It's been a long time since I've opened up this blog but I've had this thought in my head for the last week and I've just got to put it down into words. The thought has been on how difficult it is to defend or protect yourself if you don't love yourself. It might sound a little simplistic but hear me out if you will.
Why are some people more easily bullied than others? Why are some people so nice that they find themselves spending more time looking after other people rather than themselves? In the past I speculated that empathy had something to do with this but empathy has been strongly selected for in human evolution suggesting it has strong advantages. One of those advantages being able to read other people's intentions and from that be able to determine in what circumstances and how far one can trust fellow human beings: so long as you're right you're gaining survival benefit from the help and support of those people but as soon as you've over stepped that safe zone you're wounded or worse, out of the genetic rat race. However, another consequence of empathy appears to be a tendency to become enslaved to helping people less deserving of oneself: priests, bullies, liars, sleazebags, cult leaders, selfish women and monarchs... in other words all people who think they're more important than you and have someone convinced you to buy into it, making you their prey/slave.
This problem has made me ask the question: is part of the design/evolution of human empathy to make most human beings obedient to authorities? I mean, those mirror neurons and transference of emotion make being assertive hard work for most people. However, I think it's more than that. I think empathy is only a threat to a person's well being if that person doesn't love themselves. Say they feel ashamed because they want to have sex with lots of different people, then calling them a slut is going to hurt badly. But what if they don't care that they want to sleep with lots of different people? Then calling them a slut isn't going to affect them.
When beggars come up to me on the streets these days I don't feel uncomfortable at all saying no to them. Last night beggar came up to my girlfriend and told me that if we didn't give him money he'd die of cold and hunger and it would all be our fault. My girlfriend's reaction was one of angst... I on the other hand got angry and my first thought was, "So everyone else is responsible for you except for yourself? When are you going to look after yourself? This is Australia, poor people aren't trapped, they can make a life for themselves if they take responsibility for their actions and their own situation. If you die on the street tonight it won't be because we didn't give you money, it'll be because you gave up on yourself!"
My views on homeless people are quite complicated, but this person was clearly an institutionalised person who has developed a survival mechanism that makes giving them any kind of help counter productive to their well being. The only way to help them is tough love and the only way to give it is to be immune to their manipulations and the only way for an empathic person to have such an immunity is to now have any insecurities about themselves and their position. If a person does have an insecurity it could be either because their position is untenable... or they could just lack confidence in thenselves, which is the same as saying that they don't love themselves as much as they deserve.
13 June, 2011
01 August, 2010
Philosophical Rules of Engagement
Ok, this isn't intented as a comprehensive nor finished work just a few tips on how I think a philosohpy debate should conducted.
Point 1: Philosophy is the study of wisdom and therefore it should only concern itself with ideas, not people or authorities. Ideally, it shouldn't recognised people and authorities as having any impact on the validity of an argument. Therefore, each idea/argument should be judged on its own merits regardless of the profession, background, state of mind, social status or condition of the different parties in the debate.
This means arguments like, "I think you're wrong because you're a bigot/racist/poor/rich/annoying/skinny/fat/tall/short/busy/lazy/etc bastard," are meaningless because they attack the person presenting the idea and not the idea itself.
For example:
Person A: I think the world would be a better place if white people were subjugated to black people.
Persion B: You're a racist.
Problem: Yes, person B is corrected in that Person A is a racist, but they have done nothing whatsoever to counter person A's claim that the world would be a better place. So, instead of simply attacking the person making the argument CONTRIBUTE to the conversation by attacking the idea like this:
Person C: I disagree Person A, treating two groups differently tends to lead to sadism and gross transgressions of justice (such as what was observed in the Standford Prison Experiment). These actions will lead to distrust and ill will between black and white people and distrust leads to cracks appearing in the social structure that supports society. When social institutions fail insecurites about the future and each individual's personal safety rise leading to a dangerous potentially destructive scenario of overt warfare between the two groups. It is hard to see how the benefits of your proposition can outweight the problems is likely to cause.
Point 2: Ideas don't have Feelings, only the People who indentify with them do.
A lot of people think that if someone expresses an opinion in opposition to their own that they're somehow attacking them. This situation is actually quite absurd when looked at objectively but human beings have a complicated relationship with some ideas because they 'identify' with them. Let's go through some examples:
Scenario 1:
Person A: I believe it is cold outside.
Person B: No, I believe it is in fact warm outside.
Scenario 2:
Person A: I believe that gods exists.
Person B: No, I believe in fact that there is only one god that exists.
There is no difference between the logic behind these two statements however, the reader would probably agree that someone is far more likely to get upset with Person B in the second scenario. Why? Because human beings have developed a curious mechanism for extending the sphere of 'self' to include other people, things and ideas. We identify with our friends and family as being people essential to our sense of self and therefore are concerned about their well being and safety. We extend our sense of self to include certain objects and locations such as "my things" and "my house". We extend our sense of self to include certain ideas such as, "I am an Australian", "I am a Christian" or "I am a democrat" etc...
I hope you can see quite clearly that defining other people, things and ideas as being part of 'yourself' is absolutely irrational and absurd. I hope you can also appreciate just how essential that ability of human beings has been (and continues to be) to our survival as a species. I hope you can also see why people kill over lovers, friends, family, a patch of dirt or an idea like "liberty". Now, here's this for a logical extension of this idea:
"The more intensely people associate other people, things and ideas with their sense of self the more violent, aggressive, demanding and inflexible they become at defending or seizing those people, things and ideas for themselves,"
Thus the more a person identifies with their particular ethnic group, the more suspicious and hostile they become of foreigners. The more a person identifies with their set of beliefs (religion, communism, libertarianism, etc) the more suspicious and hostile they get towards other people who don't identify with them.
