Previous to the year 2000, decades were widely known and called by the 60's, 70's etc. They came to define a particular time, attitudes, fashion, music etc. But, for the past 20 years, we've lived in a kind of cultural wilderness. The "noughties" and whatever this decade is called (2010's?) never attained the popularity and more importantly the emotions, nostalgia and feel for the decades that the 20th Century elicit.
But now, at last, we're going to come out of this cultural wilderness. We're about to enter the 20's! At last we're going to be grounded in an era that has a universal name with the associated feelings and place in history that will be engendered.
Sunday 29 December 2019
Wednesday 18 December 2019
Blair's advice to the Labour Party
Just recently there was a General Election in the UK. For a change, the opposition party, the Labour Party headed by Jeremy Corbyn, advocated policies that would have alleviated some of the poverty in the UK.
Just reading this article. It says:
Traditional Labour voters enjoy being poor? And wouldn't it be correct to say that it's the present economic situation that is radical since the top 1% have the same wealth as the bottom 60%? (see another blog post of mine).
Blair said:
Of course life's not like that, the rich have the vast preponderance of wealth and use their wealth and power to persuade people into voting against their best interests; namely for the Conservatives. There's plenty of money around, we're awash in it, it's just that it's concentrated in the hands of a small minority. Why exactly is one a fool for suggesting the rich should be compelled to share it out a little? I would say the fool is the person who accepts his poverty, who accepts the fact that he is downtrodden, and does nothing about it.
If the Labour party consigns itself to dancing to the tune of the rich and gives up on radically redistributing wealth, then there's little purpose to its existence. Tony Blair is a warmonger, further he doesn't have the best interests of the poor and downtrodden at heart. I would advise people not to listen to this man
Just reading this article. It says:
[Tony Blair] argued the party had been taken over by the "misguided ideology" of the radical Left, which had "never appealed to traditional Labour voters and never will".
Traditional Labour voters enjoy being poor? And wouldn't it be correct to say that it's the present economic situation that is radical since the top 1% have the same wealth as the bottom 60%? (see another blog post of mine).
Blair said:
Any fool can promise everything for free. But the people weren't fooled. They know life isn't like that.
Of course life's not like that, the rich have the vast preponderance of wealth and use their wealth and power to persuade people into voting against their best interests; namely for the Conservatives. There's plenty of money around, we're awash in it, it's just that it's concentrated in the hands of a small minority. Why exactly is one a fool for suggesting the rich should be compelled to share it out a little? I would say the fool is the person who accepts his poverty, who accepts the fact that he is downtrodden, and does nothing about it.
If the Labour party consigns itself to dancing to the tune of the rich and gives up on radically redistributing wealth, then there's little purpose to its existence. Tony Blair is a warmonger, further he doesn't have the best interests of the poor and downtrodden at heart. I would advise people not to listen to this man
Friday 13 December 2019
If my Essence is an Enduring Self
Throughout our lives, our interests, demeanour, and intelligence and so on will gradually change. Just contrast ourselves as we are now to when we were children. And even on a day to day basis, and perhaps even from one hour to the next, our moods will change. But, despite this, speaking for myself I cannot help thinking of myself as an enduring being. That is to say, I cannot help thinking that I am the very same person that has undergone all these changes. If I am in a despondent mood, but then hear some good news and my mood consequently undergoes a vast improvement, it seems to me that I am the very same self that experiences these differing moods.
If this is correct than I am not to be equated with these various differing moods, thoughts, or other psychological states. Rather I am a self that underlies and undergoes these differing psychological states. That is to say, I am not the mere sum of various experiences, I am the author or experiencer of all these various experiences. My psychological states constantly change, but I remain the very same self throughout these differing psychological states.
This even extends back to when I was a child. Despite the fact that as a child I had differing pre-occupations, interests, intelligence and so on compared to now, I still feel I am that very same self.
I suggest that this is simply the commonsensical conception of the self. After all, we don't assume we cease to exist after drinking a few beers due to the consequent change in our emotions and cognitive abilities, only for our selves to return when we become sober.
