.05.2012 - 21:08:30 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

My own ideas on the quote: One of my biggest sorrows has always been 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, if a person is unable to understand change, he easily 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 do change, a major portion of human resources can be wasted. People can end judging other people on grounds of what they once were, and not on what they really are now. Other thing that really irritates me is how some people dismiss even some first class thinkers and writers because of trivial matters. People do this because some thinkers have at some point of their life thought and written something that later turns out to be foolish or silly. However, a person s whole lifework does not turn into nothing simply because he or she does something that is at a later time point is deemed as silly or wrong. Often the idea that makes a person susceptible at our eyes has been socially fully acceptable at that time. However, 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. 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 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. Some people simply tend to see new information also as a threat to traditional values. The requirement to understand immensely complex new ideas and scientific theories can lead really to a backlash, where people just reject new information out of hand. Sticking to the bronze-age religious ideas does make life so much easier for many people. It just does give them a respectable reason to reject the influx of new information. (This piece was refurbished on 22th of December, 2012)

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 - 22:14:07

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: One can only add to this wonderful quote that competition is not the only or even major force that has driven humanity and progress forward especially in the field of science. With whom did Newton or Einstein compete when they did their findings? The answer is: nobody. They were driven by intellectual curiosity and most of all by an inner need to understand and know more. Newton or Einstein were not competing with other people, but with just their former selves. The need to improve one's thinking and mind is not dependent on competition with others. The need and will to improve oneself is, in fact, 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 possible rewards in the form of money or fame have been secondary in all really big innovations. Of course, small-scale and industry-level innovation can be motivated with monetary rewards also, but it hardly the case that Newton or Einstein would have produced anything bigger or better if they would have received more money because of their world-changing innovations. Bertrand Russell is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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 @ 17.05.2012 - 12:36:53 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 @ 12:58 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. A free person will not do it based only on how new ideas do fit into an ideology one already has. This kind of state is naturally immensely difficult or even impossible to achieve fully. 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, this view will inevitably change when life goes on. Thankfully, very often a person will see more and more shades of grey also when time passes. 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. On the other hand, morality is always based on human opinions and needs of the current society and sometimes on 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, even noticing how ideologies can affect one's own thinking is a major step forward, given that 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. This is not a bad thing as such. 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. People who gather around ideologies do also very often initiate real changes in society. Ideologies have immense value as initiators and tools for political and social activity. However, people who are seriously interested in how human societies and the universe do really work need to be aware of the danger of ending up as a mouth-piece for a ready-made ideology. (This piece was refurbished on 24th of December, 2012) Robert G. Ingersoll is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/ingersollorator

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 - 15:29:46 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.

- Marcus Aurelius in "Meditations"

Some of my own ideas on the subject of happiness.

Unhappiness is normally a result of a conflict between expectations and reality. To achieve happiness one needs to adjust either one's expectations or the reality. One's choice normally depends on which method is easiest to accomplish in any particular case. However, if one chooses not to even try anything the state of unhappiness will all 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 one's life or environment environment or in other words reality. Naturally one needs to spot the thing that can make one unhappy and which one can change by oneself. There are naturally a lot of things that one simply cannot change. There are always these two options. A very good option is always to lower one's expectations when they show to be too hard to realize. This can happen if one feels oneself unhappy,for example, because one can't travel to faraway places, buy a bigger house or buy a more expensive car. (This piece was refurbished on 25th of December, 2012) Marcus Aurelius also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/aureliusphilosopher

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."

by jaskaw @ 03.06.2012 - 09:04:46 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. However, we are guided 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 individual free will need not be the ruling ones. An ethnic, political or religious minority does can create an even more binding and even suffocating framework of allowed and forbidden actions than any ruling class. We are normally really free to choose only the things which are available within the framework that is presented to us by accidents of birth. 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. Some others will be lost during the whole duration of our lives. These invisible strings may pull the person to also different directions at the same time. 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 do these ideas come from. 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."

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 even a quite 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 being part of a human society will always set. (This piece was refurbished on 26th of December, 2012)

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 - 22:57:21 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 @ 00:29 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 a bewilderingly complex and varied subject. No single one even 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 a 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 include 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. With high probability they will always remain without a single, definite, final answer, when things do also continue to change and evolve. There just perhaps never will be a single answer that will explain the big questions wholly. This is an extremely difficult thing to accept. We all are just humans and as humans we will quite inevitably fall in love with beautiful and final-sounding explanations. (This piece was refurbished on 27th of December, 2012) Bertrand Russell is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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."

by jaskaw @ 08.06.2012 - 10:31:49 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 in the end keep the whole system going century after century. These deep currents change so slowly that their changes can be passed over quite unnoticed. However, when they do break to the surface, they can have a devastating effect. A major 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 often happens even if in our immediate neighborhood there is 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. (This piece was refurbished on 28th of December, 2012) 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 - 21:01:23

Feedback for Post "Rubn Blades on dying of ignorance"

tom merle [Visitor] http://www. cultureplaces. blogspot.com 09.06.2012 @ 00:22 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:

In 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 diminish 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 deserve respect. Humans have also 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 the cost of treating all people humanely will be paid back with dividends right here on Earth. (This piece refurbished on 29th of October, 2012) Kurt Vonnegut is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/vonnegutwriter

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."

by jaskaw @ 09.06.2012 - 17:31:13 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 all life, every last crawling bit of it! We're all in this beauty together!" - Frank Herbert in "Dune Messiah" (1969)

My own ideas on the issue:

Some people seem to think that animals are just made by humans to look like humans when we say that an animal is jealous or shy or reclusive. There is a fundamental misconception here. We share 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 are animals and not the other way around. Animals do have emotions. 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 motions. However, the fact that a dog can so well interpret human emotions is based on the simple fact it has quite similar basic emotions itself. 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. The extremely strong human cultural evolution that originated from the invention of speech has molded how humans handle, show and 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 wild variety of different situations. They also keep us doing different things that will benefit us, our society and sometimes even the whole species. Most of all in the long run they can drive us into doing 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. A major 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. (This piece was refurbished on 29th of December, 2012)