Thus, if you want peace in the world, you're probably beginning to realise that getting precious over the people, things and ideas you call your own is not going to help: it'll just make things worse a lot the time.
So the next time you get upset because I've said something like, "I believe religion is a farce," ask yourself: 'Why don't I just respond to this comment the same way I would if Jason had just said, "I believe it will rain next week" and it is really rational to get that upset because he thinks differently from me?'
I'm not saying that you shouldn't get upset when someone breaks into your house, just that you should be aware that when someone breaks into your house they are physically threatening you whereas if someone is attacking the ideas you identify with you are in no physical danger whatsoever so reacting aggressively will only turn a polite conversation into a fight and occasionally these fights turn into violent clashes... and if the people fighting have political power they can turn into wars.
I believe that until every human being comes to terms with this aspect of humanity there will never be peace on Earth. If a person is unaware of this dynamic relationship they have with what they define as 'self' and 'non-self' then consider that are a walking powder keg ready to explode in just the right circumstances.
Point 3: I'll add more as I think of them.
Point 1: Philosophy is the study of wisdom and therefore it should only concern itself with ideas, not people or authorities. Ideally, it shouldn't recognised people and authorities as having any impact on the validity of an argument. Therefore, each idea/argument should be judged on its own merits regardless of the profession, background, state of mind, social status or condition of the different parties in the debate.
This means arguments like, "I think you're wrong because you're a bigot/racist/poor/rich/annoying/skinny/fat/tall/short/busy/lazy/etc bastard," are meaningless because they attack the person presenting the idea and not the idea itself.
For example:
Person A: I think the world would be a better place if white people were subjugated to black people.
Persion B: You're a racist.
Problem: Yes, person B is corrected in that Person A is a racist, but they have done nothing whatsoever to counter person A's claim that the world would be a better place. So, instead of simply attacking the person making the argument CONTRIBUTE to the conversation by attacking the idea like this:
Person C: I disagree Person A, treating two groups differently tends to lead to sadism and gross transgressions of justice (such as what was observed in the Standford Prison Experiment). These actions will lead to distrust and ill will between black and white people and distrust leads to cracks appearing in the social structure that supports society. When social institutions fail insecurites about the future and each individual's personal safety rise leading to a dangerous potentially destructive scenario of overt warfare between the two groups. It is hard to see how the benefits of your proposition can outweight the problems is likely to cause.
Point 2: Ideas don't have Feelings, only the People who indentify with them do.
A lot of people think that if someone expresses an opinion in opposition to their own that they're somehow attacking them. This situation is actually quite absurd when looked at objectively but human beings have a complicated relationship with some ideas because they 'identify' with them. Let's go through some examples:
Scenario 1:
Person A: I believe it is cold outside.
Person B: No, I believe it is in fact warm outside.
Scenario 2:
Person A: I believe that gods exists.
Person B: No, I believe in fact that there is only one god that exists.
There is no difference between the logic behind these two statements however, the reader would probably agree that someone is far more likely to get upset with Person B in the second scenario. Why? Because human beings have developed a curious mechanism for extending the sphere of 'self' to include other people, things and ideas. We identify with our friends and family as being people essential to our sense of self and therefore are concerned about their well being and safety. We extend our sense of self to include certain objects and locations such as "my things" and "my house". We extend our sense of self to include certain ideas such as, "I am an Australian", "I am a Christian" or "I am a democrat" etc...
I hope you can see quite clearly that defining other people, things and ideas as being part of 'yourself' is absolutely irrational and absurd. I hope you can also appreciate just how essential that ability of human beings has been (and continues to be) to our survival as a species. I hope you can also see why people kill over lovers, friends, family, a patch of dirt or an idea like "liberty". Now, here's this for a logical extension of this idea:
"The more intensely people associate other people, things and ideas with their sense of self the more violent, aggressive, demanding and inflexible they become at defending or seizing those people, things and ideas for themselves,"
Thus the more a person identifies with their particular ethnic group, the more suspicious and hostile they become of foreigners. The more a person identifies with their set of beliefs (religion, communism, libertarianism, etc) the more suspicious and hostile they get towards other people who don't identify with them.
Thus, if you want peace in the world, you're probably beginning to realise that getting precious over the people, things and ideas you call your own is not going to help: it'll just make things worse a lot the time.
So the next time you get upset because I've said something like, "I believe religion is a farce," ask yourself: 'Why don't I just respond to this comment the same way I would if Jason had just said, "I believe it will rain next week" and it is really rational to get that upset because he thinks differently from me?'
I'm not saying that you shouldn't get upset when someone breaks into your house, just that you should be aware that when someone breaks into your house they are physically threatening you whereas if someone is attacking the ideas you identify with you are in no physical danger whatsoever so reacting aggressively will only turn a polite conversation into a fight and occasionally these fights turn into violent clashes... and if the people fighting have political power they can turn into wars.
I believe that until every human being comes to terms with this aspect of humanity there will never be peace on Earth. If a person is unaware of this dynamic relationship they have with what they define as 'self' and 'non-self' then consider that are a walking powder keg ready to explode in just the right circumstances.
Point 3: I'll add more as I think of them.
27 July, 2010
Literalism vs Allegory
This simple issue keeps coming up again and again with regards to the holy books. "The Bible/Torah/Koran aren't meant to be interpreted literally,"
What kinds of books are meant to be interpreted literally? Instruction manuals, science textbooks and history books.
What kinds of books are meant to be interpreted allegorically? Nursery rhymes, myths, poetry and fiction.
I think it matters a big deal if the holy book is literal or allegorical.
If you are religious and you consider your holy book to be allegorical then congratulations: you're almost an atheist because you've just tacitly admitted that your religious book isn't to be taken any more seriously than a work of fiction.
If you think that your holy book is literal then you really need to answer all of the historical, moral and scientific failings of your holy book.