It may seem here I am belabouring the obvious. But, in fact, most philosophers and scientists, since they are materialists, do not believe in such an unchanging self. They do not deny that we have a sense of self and a sense that our selves are enduring. But, they think that this is simply an illusion. They believe that a person's "self" is cashed out entirely by their psychological states. And since our psychological states constantly change, we must quite literally not survive from one mood to the next, or indeed, strictly speaking, not even survive from one second to the next (see an essay by me here where I attempt to demonstrate materialists are obliged to deny the existence of an enduring/persisting self).
Is such an enduring self consistent with the notion that the brain somehow produces this self? Consider that my brain changes all the time. My psychological states also change all the time. So perhaps we might suppose my brain creates my psychological states. But if my self underlying these psychological states remains unaltered i.e I am the very same self despite my thoughts, emotions etc all changing, can the brain still create such a self?
I do think there is a difficulty here. Yet I'm sure that the vast majority of subscribe to such an enduring self, yet also think it's commonsensical to suppose we simply cease to exist when we die. Are they being consistent though?
Edited to add: I was doing a search on the net on this issue, and I note that Bernardo Kastrup has penned some similar thoughts in the following article:
Conquering the fear of oblivion
If this is correct than I am not to be equated with these various differing moods, thoughts, or other psychological states. Rather I am a self that underlies and undergoes these differing psychological states. That is to say, I am not the mere sum of various experiences, I am the author or experiencer of all these various experiences. My psychological states constantly change, but I remain the very same self throughout these differing psychological states.
This even extends back to when I was a child. Despite the fact that as a child I had differing pre-occupations, interests, intelligence and so on compared to now, I still feel I am that very same self.
I suggest that this is simply the commonsensical conception of the self. After all, we don't assume we cease to exist after drinking a few beers due to the consequent change in our emotions and cognitive abilities, only for our selves to return when we become sober.
It may seem here I am belabouring the obvious. But, in fact, most philosophers and scientists, since they are materialists, do not believe in such an unchanging self. They do not deny that we have a sense of self and a sense that our selves are enduring. But, they think that this is simply an illusion. They believe that a person's "self" is cashed out entirely by their psychological states. And since our psychological states constantly change, we must quite literally not survive from one mood to the next, or indeed, strictly speaking, not even survive from one second to the next (see an essay by me here where I attempt to demonstrate materialists are obliged to deny the existence of an enduring/persisting self).
Is such an enduring self consistent with the notion that the brain somehow produces this self? Consider that my brain changes all the time. My psychological states also change all the time. So perhaps we might suppose my brain creates my psychological states. But if my self underlying these psychological states remains unaltered i.e I am the very same self despite my thoughts, emotions etc all changing, can the brain still create such a self?
I do think there is a difficulty here. Yet I'm sure that the vast majority of subscribe to such an enduring self, yet also think it's commonsensical to suppose we simply cease to exist when we die. Are they being consistent though?
Edited to add: I was doing a search on the net on this issue, and I note that Bernardo Kastrup has penned some similar thoughts in the following article:
Conquering the fear of oblivion
Saturday 7 December 2019
The Emperor has no Clothes
The origin of this phrase comes from a Hans Christian Anderson's fable The Emperor’s New Clothes. A vain emperor spends a vast amount of money on clothes. One day a couple of con men pay him a visit and offered to make him the most expensive clothes ever which would have a magical property of being invisible to those unfit for office or who are simply stupid. So the emperor ordered that they be made. Of course the con men made nothing at all but pretended they did. Since no one wanted to appear to be incompetent and stupid, everyone, including the emperor, pretended they could see the clothes. But one day a small child piped up that the emperor has nothing on. The bubble of pretence burst and everyone then admitted they could see no clothes either.
We pay lip service to certain ideas because everyone else seems to subscribe to them and we don't want to appear to be idiotic, or even a loon. But then certain ideas are perpetuated, not because of their intrinsic merit, but because no one dares say anything.
We pay lip service to certain ideas because everyone else seems to subscribe to them and we don't want to appear to be idiotic, or even a loon. But then certain ideas are perpetuated, not because of their intrinsic merit, but because no one dares say anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)