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 - 22:04:15 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 thoughts on the subject: 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 is often best 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. A troll likes nothing more than make other people angry. If they get no response, they will just fade away. A troll lives and thrives on the anger of others. However, the chance to have a honest discussion with a person who has a different set of ideas from you is a completely different matter altogether. It is a chance that one just must never miss. The chance of testing your ideas with a different mind is an extremely valuable asset if you ever want to develop your ideas 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. (This piece was refurbished on 30th of October, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_K._Le_Guin "Ursula Kroeber Le Guin (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 - 13:16:46 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 perhaps the most difficult things to sell. One of the main reasons for this can be that when one just goes along with the old ideas one needs not know precisely what they are and what they

really mean. To accept a radically new idea one needs know the field in question well. Many people just may have a 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 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. However, one of the most personally liberating things a person can say is: "I do not know". Only after this moment occurs one is able to say this one can really learn from others. It is very, very difficult. However, personally I well remember the feeling of liberation which I did feel after I realized that a person cannot know everything. After that, I could concentrate just on the things that felt important to me personally. Before that, I had just accumulated knowledge. However, now I could put it also into better use as a base for ideas of my own. There perhaps are no shortcuts for reaching this point. It can be that this stage can be reached just by living a life that shows you the limits but also the strong points in your knowledge. (This piece was refurbished on 30th of December, 2012)

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 - 11:13:46 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/06/16/howard-h-aiken-on-stealing-ideas-13883977/

Bertrand Russell on the passions governing his life

Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. These passions, like great winds, have blown me hither and thither, in a wayward course, over a deep ocean of anguish, reaching the very verge of despair..Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people..the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate this evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer. This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me. Bertrand Russell in "The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell" (1967), Prologue: "What I Have Lived For"

My own thoughts on the quote: Even Bertrand Russell would certainly have approved the idea that a part of human spirit does survive in the writings of that person. An honest book is always a window to the mind of another person. In fact, it does not matter if that person is living or dead. A part of a person's mind will be preserved in his or her writings. This is true as long as there are people who are able to decipher the symbols that were used to convey these thoughts and if these writings do survive in a readable form. In this sense, a person really can achieve a certain level of immortality. However, one needs to produce words that will interest also coming generations and which are not commentary of current affairs. In this respect, Bertrand Russell has certainly achieved a high degree of immortality, I think. Bertrand Russell is in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

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. 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. 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. 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 @ 19.06.2012 - 09:55:45 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/06/19/bertrand-russell-on-the-passions-governing-his-life-13899723/

Samuel Johnson on age and judgment

Sir, as a man advances in life, he gets what is better than admiration, judgement, to estimate things at their true value." - Samuel Johnson, reported in James Boswell: "The Life of Samuel Johnson" (1791)

My own ideas on the issue: In the world of ideas, the hardest part can be to convince yourself that you have contributed something worthwhile. However, before you can convince yourself, you will have a hard time convincing anybody else. We just are extremely dependent of the judgment of others. However, with age the dependence on the acceptance of others may diminish, even if all people do not undergo this kind of change. The big thing is to understand that you can never please everybody. Sometimes the ire of people who dogmatically oppose your ideas can be the best confirmation of their validity. However, we are just humans. The idea that all people cannot ever accept our ideas is difficult to implement in practice, even if we can well understand it in theory. Criticism will always hurt. This is true even if we can understand on a rational level from where it is coming fro. (This piece was refurbished on 31th of October, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson "Samuel Johnson (18 September 1709 [O.S. 7 September] 13 December 1784), often referred to as Dr Johnson, was an English author who made lasting contributions to English literature as a poet, essayist, moralist, literary critic, biographer, editor and lexicographer. Johnson has been described as "arguably the most distinguished man of letters in English history". He is also the subject of "the most famous single work of biographical art in the whole of literature": James Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson."

by jaskaw @ 19.06.2012 - 11:40:13 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/06/19/samuel-johnson-on-judgment-13900421/

Bertrand Russell on the tyranny of the fortunate

Advocates of capitalism like to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate. Bertrand Russell in Sceptical Essays (1928)

My own ideas on some of the issues raised by the quote: I must hasten to point out that Bertrand Russell never did advocate the Soviet model of communism or the end of private ownership. He was always a keen follower of western, democratic form of social reform. His aim was to mend capitalism so that more and more people could find their lives tolerable. Bertrand Russell was from a stoutly aristocratic lineage. However, in a very early stage of his life he found out that open greed of capitalism must be restrained. His aim was reform capitalism so that the fruits of labor would not benefit only selected few, not to overthrow it. Happily, the western democratic socialist movement were in very many countries successful in their fight for more just division of the fruits of capitalism. The western societies did with time become much more livable and safer for also the paid employees. However, there is a major new threat emerging in the form of the ultra-capitalist ideologies. They are made even more dangerous by the sad situation where many people fail to understand that ultra-capitalist ideas like

Randian philosophy or Libertarianism are just theories like communism is. Many people do not see that what is presented as a 'scientific economic theory' can be part of an ideology. These ideologies have been created to protect the interests of the owning class and most of all to give moral justification to open greed. There are many academics who forward these ideas, as well there are very many Christian academics forwarding Christian ideology. These builders of ultra-capitalist ideology have in common the habit of denying the central role of labor and socialist movements in building up the western standard of living. In fact, they often seem to be not interested in general standard of living at all, but just about creating maximally benevolent environment for capitalism. For ideological reasons, they always absolutely deny the central role of the labor movement in the modern economy. They commonly also deny that without labor movement the rise of productivity would not have necessarily risen living standards of the workers, but only for the owners. They can for example, deny that the rise in cost of labor has been a central factor reason in the rise of productivity also. This did happen because the rise in the cost of labor has made it more worthwhile to invest in new work-saving machines. I well know that very many people think that economic theories would be somehow free of ideology. This has happened mainly because creating this illusion has been a major aim of the academic builders of these ideas. There is nothing wrong in having an ideology. However, I see a problem in denying its existence and claiming that it is science . This is a very similar method that was used by the communists also when they claimed that Marxism-Leninism was a science . A very central problem with all ultra-capitalist ideologies is that they take just one aspect of production and make the whole society serve that end. This happens even if it will benefit just one part of the society or the owning class and its immediate high-salaried employees. When you take the interests and needs of the whole society as your aim, all ultra-capitalist ideologies do fall flat on their face. Such an ideology can never aid the lot of the sick, the weak, the retired or the mentally disabled. It is an ideology for the strong, the able, but also for people with inherited wealth, even if they are unable to do anything real by themselves. (This piece was refurbished on 1st of January, 2012) Bertrand Russell is in Facebook at: http://facebook.com/russellbertie