I'm fascinated by how there are still Christians around at all today. The theory of evolution, the fossil record, the molecular biological data and the geological record all agree with each other: Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden, never existed. If they never existed then they could never have eaten the fruit of all knowledge of good and evil, and therefore there can be no original sin for Jesus to have died for. The end, Christianity has been debunked as a fraud.
If you are still Christian is it because you don't understand the sheer weight of scientific evidence against your religion and/or you do not even know what your religion is about? If there are other reasons for believing in Christianity consider that the religion is ultimately worthless to you if it isn't real/correct.
The situation is similar in Islam except whereas Christianity claims to be 'true', Islam puts more emphasis on being 'correct'. However, like the Bible is full of myth and superstition the Koran is full of horrors and crimes against humanity. The acts of Mohammed are morally indefensible and generally quite sick and degrading. If you wouldn't vote for the Nazis then why are you voting for Mohammed? There really isn't a big difference between those two ideologies.
What kinds of books are meant to be interpreted literally? Instruction manuals, science textbooks and history books.
What kinds of books are meant to be interpreted allegorically? Nursery rhymes, myths, poetry and fiction.
I think it matters a big deal if the holy book is literal or allegorical.
If you are religious and you consider your holy book to be allegorical then congratulations: you're almost an atheist because you've just tacitly admitted that your religious book isn't to be taken any more seriously than a work of fiction.
If you think that your holy book is literal then you really need to answer all of the historical, moral and scientific failings of your holy book.
I'm fascinated by how there are still Christians around at all today. The theory of evolution, the fossil record, the molecular biological data and the geological record all agree with each other: Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden, never existed. If they never existed then they could never have eaten the fruit of all knowledge of good and evil, and therefore there can be no original sin for Jesus to have died for. The end, Christianity has been debunked as a fraud.
If you are still Christian is it because you don't understand the sheer weight of scientific evidence against your religion and/or you do not even know what your religion is about? If there are other reasons for believing in Christianity consider that the religion is ultimately worthless to you if it isn't real/correct.
The situation is similar in Islam except whereas Christianity claims to be 'true', Islam puts more emphasis on being 'correct'. However, like the Bible is full of myth and superstition the Koran is full of horrors and crimes against humanity. The acts of Mohammed are morally indefensible and generally quite sick and degrading. If you wouldn't vote for the Nazis then why are you voting for Mohammed? There really isn't a big difference between those two ideologies.
22 June, 2010
A New Secular Movement
NB: This post is a work in progress
Recently I've been spending a lot of time promoting atheism in my own way using my Facebook profile by posting a few choice tidbits from the world of religion. I've gotten quite a bit of attention from theists and atheists alike but what has boggled me immensely is the shear lack of understanding on both sides of theistic divide.
Theists who know nothing credible about their own religions versus atheists who don't understand even the most basic aspects of epistemology much less of the extent of religious violence in the world.
The biggest point of confusion is the belief that atheism somehow has an agenda and that's what they're expecting from atheism because they equate it as being a religion. Even atheists seem to think that atheism and religion are somehow one and the same. At first I thought it was because they simply didn't understand what atheism was but I now think they simply don't understand what religion is.
If they don't understand what religion is, how can they understand atheism?
Speaking of which my interest in religion has moved from believers to cult leaders and prophets onto sociopaths and dictators. Cult leaders, prophets, sociopaths and dictators all appear to be difference species of the same genus.
It has occurred to me that same nonchalant ignorance we have of the two dozen or so monsters (dictators) in the world and the heinous crimes they commit against humanity is the same nonchalant ignorance most non-religious 'religious' (and pro-religious non-religious) people have toward the crimes committed by the world's various religions.
For example, Kim Jong Il (put into the popular consciousness thanks to "Team America World Police,") jails hundreds of thousands of his starving people for 'hoarding' food... in country where it has to be rationed out and the average 7 year old is 8 inches shorter than their south Korean counter part. Why are the people starving? Because he spends all of North Korea's money on building missiles, nuclear weapons, warships and maintaining a massive offensive army while he lives a life unfettered luxury.
Such monsters are an insult to human dignity. Over 20 million suffer needlessly every day because of this man but does anyone care? Not many, certainly not the general public. Simply because no one thinks about North Korean long enough to form an opinion. For example, I have heard people talk about dictators and they've talked about Kim Jong Il as one of those funny crazy dictators that makes people laugh with the silly things they get up to. This used to make me feel ill being around people talking like this because they almost sounded like they like and respected the guy. But on reflection I don't think it is because they lack compassion for the plight of the North Korean people... rather they just haven't thought about it as deeply as I have.
I believe (no evidence yet) that if most people spent as much time as I thinking about these matters they'd reach the same conclusion as I would. That dictators like Kim Jong Il are a bleeding festering wound on human dignity and should be removed from power at the earliest opportunity. They might also consider that personality cult surrounding Kim Jong Il's father has a creepy simularity to how a new religion is generated.
Religion and politics do indeed appear to blend together very naturally in a dictatorship. Religion and fascism have the greatest in common: pro-natal policies, supreme imfallible leaders, unquestioning obedience to authority, paranoia about the loyalty of the faithful, believe they have the authority to tell people how to live their lives, don't care for the feelings of the people their destroy and highly dogmatic and resistant to scientific ideas and challenges. I know some people will bring up Nazi Germany as an example of a scientifically advanced fascist state, but keep in mind that the Nazis kicked out a third of Germany's intellectual before the war started and dumbed down the education system so that any future generations of Germany would be scientifically challenged if Nazism had survived.
