08.19.08
Posted in Religion at 4:58 pm by Anthony
My nephew, Gavin, introduced me to a brilliant website recently. It’s called TED which stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design. The site brings together the worlds most fascinating thinkers and doers to give a talk on a wide range of subjects.
Last night I listened to author, philosopher and journalist, A.J Jacobs talking about the year he lived biblically – following the rules in the Bible as literally as possible. I’m not really a great fan of this kind of thing where a writer self-generates the subject matter of a book.
Some years ago a couple of Irish writers did something similar when they wrote a series of crazy letters to various business, political and religious leaders and produced a book based on the replies - I just don’t get the point.
During his year living biblically Jacobs had many encounters with a whole range of different religions. Hilariously, he claimed that he must be the only person in America to have a Jehovah Witness run away from him because their discussion went on too long.
I think I can make the same claim for Ireland. Some years ago I was visited by two Jehovah Witnesses and we got into a deep but enjoyable discussion on a whole range of religious topics.
Although I’m agnostic I’m very interested in the whole phenomenon of religion, its origins, how it affects people, nations and history. I particularly like to challenge religious opinions makers and evangelists.
As usual, only one of the duo engaged in discussion, the other just observed and listened. However, after a good half hour of intense discussion, the ‘silent one’ could take no more and let loose a tirade.
“Look, we’ve visited every house in this estate and I know they’re all Catholics but every one of them agreed with us on at least some points. You haven’t agreed on even the smallest point, you are completely unreasonable…”
Keeping in mind the golden rule – If you lose your temper, you’ve lost the argument, I courteously asked the man to wait until I had finished my point but clearly he had had enough and began to drag his protesting colleague away - They haven’t been back since.
Permalink
08.12.08
Posted in Science at 9:04 am by Anthony
“Something odd is happening in Geneva…” These could be the very last words ever spoken by a human.
On September 10th next the world’s biggest particle collider will be switched on. Costing $10 billion the machine is designed to hunt for new particles that could overturn theories about nature’s most fundamental laws. It will do this simply (but by way of a very large and complex machine) by crashing atoms together at near to the speed of light.
Martine Rees in his book ‘Our final Century’ outlines three possible catastrophic consequences of these experiments (Page 120/121).
1. A black hole might form sucking in everything around it.
2. Quarks might reassemble themselves into a very compressed object called a strangelet. This strangelet could, by contagion, convert anything else it encountered into a strange new form of matter. And could, according to Rees, transform the entire planet earth into an inert hyperdense sphere about one hundred metres across.
3. The most catastrophic consequence could be that space itself is engulfed, that a ‘phase transition’ could be triggered ripping apart the very fabric of space.
Rees goes on to discuss the morality of such experiments (Page 125). Commentating on assurances from scientists he says:
“Even if one accepted their reasoning completely, the level of confidence they offered hardly seemed enough. They estimated that if the experiment were run for ten years, the risk of a catastrophe was no more than one in fifty million. These might seem impressive odds; a chance of disaster smaller than the chance of winning the UK’s national lottery with a single ticket, which is about one in fourteen million. However, if the downside is destruction of the worlds’ population, and the benefit is only to ‘pure’ science this isn’t good enough.”
So in reality the scientists are playing lottery with the planet which brings a whole new meaning to some lotto motto’s.
The UK lottery motto is “This time tomorrow”. That could be changed to read ‘This time tomorrow - Nothing.’
The Irish lottery motto is “It could be you” which could become ‘It could be everybody.’
Permalink
08.11.08
Posted in Philosophy at 7:32 am by Anthony
A few years ago I attended a public lecture in University College Cork. The subject matter of the lecture was “What is Philosophy?” and it was delivered by a long serving and highly respected lecturer in philosophy.
I was surprised; therefore, when this ‘philosopher’ started off his lecture by saying that whenever he was asked what he worked at he always replied that he was an academic or a college lecturer. He never referred to himself as a philosopher because he felt it made him sound like he was making unwarranted claims about himself.
The ‘philosopher’ AC Grayling, incredibly, holds the same view. It’s worth quoting directly from his book (The Reason of Things, Page 219).
“I do not say ‘I am a philosopher,’ for a certain temerity attaches to the claim – a claim which, because it seems to assert too much, does not sound as straightforwardly and unpretentiously descriptive as ‘I am a barrister/soldier/carpenter.’
The title of philosopher, especially as denoting Socrates, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant and other great thinkers in history, is an honorific which can only properly be applied by third parties and only to those who merit it. And such need not necessarily be – indeed, may well not be – academic teachers of the subject.”
This, to be blunt, is rubbish - both these men are philosophers and they shouldn’t be shy about admitting so to the world. The question is – Why are they so reluctant to publicly state that they are philosophers?
Personally, I think it has a lot to do with the medieval philosophical ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin’ phenomenon of the scholastic philosophers. In an absurd and doomed effort to reconcile reason with the superstitions of religion these ‘philosophers’ did untold damage to the reputation and credibility of the profession.
But this attitude to philosophy is only a relatively recent development. For almost all of human civilisation philosophy was a highly respected activity and philosophers were much sought after by heads of state and society in general.
Grayling’s reluctance to describe himself as a philosopher in the same way that a barrister, soldier or carpenter would describe themselves simply doesn’t make sense.
When a person qualifies as a barrister or carpenter they become a barrister or carpenter. When a philosopher qualifies as philosopher he becomes a philosopher. Indeed, a person can be a philosopher without any qualifications whatsoever.