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 @ 26.06.2012 - 21:52:56 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/06/26/advocates-of-capitalism-like-to-appeal-to-the-sacred-principles-13950328/

Edward and Robert Skidelsky on making money as an end in itself

Making money cannot be an end in itself - at least for anyone not suffering from acute mental disorder. To say that my purpose in life is to make more and more money is like saying that my aim in eating is to get fatter and fatter. And what is true of individuals is also true of societies. Making money cannot be the permanent business of humanity, for the simple reason that there is nothing to do with money except spend it. And we cannot just go on spending. There will come a point when we will be satiated or disgusted or both. Or will we?" - Edward and Robert Skidelsky in "How Much Is Enough? Money and the Good Life" (2012)

Some of my own thoughts on the subject: What happens after you have a lot of nice things already? Do you just want bigger, faster, or shinier nice things? Our economy does not simply work without consumption. However, just maybe we do not need more of the same, but just smarter consumption. Perhaps we do not need more cheaply mass-produced things from faraway countries. Perhaps we need more consumption of local services and things made by local producers. When this happens our money will create more well-being in our own neighborhood. Then it will not just add the profits of the multinational conglomerates. These all too often often destroy the environment and exploit defenseless workforce in faraway countries.

I think that at this point I need to mention that I gave my own car away last winter. This did happen when I was not able to drive a car because of my then current serious illness. I did not think that I would not need a car anymore as I was promised just a few days to live at the darkest point. However, I did recover against all odds. With time, I found out that I will need a car again to get around. The more so as I was still too weak to walk to the nearest bus stop a kilometer away. However, because of my illness, my economy was in bad shape and I could not even borrow much money for a new car. Therefore, I just had to find the cheapest car in town that would be of least trouble. I found a 10-year old little 1.0-liter odd-looking and the odd-colored thing, but which was in an extremely good shape for its age. Now I have a much smaller, less powerful and overall much less macho car than its predecessor was. However, I am extremely happy with it. My new car is really snappy, has good proportion and uses much less gasoline than the old one. Overall, it is a colorful and bright little thing. I just love it more day by day, when the old much more mainstream vehicle did not give me any such emotional feedback. The moral of the story is that you do not always need faster, shinier, and more macho things to be happier. One needs stuff that does really fulfill one's current needs. The things that fill them just might be slower, less shiny and less macho...

We have used our unprecedented freedoms not to agitate for justice, for redistribution, for the defense of our common interests, but to pursue the dopamine hits triggered by the purchase of products we do not need." - George Monbiot

http://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/sociology/staff/skidelsky/ http://www.skidelskyr.com/

by jaskaw @ 29.06.2012 - 19:17:58 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/06/29/edward-skidelsky-on-making-money-as-an-end-in-itself-14000984/

Jaakko Wallenius on understanding quotes

"A great quote will make people see problems that they had not realized even to exist. However, a great quote will not provide any kind of final answers, but just opens one's eyes to see the possible solutions." Jaakko J. Wallenius in "Windows on Humanity " -blog(2012)

A great quote can be a tremendous source of wisdom and insight. However, this does require that the reader can concentrate on the quote itself, and not on who said it, what school of thought it does represent, or what others might have said on the subject. One needs to be able to immerse oneself in a pure thought to understand it as a separate entity from its writer. All truly great thoughts can acquire a life of their own. The life of a quote can even be quite separate of the life and fate of its original creator. The funny thing is that all too many people seem not to be able to look at thoughts itself. They seem to be stuck on who said it as if it would be the only thing that is important in a quote. However, it is often not even important who said this or that, when it was it said or was the person who said in a position of authority or not.

Sadly, many people discussing quotes seem very often to be able to discuss only the persons who uttered these ideas and not the ideas themselves. A simple fact is that even if I would come up with the wisest idea in the world, it would be largely ignored because it was me who uttered it. That just is the way it is, I know. There is a major problem with false quotes and quotes that can give a wrong impression of the thinking of the writer in question. However, I have always presented only verified quotes in this blog and quotes that do really represent the core thinking of the writer. Wrongly attributed and wrong quotes is an evil that can be combated. However, this battle can be won with diligence and hard work. Most of all, I always only publish quotes in this blog that I love myself. I naturally end up publishing only quotes that fit in to my own world-view. However, this fact can just give a needed consistency to this kind of collection, I think. Then it is not a random collection of wise words anymore, but it can form the basis for one possible way of seeing how the human world works. Other major problem with quotes naturally is that for some people there is always the horror of not knowing what the next sentence is. However, a good quote does not need pages of explanations, but it can work as a separate entity. A quote that does need a lot of explaining and context just is not a good quote at all. (This piece was refurbished on 3rd of January, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaakko_Wallenius "Jaakko Wallenius (b. 30.January 1958 Hmeenlinna) is a Finnish writer and journalist." I am in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/jaskaw

by jaskaw @ 01.07.2012 - 20:19:48 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/07/01/jaakko-wallenius-on-understanding-quotes-14013105/

Feedback for Post "Jaakko Wallenius on understanding quotes "

choisir un ethylotest [Visitor] 30.10.2012 @ 23:14 vous tes rellement un webmaster excellente. Le rythme de chargement site web est incroyable. Il se sent type de ce que vous faites n'importe quel tour distinctif. En outre, les contenus sont chef-d'uvre. vous avez fait une grande activit sur cette question!