What is needed to challenge this religofascism? I mean, we defeated the nazis and the fascists and the Stalinists... but just as Herman Goering predicted we are neck deep in Islamofascists, neostalinists, zionists and Christian fundamentalists in politics. It almosts seems as though the history of enlightened civilisation is about brief epochs of rebellion and aggression against religofascism only to fall back into generations of intellectual and spiritual laziness just expecting the forces of totalitarianism will just go away by themselves... all the time forgetting the blood shed in the name of freedom.
Brave men and women fought and died to bring about political and religious freedom. If we cannot honour and respect their sacrifices do we deserve to continue to enjoy the securities and liberties they worked so hard for us to have? Of course we don't... but our memory is poor and we all forget the reasons and sacrifices of generations long before us.
Once upon a time people used to talk about slavery like they would the weather. There was no feeling at all that slavery was in any way immoral or wrong. When some people started to question slavery and pressure people to abolish it... I rather imagine that people had the same kinds of reactions to my fellow irreligionists. What's wrong with slavery? Can't you see it is natural? Look, you're just upsetting people. Keep your opinions to yourself and stop trying to push them onto other people.
I imagine it was the same with equality, homosexuality and racism... can't you see the natural order of things? Women are inferior, stop making trouble! Homosexuals are unnatural, they're sick, they don't deserve our respect! All races only think about their own self interests, it is impossible to have a functional society made up of individuals from all sorts of different races, stop trying to upturn society!
In every case: abolition, equality, tolerance, multi-ethnicity, religious freedom etc... the general population's living standards and happiness improved. We need to stop object to agitators of change with a reactionary response but engage them in a free, fair and open debate. Then we need to be willing to either concede to them gracefully if they are right or to crack down hard on them if they are wrong.
And I mean crack down hard on people because multiculturalism is not the same as multethnicism and the while I completely support the latter and believe the former is a recipe for civil unrest. A nation should have only one set of laws from which no one is exempt, especially politicians and other people in high office.
Where is all of this speculation heading?
I'm still not entirely sure but one thing is certain, we need a formalise the ideas of the enlightenment movement into a political movement that crosses all borders and divisions. One that unites all of the people of Earth and looks to minimise the amount of suffering and harm caused to the greatest number of people. One that does not blindly think of the present but also considers the future and the needs of those who will come over us. One that is firm against dictators, religionists and sociopaths. One that is proscience for the treatment of humanities and world's ills.
I had thought that such a project would be too idealistic and unattainable. But rather I'm convinced we can improve on the previous ideologies of utilitarianism.
Instead of working for the greatest good or achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people we should be working to eliminate harmful and destructive elements: we should leave individuals to seek happiness for themselves but collectively work to remove sources of misery.
We should tell our scientists to focus not on enhancing humanity but instead on removing all of the weaknesses: cancer, heart-disease, paralysis, skin disease, every form of genetic and physical malady. Then let individuals choose for themselves if they want to explore being more than human.
Recently I've been spending a lot of time promoting atheism in my own way using my Facebook profile by posting a few choice tidbits from the world of religion. I've gotten quite a bit of attention from theists and atheists alike but what has boggled me immensely is the shear lack of understanding on both sides of theistic divide.
Theists who know nothing credible about their own religions versus atheists who don't understand even the most basic aspects of epistemology much less of the extent of religious violence in the world.
The biggest point of confusion is the belief that atheism somehow has an agenda and that's what they're expecting from atheism because they equate it as being a religion. Even atheists seem to think that atheism and religion are somehow one and the same. At first I thought it was because they simply didn't understand what atheism was but I now think they simply don't understand what religion is.
If they don't understand what religion is, how can they understand atheism?
Speaking of which my interest in religion has moved from believers to cult leaders and prophets onto sociopaths and dictators. Cult leaders, prophets, sociopaths and dictators all appear to be difference species of the same genus.
It has occurred to me that same nonchalant ignorance we have of the two dozen or so monsters (dictators) in the world and the heinous crimes they commit against humanity is the same nonchalant ignorance most non-religious 'religious' (and pro-religious non-religious) people have toward the crimes committed by the world's various religions.
For example, Kim Jong Il (put into the popular consciousness thanks to "Team America World Police,") jails hundreds of thousands of his starving people for 'hoarding' food... in country where it has to be rationed out and the average 7 year old is 8 inches shorter than their south Korean counter part. Why are the people starving? Because he spends all of North Korea's money on building missiles, nuclear weapons, warships and maintaining a massive offensive army while he lives a life unfettered luxury.
Such monsters are an insult to human dignity. Over 20 million suffer needlessly every day because of this man but does anyone care? Not many, certainly not the general public. Simply because no one thinks about North Korean long enough to form an opinion. For example, I have heard people talk about dictators and they've talked about Kim Jong Il as one of those funny crazy dictators that makes people laugh with the silly things they get up to. This used to make me feel ill being around people talking like this because they almost sounded like they like and respected the guy. But on reflection I don't think it is because they lack compassion for the plight of the North Korean people... rather they just haven't thought about it as deeply as I have.
I believe (no evidence yet) that if most people spent as much time as I thinking about these matters they'd reach the same conclusion as I would. That dictators like Kim Jong Il are a bleeding festering wound on human dignity and should be removed from power at the earliest opportunity. They might also consider that personality cult surrounding Kim Jong Il's father has a creepy simularity to how a new religion is generated.
Religion and politics do indeed appear to blend together very naturally in a dictatorship. Religion and fascism have the greatest in common: pro-natal policies, supreme imfallible leaders, unquestioning obedience to authority, paranoia about the loyalty of the faithful, believe they have the authority to tell people how to live their lives, don't care for the feelings of the people their destroy and highly dogmatic and resistant to scientific ideas and challenges. I know some people will bring up Nazi Germany as an example of a scientifically advanced fascist state, but keep in mind that the Nazis kicked out a third of Germany's intellectual before the war started and dumbed down the education system so that any future generations of Germany would be scientifically challenged if Nazism had survived.