Nor does it make sense for Grayling to put himself down by making unfair comparisons to great philosophers like Aristotle, Kant and Descartes. If he was a politician would he refute his profession on the basis that he wasn’t a great politician like Churchill or Gladstone? If he was a scientist would he refute himself on the basis that he wasn’t one of the greats like Einstein or Newton? – I don’t think so.
I also disagree with Grayling’s assertion that the title of philosopher is an honorific one that can only be applied by third parties and only to those who merit it.
I believe that every human is a philosopher to some extent; that philosophy is natural to humans simply because we have a brain that allows us to be aware of and reflect on our own existence. Grayling himself hints at this when he says that even great philosophers need not be academic teachers of the subject.
For me, there are four principal types of philosopher.
Universal: Any human that has ever looked up at the stars and wondered what might be out there, any human who, usually after a major event in their lives like birth or death, wonders what life is all about, is a philosopher.
Academic: An academic philosopher is not just someone who has achieved a high level of scholarly qualifications but who can also handle the challenge of teaching a wide range of philosophic concepts to a demanding and questioning group of students.
Natural: A natural philosopher is someone who, without any formal training whatsoever, can comfortably engage in deep discussions on a wide range of subjects like religion, politics and philosophy itself. I have met a number of natural philosophers in my life and it has always being an enjoyable and rewarding encounter.
Great: A great philosopher is someone who has made a significant contribution to humanity’s struggle to understand, cope with and ultimately find happiness within the particular existence that we find ourselves in.
I qualify as a philosopher under the headings ‘Universal’ and ‘Natural’. I do have a college degree in the subject but have little capability (or urge) to teach as an academic.
AC Grayling certainly qualifies under Universal, Academic and Natural. He also has the potential to be a great philosopher in light of his brilliant and easily understood writings that have made such a contribution to bringing philosophy out from behind the gates of academia.
Copy to:
AC Grayling
Permalink
08.01.08
Posted in Environment at 9:22 am by Anthony
There was no arguing with my brother when he chided me about the state of my back garden. It had been weeks since I had last cut the grass and the recent unseasonable deluge had resulted in a surge of growth.
But later, as I headed for the shed to get out the necessary implements, I noticed a magnificent bumble bee which, according to the laws of aerodynamics, should not be able to get off the ground, flitting from one dandelion to another with the grace of a ballet dancer. Further on, I observed a beautiful butterfly delicately balanced on the very edge of a buttercup petal, adding immensely to the colour of its surroundings.
Instead of getting out the lawnmower, I sat on a garden seat and reflected on the relationship between the three creatures in the garden - the bumble bee, the butterfly and myself, the human. The three of us had arrived at this moment in time after fifteen billion years of evolution since the creation of the universe by the Big Bang.
The three of us, in different ways, are amazing products of that evolution. There can be no doubt, however, that the human is the dominant creature. Nature has given us, through a combination of brain and mechanical power, an advantage far outweighing any other creature on the planet.
Neither the butterfly nor the bumble bee has the ability to sit down and reflect on my fate. Neither do they have the ability, as I do, to activate a machine that would utterly destroy the particular little piece of nature that they are at present enjoying.
The bumble bee does not have a shed at his home containing machines that have only one purpose - the destruction of selected parts of the natural world that he deems undesirable. The butterfly does not keep at her home a selection of poisons that will bring instant death to certain of her fellow creatures that she considers inconvenient or not fitting in with the latest garden fashion.
And what of the plants that these beautiful and amazing creatures are grazing upon? True, the buttercup contains a poison that can be dangerous to cattle and horses but nature has provided the plant with an acrid taste that prevents these animals from eating it.
It is the dandelion, however, that really impresses as a plant. Ruthlessly attacked as a weed in modern times this miracle plant has been a friend and healer to man for centuries. In addition to serving as a remedy for such ailments as kidney and liver disorders, gall stones and the removal of warts, the dandelion makes a delicious ingredient to salads and can also be used to make dandelion beer, wine and coffee. Dandelion wine, in particular, has a reputation as an extremely good tonic for the blood.
Nature, of course, is the chief beneficiary of the dandelion. It serves as a major supplier of nectar for the bumble bee and it is estimated that over ninety three different kinds of insects benefit from visits to this wonderful plant. Small birds in particular are very fond of its seeds. So why, as I sit here contemplating the scene, do humans go to such lengths to wipe out this bountiful and beautiful plant?
I think there are two reasons. Firstly, we have been conditioned over time to take pleasure only from a neat and perfectly controlled garden. Secondly, and connected to the first reason, humans have a strong tendency to conform to the social norm of the time.
The stark consequence of this conformity is the creation of countless thousands of perfectly controlled but barren ‘green deserts’ which to the human eye are very satisfying but are passed over in horror by birds, bees and butterflies in an increasingly desperate search for the real and vital diversity of nature.
Nature is operating as it always has. The birds, bees and butterflies are responding and spreading that nature by their activities as they always have. In other words, nature is still natural.
It is the human animal, itself a part of nature, that has gone astray. It is the human animal that has decided that a billiard table perfect garden is more pleasing than the kaleidoscope of colour and diversity provided by nature. It is the human animal that must, literally, change its mind.
To that end, I have decided to allow nature have more freedom in my garden. While still continuing to control growth by mowing I now leave large islands containing buttercups, daisies, dandelions and any other natural flowers that nature sees fit to provide for my pleasure and its benefit.
Has it worked? Well, the bumble bees and butterflies are now regular visitors and the other day, out of the corner of my eye, I spotted a small bird hovering over a dandelion feeding on its seeds.
I think nature is happy with my change of mind.
Permalink
Next entries »