E.O. Wilson on religions and tribalism

The toxic mix of religion and tribalism has become so dangerous as to justify taking seriously the alternative view, that humanism based on science is the effective antidote, the light and the way at last placed before us." - E. O. Wilson in "Can biology do better than faith?" (in New Scientist 2005)

Some of my own thoughts on the issue:

Human mind seems to be built in a way where "us" are quite automatically seen as the good guys. You must just get people to believe that they belong to same "us" and they will believe "Them" are the bad guys. However, humans have reigned in many other features that are products of evolution. Even the disease of tribalism can be cured to a point. People just need to understand how in a modern extremely interconnected world all humans need to protect the interests of whole human species to be able to be happy in the long run. Humans have successfully made children sit in schools for years, even if we prefer to run free on fields and roam the forests. It is simply silly to claim that we cannot get rid of tribalism if we just want to do it. A sad fact is that so many people benefit from fostering these dangerous ideas that people who speak against

tribalism are seen as dangerous. They are commonly frowned upon and even silenced in many cultures. I admit that it is a extremely common fallacy to see in-group-thinking as a feature of humans that cannot ever be overcome. The very same people often also claim the same thing about war and all forms of inequality too. These ideas are just often extremely forcefully marketed to people. They do often not even realize that these things are just human ideas that can be changed when there just is the will. It does not matter how strongly we followed some ideas in the forgotten past of the human species. We have made people forget many of their sexual desires. They are one of the strongest desires that a human can have. We have successfully made people sit in offices for eight hours a day for decades in the end, which is as unnatural, and against "human nature" as anything can be. Tribalism was beneficial in the early days of human history to small groups and beneficial even in the process of state-formation. However, in the extremely interconnected modern world it has become a direct liability. Tribalism has always been a major source of unnecessary human suffering. However, its role is becoming even greater when other sources of human suffering like diseases and hunger have been eradicated from whole continents. However, tribalism kills countless people every year. Every single day your newspaper is filled with the ugly results of tribalism. A person who is embedded in the ideology of tribalism will think that the critique of an ideology is a critique of the people, which is of course a completely false assumption. A person can change his ideology at will and his or her basic personality will not change at this process. However, the way he or she treats other people can change even considerably, when he stops treating people who think differently as a threat. Religions are just now a major source of tribal way of thinking. I well know that many religious people think that religion is like blue eyes, and it is an inherited and inseparable part of a person. However, this is only because their religious leaders make them think so. It is part of the mechanism that makes people continue believing in these bronze-age things, that have very little to give in a modern world. However, saying this is not the same thing at all as dismissing the people who for many kinds of historical and cultural reasons are made to believe these things. They are so often just taught as little children to never, ever doubt these ideas in any way. This does not mean that they could not change, however, if they see the need for it.

"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

"We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom" or the very best bits from E.O. Wilson in Being Human-blog: http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2011/03/13/we-are-drowning-in-information-while-starving-for-wisdom-or-the-very-best-bi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson Edward Osborne Wilson (born June 10, 1929) is an American biologist, researcher (sociobiology, biodiversity), theorist (consilience, biophilia), naturalist (conservationist) and author. His biological specialty is myrmecology, the study of ants, on which he is considered to be the world's leading authority. Wilson is known for his scientific career, his role as "the father of sociobiology", his environmental advocacy, and his secular-humanist and deist ideas pertaining to religious and ethical matters. As of 2007, he is Pellegrino University Research Professor in Entomology for the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He is a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism. He is a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction."

by jaskaw @ 11.07.2012 - 17:36:43 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/07/11/e-o-wilson-on-religions-and-tribalism-14086777/

Feedback for Post "E.O. Wilson on religions and tribalism"

Scott [Visitor] 12.07.2012 @ 22:50 I recently read his book "Consilence". A great and hopeful path for science to take and perhaps it is taking it.

John Lennon on imagining

Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today... Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace... -John Lennon in "Imagine" (1971)

Some of my own thoughts on the quote: I was sitting in the garden, and I watched as a small plane flew over me. I thought how nice it would be to be

able to fly and be free. However, at that same moment I realized that aviation is the most heavily regulated form of human activity there is. You must learn an incredible number of rules and restrictions to be able to fly. All this is also incredibly costly. I did also realize at that very moment that human imagination can soar in the sky where it likes, when it likes and without asking anybody for permission. It does not cost a penny to fly in your imagination. A silly and childish thought, I freely admit. In the modern world you need to climb that mountain, dive that cave and run that desert to be able to feel them. However, in the times when people did not have the money and resources to do these things, the voyages of imagination were valued in a different way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine_(album) "Imagine is the second album by John Lennon. Recorded and released in 1971, it tended towards songs that were gentler, more commercial and less avant-garde than those on his previous album, the critically acclaimed John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band. The album is considered the most popular of his works. In 2012, Imagine was voted 80th on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the "500 Greatest Albums of All Time". by jaskaw @ 16.07.2012 - 20:45:13 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/07/16/john-lennon-on-imagining-14124349/

Albert Einstein on work

Every individual should have the opportunity to develop the gifts which may be latent in him. Alone in that way can the individual obtain the satisfaction to which he is justly entitled; and alone in that way can the community achieve its richest flowering. For everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom. - Albert Einstein, as quoted in Educational Trends: Journal of Research and Interpretation (1936)

Some of my own thoughts on the quote: To be happy in the workplace a person needs most of all to be proud of what he or she is doing. The best scenario is that a person is producing something that one can be proud of. However, one can be proud of also of the way he or she does this work or even be proud of how he or she stands for the rights of workers in the workplace. If the reason for being proud of one's work does not exist or is taken away, work soon becomes something that is done only for the money. This is not a good situation either for the worker or the employer. On the other hand, there is another and more sinister side to work in a modern society:

It is assumed by most people nowadays that all work is useful, and by most well-to-do people that all work is desirable. Most people, well-to-do or not, believe that, even when a man is doing work which appears to be useless, he is earning his livelihood by it he is "employed," as the phrase goes; and most of those who are well-to-do cheer on the happy worker with congratulations and praises, if he is only "industrious" enough and deprives himself of all pleasure and holidays in the sacred cause of labour. In short, it has become an article of the creed of modern morality that all labour is good in itself a convenient belief to those who live on the labour of others. But as to those on whom they live, I recommend them not to take it on trust, but to look into the matter a little deeper. - William Morris in "Useful Work vs Useless Toil" (1885)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_einstein "Albert Einstein (14 March 1879 18 April 1955) was a German-born theoretical physicist who developed the general theory of relativity, effecting a revolution in physics. For this achievement, Einstein is often regarded as the father of modern physics and the most influential physicist of the 20th century. While best known for his massenergy equivalence formula E = mc2 (which has been dubbed "the world's most famous equation"), he received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". The latter was pivotal in establishing quantum theory."

by jaskaw @ 20.07.2012 - 12:58:02 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/07/20/every-individual-should-have-the-opportunity-to-develop-the-gifts-14156044/

George Orwell on controlling history

"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." - George Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), Chapter 3.