What is needed to challenge this religofascism? I mean, we defeated the nazis and the fascists and the Stalinists... but just as Herman Goering predicted we are neck deep in Islamofascists, neostalinists, zionists and Christian fundamentalists in politics. It almosts seems as though the history of enlightened civilisation is about brief epochs of rebellion and aggression against religofascism only to fall back into generations of intellectual and spiritual laziness just expecting the forces of totalitarianism will just go away by themselves... all the time forgetting the blood shed in the name of freedom.
Brave men and women fought and died to bring about political and religious freedom. If we cannot honour and respect their sacrifices do we deserve to continue to enjoy the securities and liberties they worked so hard for us to have? Of course we don't... but our memory is poor and we all forget the reasons and sacrifices of generations long before us.
Once upon a time people used to talk about slavery like they would the weather. There was no feeling at all that slavery was in any way immoral or wrong. When some people started to question slavery and pressure people to abolish it... I rather imagine that people had the same kinds of reactions to my fellow irreligionists. What's wrong with slavery? Can't you see it is natural? Look, you're just upsetting people. Keep your opinions to yourself and stop trying to push them onto other people.
I imagine it was the same with equality, homosexuality and racism... can't you see the natural order of things? Women are inferior, stop making trouble! Homosexuals are unnatural, they're sick, they don't deserve our respect! All races only think about their own self interests, it is impossible to have a functional society made up of individuals from all sorts of different races, stop trying to upturn society!
In every case: abolition, equality, tolerance, multi-ethnicity, religious freedom etc... the general population's living standards and happiness improved. We need to stop object to agitators of change with a reactionary response but engage them in a free, fair and open debate. Then we need to be willing to either concede to them gracefully if they are right or to crack down hard on them if they are wrong.
And I mean crack down hard on people because multiculturalism is not the same as multethnicism and the while I completely support the latter and believe the former is a recipe for civil unrest. A nation should have only one set of laws from which no one is exempt, especially politicians and other people in high office.
Where is all of this speculation heading?
I'm still not entirely sure but one thing is certain, we need a formalise the ideas of the enlightenment movement into a political movement that crosses all borders and divisions. One that unites all of the people of Earth and looks to minimise the amount of suffering and harm caused to the greatest number of people. One that does not blindly think of the present but also considers the future and the needs of those who will come over us. One that is firm against dictators, religionists and sociopaths. One that is proscience for the treatment of humanities and world's ills.
I had thought that such a project would be too idealistic and unattainable. But rather I'm convinced we can improve on the previous ideologies of utilitarianism.
Instead of working for the greatest good or achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people we should be working to eliminate harmful and destructive elements: we should leave individuals to seek happiness for themselves but collectively work to remove sources of misery.
We should tell our scientists to focus not on enhancing humanity but instead on removing all of the weaknesses: cancer, heart-disease, paralysis, skin disease, every form of genetic and physical malady. Then let individuals choose for themselves if they want to explore being more than human.
01 June, 2010
Secular Mysteries: rage
I'm been thinking about the kind of topics a spiritual atheist would find enlightening. Time and time again my thoughts come back to the study of the arts and emotion. Truly can there be a better topic for an enlightened creature than to understand his or her self? Let us start with emotion.
Consider the eight primary emotions already considered on this blog: rage, vigilance, ecstacy, admiration, terror, amazement, grief and loathing. These are the most intense manifestations of these emotions, not the typical every day manifestations.
Just on that point, the fact that we consider it unusual to experience these 8 emotions on a daily basis is indeed interesting as it implies that frequently expressing intense emotions is somehow pathological. Actually it is... but not necessarily for the person expressing them but for the ones who have to endure such projections of emotions from these people which is very tiring.
I digress into topics I've already covered!
Anyway, consider the emotion of rage (anger, and coincidentally shares 4 of the same letters as 'rage'). Many people are immediately put off by an angry person. And anger person is percieved to be dangerous or unstable. While I don't doubt that there is some wisdom in such a conclusion it nonetheless runs the risk of missing the wonderfully positive effects of rage.
I was speaking to a man at the Parliament of the World's Religions who was bullied and abused as a child by teachers. He said he felt intensely angry as a child and this had prevented his spiritual growth and he felt guilty for harbouring such feelings of rage. Just as a suggestion I pointed out to him that maybe his rage had acted as a protective mechanism saving him from worse psychological damage as a child and how allowed him to be sufficiently intact to make a success of his career later in life. At this suggestion the man had an epifany and appeared to feel as though he could release much guilt he had been unnecessarily holding onto. I was quite chuffed with being an atheist and giving someone else a spiritual insight... :)
But apart from that it is hard to imagine Martin Luther King being such a great orator and inspiration if her were not full of rage. Admittedly, King had mastered his rage and turned it into a tremendous power for good. But that's the whole point. Anger is a powerful emotion, it is the emotion of power but it is morality neutral by itself. Anger is not the problem, the problem is the master whom anger serves.
If you meet an angry man in a bar perhaps it is worth considering whether he is angry at other people because he feels victimised and wants to take from others what he feels entitled to... or is his rage directed towards real injustices in the world and desire to use it to end the suffering of other people and not just his own?
For this reason I feel that everyone should take each emotion, for this example I have used rage, and really sit down and consider what makes them anger and why. Is it fair to be angry for such reasons? Are there more important things to be angry about? How much anger is too much? What limits should I put on the expression of my anger or what creative and good ways can I direct my anger towards? How can I use my anger to make me an inspiring and exciting presence in the world. One that doesn't do harm or upset other people?
Remember sometimes there are good circumstances to be angry: when someone steals something from you, when someone mistreats, when someone in anyway violates you. But as well as these good circumstances there are also good and poor ways to express ones anger that need to be moulded to suit the context.
Also, something more of personal issue... I often feel ashamed for being angry, I feel like I have to be perfect all of the time and so when I inevitably fail to live by these high expectations I turn my anger against myself. This self loathing is the equivalent of turning two powerful magnets of opposite polarity against each other. The effect is a powerful vice that can exert no force for useful work. Anger is spiritual power, it is the ability to reshape the world inside and outside of you... but it should never be used like a broadsword like this. It should best be directed at specific problems: like my self-loathing instead of myself! A focussed rage is a wise rage that can end slavery, liberate women and push personal development... and the better we can discern the best targets for our rage the better we can use it to make the world a better place.
Consider the eight primary emotions already considered on this blog: rage, vigilance, ecstacy, admiration, terror, amazement, grief and loathing. These are the most intense manifestations of these emotions, not the typical every day manifestations.
Just on that point, the fact that we consider it unusual to experience these 8 emotions on a daily basis is indeed interesting as it implies that frequently expressing intense emotions is somehow pathological. Actually it is... but not necessarily for the person expressing them but for the ones who have to endure such projections of emotions from these people which is very tiring.
I digress into topics I've already covered!
Anyway, consider the emotion of rage (anger, and coincidentally shares 4 of the same letters as 'rage'). Many people are immediately put off by an angry person. And anger person is percieved to be dangerous or unstable. While I don't doubt that there is some wisdom in such a conclusion it nonetheless runs the risk of missing the wonderfully positive effects of rage.
I was speaking to a man at the Parliament of the World's Religions who was bullied and abused as a child by teachers. He said he felt intensely angry as a child and this had prevented his spiritual growth and he felt guilty for harbouring such feelings of rage. Just as a suggestion I pointed out to him that maybe his rage had acted as a protective mechanism saving him from worse psychological damage as a child and how allowed him to be sufficiently intact to make a success of his career later in life. At this suggestion the man had an epifany and appeared to feel as though he could release much guilt he had been unnecessarily holding onto. I was quite chuffed with being an atheist and giving someone else a spiritual insight... :)
But apart from that it is hard to imagine Martin Luther King being such a great orator and inspiration if her were not full of rage. Admittedly, King had mastered his rage and turned it into a tremendous power for good. But that's the whole point. Anger is a powerful emotion, it is the emotion of power but it is morality neutral by itself. Anger is not the problem, the problem is the master whom anger serves.
If you meet an angry man in a bar perhaps it is worth considering whether he is angry at other people because he feels victimised and wants to take from others what he feels entitled to... or is his rage directed towards real injustices in the world and desire to use it to end the suffering of other people and not just his own?
For this reason I feel that everyone should take each emotion, for this example I have used rage, and really sit down and consider what makes them anger and why. Is it fair to be angry for such reasons? Are there more important things to be angry about? How much anger is too much? What limits should I put on the expression of my anger or what creative and good ways can I direct my anger towards? How can I use my anger to make me an inspiring and exciting presence in the world. One that doesn't do harm or upset other people?
Remember sometimes there are good circumstances to be angry: when someone steals something from you, when someone mistreats, when someone in anyway violates you. But as well as these good circumstances there are also good and poor ways to express ones anger that need to be moulded to suit the context.
Also, something more of personal issue... I often feel ashamed for being angry, I feel like I have to be perfect all of the time and so when I inevitably fail to live by these high expectations I turn my anger against myself. This self loathing is the equivalent of turning two powerful magnets of opposite polarity against each other. The effect is a powerful vice that can exert no force for useful work. Anger is spiritual power, it is the ability to reshape the world inside and outside of you... but it should never be used like a broadsword like this. It should best be directed at specific problems: like my self-loathing instead of myself! A focussed rage is a wise rage that can end slavery, liberate women and push personal development... and the better we can discern the best targets for our rage the better we can use it to make the world a better place.
18 May, 2010
Evilution
One of the most common misunderstandings of the theory of evolution is that all adaptations are somehow beneficial. I hear people say that those animals or that technology is more or less evolved. However, evolution doesn't work like that and machines don't strictly speaking 'evolve' at all. Evolution is a blind process that produces more problems than solutions. Think of all of the genetic diseases in the world, this is not good evidence of increasingly highly evolved people.
However, there is adaptation and some species can be more or less adapted to a specific environment but being very well adapted to ocean life is a huge set back if you live on land most of the time. But even with adaptation there can be some surprising complexities in its interaction.
I bring this topic up because people often assume that just because we have religion it must serve some purpose. This line of thinking goes along the lines of "we have eyes to see, nose to smell and hands to manipulate objects: everything we've inherited seems to have some useful function,"
While yes, everything we've evolved does serve a useful purpose but only for passing on our genes, not for making our lives better. Religion is like this. It has evolved along side us although it doesn't serve any useful purpose other than to reproduce itself. Please keep in mind that I distinguish between religion and spirituality so when I'm talking religion I'm talking dogma, irrational social-rules and harmful moral prejudices, and not creativity, altruism, self-knowledge etc...
But if religion is harmful why does it exist? Surely harmful things are selected out by nature. Actually, both yes and no.
Consider jealousy and greed (bullying). These are socially harmful emotions that no species wants to have but on an individual level though they are helpful for individual reproduction.
Consider two primitive men go out hunting: one man is fast, agile, strong and clever while the other is slow, clumsy, sickly and dim. He brings back food for the tribe but the weaker hunter can't catch anything. The strong hunter gets lots of attention from the women who want his genetics for their offspring. However, this attention makes the weaker hunter jealous... the weaker hunter then decides to kill the stronger hunter by striking the unsuspecting hunter when his back is turned. Now the women have no choice but to pass on the weaker hunter's genetics because jealousy increased his fertility.