Some of my own thoughts on the issue of history: Archimedes said: "Give me a place to stand on, and I will move the Earth." I say : "Give me a new vantage point and I will move the history of the Earth." This is a naturally just a joke. However, moving to a new vantage point can give one tremendous new insight into our common history. The central facts do naturally always remain the same. The way how the facts that are deemed important and are chosen, however, has a tremendous impact on how the history we present will look like. Simply moving the vantage point away from the facts that have been chosen and thoroughly colored by Christians of the past can have a tremendous impact on how we see our past. One needs to realize how tremendously Christianity has affected the writers of past generations. One needs to understand how Christianity has colored the whole way we do see the past. This realization can make a world of difference. Many people have difficulty in understanding that history that is written by Christians is not impartial history. It is history that has been warped by a distorting lens of an ideology. This is true even if this warping did often

happen in societies where no other ideologies were simply available. Even the most impartial writers of the 18th or 19th century simply could not see the effect that this ideology did have on their thinking. They commonly did not even see that of any other model of thinking could exist in their own society. My page for George Orwell was in Facebook also before the page was taken down for unknown and unreported reasons in January 2011; see http://www.facebook.com/orwellblair if it has been returned to its creator. (This piece was refurbished on 7th of January, 2012)

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 novelist and journalist. His work is marked by clarity, intelligence and wit, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and belief in democratic socialism."

by jaskaw @ 26.07.2012 - 12:13:51 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/07/26/george-orwell-on-history-14236590/

Feedback for Post "George Orwell on controlling history"

konservatiivi [Visitor] 11.08.2012 @ 19:24 I think you're just making an assertion without any argumentation here. How has the historiography of past actually distorted our understanding of history and how and when we became aware of it? Through the "ideological lens" of modern academic research, it's actually the "Enlightenment" or "whig" view of history that has distorted our understanding, especially with regards to the history of science. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 12.08.2012 @ 12:34 Give me a break; do you really think that Christian historians of the past were objective in matters relating to their faith? If you think so, we have nothing further to discuss here. | Show subcomments konservatiivi [Visitor] 12.08.2012 @ 13:27 You didn't answer my question. I'm just curious: how actually did the Christian historians of the past cherry-pick facts and colored them? Could you give me a concrete example how? Anyway, why single out Christianity? As I said, the Enlightenment historiography has grossly distorted our views about the past (and the same goes for materialist historiography). | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 12.08.2012 @ 16:06 Enlightenment did bring a new kind of emphasis on objectivity and real evidence to all science and even to history. I want you to give me concrete examples how they did actually "grossly distort our views" on anything. I think that you mean the fact that they just rejected the grossly distorted views of the Christian apologetics who has colored and distorted much of the history-writing before them. konservatiivi [Visitor] 12.08.2012 @ 21:28 Concrete examples are numerous: Draper/White-thesis in history of science (here's a good web resource: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html), Edward Gibbon's History of the Fall and Decline of Roman empire and Gottfried Christian Voigt's "nine million witches burnt" come to mind, just to give you some major examples of Enlightenment writing of history. They all have been very influential and popular, but none of them are taken seriously anymore by contemporary scholarly consensus. It may come as a surprise to you, but cherry-picking and distortion of historical facts is not a privilege of the bad religious guys only. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 13.08.2012 @ 11:47

Would you really believe that Edward Gibbons was more unreliable that the hordes of Christian historians who did comfortably forget all the facts that we not pleasing to the Christian faith? How odd!

jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 13.08.2012 @ 11:49 Nobody who has written about history over a hundred years ago cannot be taken seriously anymore, as we just have so much more in formation than they had: most of all we have more information on the effects of Christianity that we did not have in time of Christian overlordship in the Europe. konservatiivi [Visitor] 13.08.2012 @ 13:27 I doubt there ever were any "hordes of Christian historians" who systematically forgot all the unpleasant facts. As we know, historiography became an independent discipline AFTER the time of Christian overlordship in Europe, namely in the 18th and 19th centuries. The main occupation of the historians during those times was not to correct the errors of earlier records but to create those records, as there were very few to start with. That's why your accusations of bias and distortion are so silly. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 13.08.2012 @ 15:24 All historian were Christians for a long, long time and they did quite naturally exclude the unpleasant fact from their tales. They need not do this consciously, as among the followers of a strong ideology the inner censor is always busy. You will quite obviously never accept that fact, as you don't perhaps even understand that Christianity really is an ideology like any other ideology. konservatiivi [Visitor] 13.08.2012 @ 18:18 I'm still wondering: what unpleasant facts Christian historians excluded from their writings? I've never heard anyone make this accusation before so it intrigues me. And i'd like some of evidence too. As i said, historiography as a distinct discipline dates to the Enlightenment era and the prominent historians then, like Gibbon, Voltaire and Hume can hardly be accused of Christian bias. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 13.08.2012 @ 18:43 The ugly phase when Christians took over the Roman Empire and in short order destroyed all other religions and philosophical schools in the 4th and 5th century are a good example. I fear that you are not even aware of the existence of this phenomena if you depend on the Christian historians. konservatiivi [Visitor] 13.08.2012 @ 20:46 The decline of pagan religions and philosophies during that time has, to my knowledge, never been denied, not by any Christian author anyway; on the contrary, Christian historians are our main sources about those events. For an example, the destruction of Alexandrian temples was recorded by church historian Socrates of

Constantinople and the murder of Hypatia by a Christian mob was documented by bishop John of Niki. | Show subcomments jaskaw pro http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi 14.08.2012 @ 12:26 Funny how you use the word "decline", as you have been fooled by Christian historians to believe that dozens of religions and philosophical schools will just disappear, when they were, in fact, actively destroyed and hunted down. Dozens of laws were enacted making all others forms of religion illegal and a lot of force was used to subdue even the last person in the Empire to accept the power of this funny new religion. konservatiivi [Visitor] 14.08.2012 @ 13:16 I still have no idea what Christian historians you're talking about. As I said, the point is that things you mention (e.g. persecution of pagans by Theodosius I) were documented by Greek church historians (such as aforementioned Socrates of Constantinople). Contrary to what you claim, they didn't deny or conceal those facts. FYI, I'm a history major at a secular university and my faculty is religiously unaffiliated.

Isaac Asimov on violence

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Isaac Asimov in "Foundation", published in "Astounding Science-Fiction" (May 1942)

My own thoughts on the quote: Of course, the quote above is a joke. However, the pure incompetence of political leaders has killed millions of people in real life. The quote is, in fact, derived from the famous phrase by Samuel Johnson: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Most of all violence is a method for coercing other people to follow one's wishes. When Carl von Clausewitz said "War is the continuation of politics with other means", I would say "War is a continuation of politics after politicians have failed in their job." This failure of politics can happen due to dogmatic faith in some form of "manifest destiny" or dogmatic faith in "a divine mission of our nation" or some other dogmatically held belief by some of parties involved. However, very often war happens just due to pure and simple incompetence. This is the case when the incompetent leaders just cannot fathom any other solution the use of violence, as in World War I or the second war on Iraq. War just is very often a result either of open hate or greed and failure to suppress them or failure of diplomacy.

It is funny how so many people think of violence only as a reaction to something. However, there is always the "incompetent" who has initiated the use of violence. This all too often happens because he or she does not know how to negotiate and to get what they want without violence. Self-defense is clearly very different thing than using violence to get something that you want because you do not know or want not to use other means. However, there is no need to even for self-defense if there are no incompetent attackers. (This piece was refurbished on 7th of January, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_asimov "Isaac Asimov (c. January 2, 1920 April 6, 1992) was an American author and professor of biochemistry at Boston University, best known for his works of science fiction and for his popular science books. Asimov was one of the most prolific writers of all time, having written or edited more than 500 books and an estimated 90,000 letters and postcards. His works have been published in all ten major categories of the Dewey Decimal System (although his only work in the 100swhich covers philosophy and psychologywas a foreword for The Humanist Way)."

by jaskaw @ 01.08.2012 - 15:57:58 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/08/01/isaac-asimov-on-violence-14339570/

Feedback for Post "Isaac Asimov on violence"

Vincent FY [Visitor] 04.10.2012 @ 02:13 Hello, i've read the Fondation serie a while ago, but i remember very well this quote (it's a famous one anyway), i like the idea very much. When you say "War is a continuation of politics after politicians have failed in their job." not only i agree, but it reminds me : back then when i read this line, i immediatly thought of sun tzu. A strong idea about war, in the third chapter, is that if you have to fight on the battle ground, even if you win, you lose, so to speak. For him the purpose of war is meanly to fight the enemy's plan. It's still war, but a less destructive vision of it i guess. Nevertheless, wars in china have never been less dreadful than anywhere else. oh, and i hope my english isn't too lousy, you know..the frenches and foreign languages... Thanks for your blog bye

Francis Bacon on death

Men fear death as children fear to go in the dark; and as that natural fear in children is increased with tales, so is the other. - Francis Bacon in "Essays, Of Death" (1597)

My own thoughts on the quote: We die because death plays an extremely central part in our biology. Death is a similar part of life as birth, even if it is often much less painful than birth is, I hear. There could not be life without death. The fact we do not like death does not change it's basic necessity. All life is built from the building blocks that

were offered by the deceased lifeforms in some form or another. Death of all living organisms is an inevitable reality, but people have invented extremely ingenious ways to deny this fact. However, there is no more "secret" in death than there is in birth. Admittedly, people have created a lot of myths to explain death away. In the end, death is the central force that drives evolution. Without the existence of death, the original bacteria would be still around, but perhaps nothing much more.

It is as natural to die as to be born; and to a little infant, perhaps, the one is as painful as the other. - Francis Bacon in "Essays, Of Death" (1597)

The fear of death is worse than death. - Robert Burton in "The Anatomy of Melancholy" (1621)

(This piece was refurbished on 7th of January, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St. Alban(s), KC (22 January 1561 9 April 1626) was an English philosopher, statesman, scientist, jurist and author. He served both as Attorney General and Lord Chancellor of England. Although his political career ended in disgrace, he remained extremely influential through his works, especially as philosophical advocate and practitioner of the scientific method during the scientific revolution.

by jaskaw @ 06.08.2012 - 12:20:03 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/08/06/francis-bacon-on-death-14386511/

Lucretius on death

Therefore death is nothing to us, it matters not one jot, since the nature of the mind is understood to be mortal. - Lucretius in De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things) Book III, line 831.

My own thoughts on the quote: I may have some firsthand experience on this subject. I was diagnosed with an incurable cancer in the November of 2011. In early January of 2012, I was promised just a few days to live. Happily, I did survive this immediate crisis. I am still here, even if the cancer itself will never be cured, and I will die of it someday. However, nobody knows when this day comes. With the aid of radical chemotherapy, the illness has not been at least spreading anymore during the last months and has at times it has even receded. A strange fact is that I was not for a single moment really afraid even during this darkest of the dark hours in my life. Maybe a real crisis can be a cure for purely mental fears and phobias. Of course, there just might be a mental structure or mechanism in me that makes the fear go away. However, my intimate knowledge of Epicureanism and Stoicism did also help me to overcome the situation on a mental level. Especially Marcus Aurelius has some great and comforting ideas on this front. However, the Epicurean basic ideas over death that were expressed by Greek Epicurus and Roman Lucretius are very

helpful also. I have also a history of severe depressions, but surprisingly I even think that this history has helped me in my current crisis. Every bout of deep depression has ended some day. This knowledge just may have helped me to build a mechanism deep into my mind that makes me understand and trust that ongoing ordeals can and will so go away also some day. This gradual accumulation of basic underlying optimism may have helped me through the last ones of extremely deep mental crisis more easily than before. Happily during the last decade I have had none of them anymore. Epicurus believed that death was not to be feared. When a person dies, one does not feel the pain of death because one no longer feels nothing. Epicurus famously said, "Death is nothing to us" and this idea is forwarded here also by Lucretius. All sensation and consciousness ends with death. In death there is neither pleasure nor pain. The fear of death partly arises from the belief that even after death there can be some kind of awareness. From this doctrine rose also the Epicurean epitaph: Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo (I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care). This text was inscribed on the gravestones of many Epicureans in Rome. This quote is still sometimes used today at humanist funerals. Epicurean poet Lucretius also says that anyone who fears death should consider the time before he was born. The infinity of non-existence before birth is quite like the future infinity of non-existence after death. However, we do not normally consider not having existed for an eternity before birth to be a terrible thing. According to Lucretius we should not think that existing for an eternity after death would be a bad thing either. Epicurus adds that if death causes no pain when one is dead, it is foolish to allow the fear of death to cause pain. However, understanding the real meaning of these ideas just might be the real key out of fear of death. Sadly, nobody can force it on others; it must come naturally. (This piece was refurbished on 8th of January, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretius "Titus Lucretius Carus (ca. 99 BC ca. 55 BC) was a Roman poet and philosopher. His only known work is the epic philosophical poem De rerum natura about the beliefs of Epicureanism, and which is translated into English as On the Nature of Things or "On the Nature of the Universe". The De rerum natura was a considerable influence on the Augustan poets, particularly Virgil (in his Aeneid and Georgics, and to a lesser extent in his Eclogues) and Horace. It virtually disappeared during the Middle Ages, but was rediscovered in a monastery in Germany in 1417, by Poggio Bracciolini, and played an important role both in the development of atomism (Lucretius was an important influence on Pierre Gassendi) and the efforts of various figures of the Enlightenment."