Greed is common in most species, generally it manifests when a sibling will beat up and steal attention and food from another sibling. This bullying greatly increases the strength and size of these individuals, increasing their chances of reproducing.
But there's a problem here... if the weaker members of a species all wipe out the stronger members then that species is in serious trouble because soon the whole species will no longer be sufficiently adapted to survive at all! Also, a society full of bullies will fall apart as bullying is about breaking the rules and society can't function without at least partial observance of the rules essential for maintaining group cohesion and solidarity.
With these qualities of jealousy and greed which help individuals increase their fertility but overall harm their entire species there exists a balance. If too many individuals in a species are overcome with jealousy and greed then the species will either select against these qualities or go extinct.
Thus religion is like this. It is greedy, it wants the power, resources and attention of the people it infects and is jealous of other religions which could be better than it. But can't get too powerful otherwise it will wipe itself out. Consider what would happen if the Catholic Church was successful at removing every man with high intelligence from the gene pool by putting them into the priesthood during the middle ages? Or if muslims strictly only married within their families? Or if no Christians used condoms in spite of an HIV epidemic? Or if scientific progress had been successfully suppressed instead of just slowed down?
Consider the Zorastrians, they won't take converts and can't marry outside their group... the one time super religion has wiped itself out.
Religions are their own worst enemies, killing the very societies that keep them alive. But fortunately a society that resists complete domination by a religion is still able to grow and indeed when the Church went too far the people fought back and pushed through religious reforms to make their religion more tolerable and less harmful. Until we get a point today when the Catholic Church is no longer able to declare wars, conduct genocides, witchhunts and brainwash children en masse... at least not in the west.
Despite how harmful religions are to society as a whole they are very good at motivating people to protect and nurture them. This is the most curious thing. There is something very noble in human nature, humans appear to be most courageous, most motivated and passionate when fighting for something greater then themselves: a love, an identity, a principle or a dogma. Religion exploits this human nobility and perverts it.
I believe the purpose of spiritual thinking is to replace religion and revitalise our ideas of things greater than us by pushing individuals to create their own inspirations and to continuously refine and develop the principles that they would get up and fight for. Because if it isn't a conscious choice to decide what you believe is worth dying for then you're simply living as a slave to somebody else's prejudices.
Own your prejudices and make the future the way you believe it ought to be. If you speak up, you will never be alone.
However, there is adaptation and some species can be more or less adapted to a specific environment but being very well adapted to ocean life is a huge set back if you live on land most of the time. But even with adaptation there can be some surprising complexities in its interaction.
I bring this topic up because people often assume that just because we have religion it must serve some purpose. This line of thinking goes along the lines of "we have eyes to see, nose to smell and hands to manipulate objects: everything we've inherited seems to have some useful function,"
While yes, everything we've evolved does serve a useful purpose but only for passing on our genes, not for making our lives better. Religion is like this. It has evolved along side us although it doesn't serve any useful purpose other than to reproduce itself. Please keep in mind that I distinguish between religion and spirituality so when I'm talking religion I'm talking dogma, irrational social-rules and harmful moral prejudices, and not creativity, altruism, self-knowledge etc...
But if religion is harmful why does it exist? Surely harmful things are selected out by nature. Actually, both yes and no.
Consider jealousy and greed (bullying). These are socially harmful emotions that no species wants to have but on an individual level though they are helpful for individual reproduction.
Consider two primitive men go out hunting: one man is fast, agile, strong and clever while the other is slow, clumsy, sickly and dim. He brings back food for the tribe but the weaker hunter can't catch anything. The strong hunter gets lots of attention from the women who want his genetics for their offspring. However, this attention makes the weaker hunter jealous... the weaker hunter then decides to kill the stronger hunter by striking the unsuspecting hunter when his back is turned. Now the women have no choice but to pass on the weaker hunter's genetics because jealousy increased his fertility.
Greed is common in most species, generally it manifests when a sibling will beat up and steal attention and food from another sibling. This bullying greatly increases the strength and size of these individuals, increasing their chances of reproducing.
But there's a problem here... if the weaker members of a species all wipe out the stronger members then that species is in serious trouble because soon the whole species will no longer be sufficiently adapted to survive at all! Also, a society full of bullies will fall apart as bullying is about breaking the rules and society can't function without at least partial observance of the rules essential for maintaining group cohesion and solidarity.
With these qualities of jealousy and greed which help individuals increase their fertility but overall harm their entire species there exists a balance. If too many individuals in a species are overcome with jealousy and greed then the species will either select against these qualities or go extinct.
Thus religion is like this. It is greedy, it wants the power, resources and attention of the people it infects and is jealous of other religions which could be better than it. But can't get too powerful otherwise it will wipe itself out. Consider what would happen if the Catholic Church was successful at removing every man with high intelligence from the gene pool by putting them into the priesthood during the middle ages? Or if muslims strictly only married within their families? Or if no Christians used condoms in spite of an HIV epidemic? Or if scientific progress had been successfully suppressed instead of just slowed down?
Consider the Zorastrians, they won't take converts and can't marry outside their group... the one time super religion has wiped itself out.
Religions are their own worst enemies, killing the very societies that keep them alive. But fortunately a society that resists complete domination by a religion is still able to grow and indeed when the Church went too far the people fought back and pushed through religious reforms to make their religion more tolerable and less harmful. Until we get a point today when the Catholic Church is no longer able to declare wars, conduct genocides, witchhunts and brainwash children en masse... at least not in the west.
Despite how harmful religions are to society as a whole they are very good at motivating people to protect and nurture them. This is the most curious thing. There is something very noble in human nature, humans appear to be most courageous, most motivated and passionate when fighting for something greater then themselves: a love, an identity, a principle or a dogma. Religion exploits this human nobility and perverts it.