by jaskaw @ 06.10.2012 - 12:48:56 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/10/06/lucretius-on-death-14986978/

Buckminster Fuller on thinking

We are powerfully imprisoned in these Dark Ages simply by the terms in which we have been conditioned to think." - Buckminster Fuller in "Cosmography" (1992)

Some of my own thoughts on the limits of thinking: We all seem to be bound into living in our own private bubbles. When we look through this bubble, the whole world is colored to match the color of it. Some people's bubbles are so strong that almost nothing of a wrong color can get through it. Some other bubbles may admit more colors in. Inevitably, however, each of us will have our own bubble, the construction of which has often lasted for decades. Bubbles can also break down. However, the human nature just seems to be so constructed that the building of a new bubble will begin immediately. It might very well be that this protection is sorely needed, and the bubble is a extremely necessary human protection mechanism. It can keep us operational in an environment that is full of contradictory signals. It just could be that the mere maintaining of mental health requires the existence of some kind of protective bubble. In the mental institutions there might be a large number of people whose bubble has broken, but who have not been able to build a new one.

On the other hand, too strong protective bubbles will us from accepting new ideas. They will stop us from adopting correct information when it is inconsistent with the one that we already have in our bubble. On the other hand, they just might also keep us sane. However, it can be possible to recognize the existence of the problem. I think that we can work to weaken our own bubble at least a little, a bit by bit. The mere denial of the existence of these bubbles does not necessarily help anything. All of this is of course a self-evident any thinking person, but sometimes it is good to reflect on the obvious too. (This piece was refurbished on 10th of January, 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_fuller "Richard Buckminster "Bucky" Fuller (/ f l r/; July 12, 1895 July 1, 1983) was an American systems theorist, architect, engineer, author, designer, inventor, and futurist. Fuller published more than 30 books, inventing and popularizing terms such as "Spaceship Earth", ephemeralization, and synergetic. He also developed numerous inventions, mainly architectural designs, the best known of which is the geodesic dome. Carbon molecules known as fullerenes were later named by scientists for their resemblance to geodesic spheres." by jaskaw @ 23.10.2012 - 00:00:43 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/10/22/buckminster-fuller-on-condtioning-in-thinking-15112416/

Karl Popper on misunderstanding

"Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you." - Karl Popper in "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976)

My own ideas on the quote: A major problem in all communication is that what we can write and say is always just the visible tip of an iceberg. Underneath the waves there always lies a vast sea of ideas, history and experience. This vast body of knowledge does help us produce the words that we have chosen to express ourselves in any particular moment. To fully understand our meaning in a complex issue the reader needs to know our way of thinking quite intensively. Alas, that is normally just impossible. We just must learn to live with the fact that we will be misunderstood in some way or another in even most of our communication with others. The risk of misunderstanding naturally grows exponentially when opinions differ. The tendency to misinterpret things is always at its greatest in a moment of righteous fury. On the other hand, the famous figures of thinking and writing just might be more accessible to us than less known figures (and sometimes even deeper thinkers) because we know more of them and how their thinking

has been formed. This simple thing of familiarity of a figure just might be the reason why, for example, this darling of all totalitarians or Plato is still kept in so high esteem. This is true when many other (for me, even greater) Greek thinkers like Epicurus, Protagoras, Democritus or Epictetus, are not valued at the same level at all. (This piece was refurbished on 11th of January, 2012) Karl Popper is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/popperphilosopher

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 professor at the London School of Economics. He is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. He also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. In 1992 he was awarded the Kyoto Prize in Arts and Philosophy for "symbolizing the open spirit of the 20th century" and for his "enormous influence on the formation of the modern intellectual climate".

by jaskaw @ 23.10.2012 - 07:59:41 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/10/23/karl-popper-on-misunderstanding-15113970/

Seneca the Younger on fortune

We are all chained to fortune: the chain of one is made of gold, and wide, while that of another is short and rusty. But what difference does it make? The same prison surrounds all of us, and even those who have bound others are bound themselves; unless perchance you think that a chain on the left side is lighter. Honors bind one man, wealth another; nobility oppresses some, humility others; some are held in subjection by an external power, while others obey the tyrant within; banishments keep some in one place, the priesthood others. All life is slavery. Therefore each one must accustom himself to his own condition and complain about it as little as possible, and lay hold of whatever good is to be found near him. Nothing is so bitter that a calm mind cannot find comfort in it. Small tablets, because of the writer's skill, have often served for many purposes, and a clever arrangement has often made a very narrow piece of land habitable. Apply reason to difficulties; harsh circumstances can be softened, narrow limits can be widened, and burdensome things can be made to press less severely on those who bear them cleverly. Seneca The Younger(c. 4 BC - A.D. 65) in "On Tranquility of the Mind" (A letter to Serenus)

My own ideas on the quote: One's worries and pain can only become greater with every moment one spends just worrying about them and

not solving them if they are solvable. If these worries are not solvable, the best method just might not be to dwell in them. Then the way might be trying to diminish the effect that these worries and pains have in one's life. This is the essence of Stoic philosophy. However, there seems to be people who just could not live if they can not complain. They complain about the things that they see as wrong in their lives and around them. Many of them seem to get real relief from this activity. They are a minority. Perhaps even most of us could improve our lives if we could let go for a moment and live for the day. We just could grab all the possibilities that life can offer if we could forget our pains and sorrows even for a short moment every day. (This piece was refurbished on 12th of January, 2013) Seneca the Younger is also in Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/senecaphilosopher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Younger "Lucius Annaeus Seneca (often known simply as Seneca; ca. 4 BC AD 65) was a Roman Stoic philosopher, statesman, dramatist, and in one work humorist, of the Silver Age of Latin literature. He was tutor and later advisor to emperor Nero. While he was later forced to commit suicide for alleged complicity in the Pisonian conspiracy to assassinate Nero, the last of the Julio-Claudian emperors, he may have been innocent. His father was Seneca the Elder and his elder brother was Gallio."

by jaskaw @ 04.11.2012 - 16:20:17 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/11/04/seneca-the-younger-on-fortune-15165060/

Feedback for Post "Seneca the Younger on fortune"

Vince Kueter [Visitor] 04.11.2012 @ 20:24 This reminds me a LOT of Rousseau's famous: "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains." | Show subcomments Vince Kueter [Visitor] 04.11.2012 @ 20:27 ...although R prescribed more than being at peace with yourself as an antidote.

Albert Einstein on violence

Heroism by order, senseless violence, and all the pestilent nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism how I hate them! War seems to me a mean, contemptible thing: I would rather be hacked in pieces than take part in such an abominable business. - Albert Einstein in "Mein Weltbild" (1931) [English: My World-view)

Some thoughts of my own on the quote: No one thinks that theft has become extinct from the world just because it has been universally condemned. However, if it would be universally stated that theft under certain circumstances is a good thing, and we cannot ever get rid of theft, and we just need to live with theft, the willingness of people to steal just could be heightened a bit. There are strong interest groups which want to make sure that violence is condemned only when wrong people use it. No kind of universal condemnation of violence like that we are used to in the case of theft is simply not possible. Few people expect that psychopaths can be changed by anything, but chancing our attitude towards violence just could have an positive effect on normal people. People just tend to go with the crowd. The supporters of violence always seem to forget that you need an adversary that wants to use physical violence to have a need for even self-defense. If that person also would think that physical violence is beneath

the dignity of a man, there would not be a need for even defensive violence. As long as people propagate the belief that violence is good in some form, there will more violent tendencies than in a society where all violence is condemned. Religious or political extremists will never go away. However, if violence would be always treated as evil and disgusting thing that one must use just only if hard pressed to by others and in situations where you cannot act with any other means, our world would be a much nicer place to live. A culture that glorifies and admires violence will breed more violence. The admiration of violence lowers the threshold of using violence even in situations that would not really warrant it. There is no doubt about it. The evidence is everywhere around us. There just are extremely strong and vocal forces in our societies whose interests are best served by maintaining admiration for violence. The need to defend one from thugs is a quite different thing than adoration and wholesale acceptance of violence as an accepted means for conducting a policy. It is funny how this difference is so difficult to see for so many people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_einstein "Albert Einstein ( / lb rt a nsta n/; German: [ alb t a nʃta n] ( listen); 14 March 1879 18 April 1955) was a German-born theoretical physicist who developed the general theory of relativity, effecting a revolution in physics. For this achievement, Einstein is often regarded as the father of modern physics[2][3] and the most influential physicist of the 20th century. While best known for his massenergy equivalence formula E = mc2 (which has been dubbed "the world's most famous equation"), he received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". The latter was pivotal in establishing quantum theory within physics."

by jaskaw @ 13.11.2012 - 11:02:31 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2012/11/13/albert-einstein-on-violence-15198973/

Charles Darwin on rejecting progress in science

It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. - Charles Darwin, in the introduction to Descent of Man (1871)

Some of my own ideas on the issue: The fact that we cannot answer a question now does not mean that we cannot answer it next year, after two years or after 10 000 years of refining our tools and data. Science has widened its range of explanations in immense ways during the last millennium. It would be pure madness to expect that the range of scientific knowledge would not expand at least in its present rate at least in the near future also. We just cannot know exactly what things can be discovered. On the other hand, can adding a supernatural agent really explain anything? Accepting such claims can only support the claim that supernatural agents do exists, which is a totally unscientific, unsupported claim as it is. Claiming that something has "god-given" properties will not expand our knowledge over it a single tiniest bit. The same explanation will explain all things that we could ever want. This is true if we accept supernatural as a possible source of explanation. After that, we would not need any other explanations. Supernatural is always the simplest possible explanation, and the accepted method in science is to accept the

simplest possible explanation. This is not the case, however, if the simplest available explanation is untrue, of course. A theory that does explain everything normally does explain very little. When you can say 'god did it for his unfathomable reasons" you have explained nothing, zero, zilch, nada. One has just added a unneeded level of complexity. It is just a big question mark. A real philosophical problem with the theory of 'god' is the problem of reverse-engineering. You have a basic idea like 'god' and you start inventing reasons why this idea needs to be true.When the outcome is always clear, it is easy to start inventing such formulations that can only produce 'god' as a result. The nice part is that when you are free to give a 'god' almost any kind of properties. They just need to invisible and intangible. Then one can reverse-engineer one's reasoning so that it will be always just right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin "Charles Robert Darwin, FRS (12 February 1809 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist. He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors, and proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection, in which the struggle for existence has a similar effect to the artificial selection involved in selective breeding."

by jaskaw @ 10.01.2013 - 22:21:50 http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2013/01/10/charles-darwin-on-rejecting-progress-in-science-15415766/

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 tieto on aina ollut minulle ylivoimaisesti parasta viihdett. Rakkaus historiaan syttyi jo kansankouluaikana, mutta pitkn melkoisesti aikaa vei mys tietotekniikkaan syventyminen. Viime vuosina olen perehtynyut mys filosofiaan hieman laajemmin. Opiskelin aikoinaan historiaa, sosiologiaa ja valtio-oppia, mutta tuolloin lyhyeksi jnyt poliittinen ura vei miehen pian mukanaan. Jo yli 20 vuotta sitten alkoi nykyinen taloustoimittajan ura. Asun pieness omakotitalossa Lohjan Asemanpellolla vaimon, kahden koiran, kahden lapsen ja viime laskun mukaan 14 kalan kanssa. Lhes 30 toimittajan kestnyt toimittajan ura pttyi vuoden 2011 sairastumiseen parantumattomaan sypn. Ennen sairastumistani korjasin kymmenen vuoden ajan sivutoimisena yrittjn lohjalaisten tietokoneita ja toimin MikroBitti -lehden vakituisena avustajana. Minulla on mys puolenkymment blogia ja toimin useiden rationaalista ajattelua ja humanismia edistvien Facebook-sivujen yllpitjn.

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