I believe the purpose of spiritual thinking is to replace religion and revitalise our ideas of things greater than us by pushing individuals to create their own inspirations and to continuously refine and develop the principles that they would get up and fight for. Because if it isn't a conscious choice to decide what you believe is worth dying for then you're simply living as a slave to somebody else's prejudices.
Own your prejudices and make the future the way you believe it ought to be. If you speak up, you will never be alone.
17 May, 2010
The Evolution of Prejudice
The other day I was voicing strong criticism of the muslim hijab. This lead to a discussion of "but forcing them not to wear it is as bad as them being forced to wear it," this lead to a ridiculous situation where both sides were using the same argument: prejudice is wrong, regardless of the message. Therefore we can't criticise people from other cultures because that's prejudice and prejudice is wrong.
This is actually a very important issue. One that Sam Harris has already brought up. People who are prejudice against prejudice like to think that they are occupying a strong moral high ground because it can not easily be attacked.
Wrong.
Fristly, prejudice is part of human nature. Everyone has prejudices. If you don't think you're prejudiced then consider that without them your sense of self must be by definition be so tenuous that you simply don't matter because you have no opinions, dreams, goals or will of your own.
Secondly, not all prejudices are bad: I hate lies. I hate liars. I hate laziness. I hate disease. I hate death. I hate religion. I hate manipulators. I hate insecurities. I hate ignorance. I hate cowardice. I hate poverty. I hate greed. I hate inequalities. I hate bullies. I hate injustice. I hate impatience. I hate intolerance. I hate defeatism. I hate disrespect. I hate stupidity.
Thirdly, prejudices could conceviably be positive (Prejudice, n, Any preconceived opinion or feeling, whether positive or negative): I like life. I like people. I like Australia. I like honesty. I like self-control. I like courage. I like determination. I like kindness. I like understanding. I like independance. I like action. I like creativity.
Fourthly, prejudice is the foundation of morality. One person's prejudice is another's moral code. We can have conflicting moral feelings and that's very common. We can argue about the reasons why we have our different likes and hates. But you cannot attack me simply for having those feelings.
for example:
Person A: I hate foreigners who don't conform to our ways and culture.
Person B: You're a racist bigot.
Person C: Really? It doesn't upset me that much. Why does it upset you when foreigners don't conform to our ways and culture?
Who is more moral, person B or C?
Answer: none, they are all moral entities - one is either moral or not moral, there is no spectrum here.
Who is the more wise, person B or C?
I would argue that person C is the most wise because they have responded respectfully and honestly, while I would argue that person B is applying a very simplistic category-based system of morality because they have attacked another person for simply expressing an opinion.
I think one should consider the type of morality one has:
Is it category based? (Good guys and bad guys)
Is it value based? (Honesty, consistency, kindness etc...)
Is it reason based? (Because X = Y and then Y = Z this person should be treated like that even though usually when Y = Z we treat them like this)
If you are threatened by other people's opinions (as opposed by their actions) then remember that what a person thinks and what a person does are completely different things. If someone has opinions that upset you remember that logically you must have opinions that upset them. I suggest that we don't worry about getting upset about what other people's opinions, we just focus on getting upset with their actions.
Some food for thought:
If you don't like racism simply because it is wrong... can you still be a racist?
If you like your culture more than others are you being racist?
Can you like one thing and not hate its opposite?
This is actually a very important issue. One that Sam Harris has already brought up. People who are prejudice against prejudice like to think that they are occupying a strong moral high ground because it can not easily be attacked.
Wrong.
Fristly, prejudice is part of human nature. Everyone has prejudices. If you don't think you're prejudiced then consider that without them your sense of self must be by definition be so tenuous that you simply don't matter because you have no opinions, dreams, goals or will of your own.
Secondly, not all prejudices are bad: I hate lies. I hate liars. I hate laziness. I hate disease. I hate death. I hate religion. I hate manipulators. I hate insecurities. I hate ignorance. I hate cowardice. I hate poverty. I hate greed. I hate inequalities. I hate bullies. I hate injustice. I hate impatience. I hate intolerance. I hate defeatism. I hate disrespect. I hate stupidity.
Thirdly, prejudices could conceviably be positive (Prejudice, n, Any preconceived opinion or feeling, whether positive or negative): I like life. I like people. I like Australia. I like honesty. I like self-control. I like courage. I like determination. I like kindness. I like understanding. I like independance. I like action. I like creativity.
Fourthly, prejudice is the foundation of morality. One person's prejudice is another's moral code. We can have conflicting moral feelings and that's very common. We can argue about the reasons why we have our different likes and hates. But you cannot attack me simply for having those feelings.
for example:
Person A: I hate foreigners who don't conform to our ways and culture.
Person B: You're a racist bigot.
Person C: Really? It doesn't upset me that much. Why does it upset you when foreigners don't conform to our ways and culture?
Who is more moral, person B or C?
Answer: none, they are all moral entities - one is either moral or not moral, there is no spectrum here.
Who is the more wise, person B or C?
I would argue that person C is the most wise because they have responded respectfully and honestly, while I would argue that person B is applying a very simplistic category-based system of morality because they have attacked another person for simply expressing an opinion.
I think one should consider the type of morality one has:
Is it category based? (Good guys and bad guys)
Is it value based? (Honesty, consistency, kindness etc...)
Is it reason based? (Because X = Y and then Y = Z this person should be treated like that even though usually when Y = Z we treat them like this)
If you are threatened by other people's opinions (as opposed by their actions) then remember that what a person thinks and what a person does are completely different things. If someone has opinions that upset you remember that logically you must have opinions that upset them. I suggest that we don't worry about getting upset about what other people's opinions, we just focus on getting upset with their actions.
Some food for thought:
If you don't like racism simply because it is wrong... can you still be a racist?
If you like your culture more than others are you being racist?
Can you like one thing and not hate its opposite?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
