<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2013-05-25:/</id><title>Being Human</title><link rel="self" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/feed/atom/posts/"/><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/"/><subtitle>Secular sermons for free minds.</subtitle><generator version="1.0">MokoFeed</generator><updated>2013-05-25T22:44:33+02:00</updated><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2013-04-11:/2013/04/11/is-it-finally-time-to-say-goodbye-15746377/</id><title>Is it finally time to say goodbye?</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/04/11/is-it-finally-time-to-say-goodbye-15746377/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2013-04-11T18:15:34+02:00</published><updated>2013-04-17T21:54:50+02:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;The Being Human -blog that you are reading just now is at the moment a collection of 434 smaller and larger essays. Their subjects range from the nature of our universe to things like the reasons why masturbation is seen as a sin in Christianity. I started this blog in December of 2007, and this blog has since had over 860 000 visitors from all over the world.&lt;br&gt;
During all these years, I have told very little of myself. My aim has been to air my ideas and not promote myself. This blog is not weblog, but a collection of little essays. Not a single posting has been tied to a particular daily event or happening. They try always to be reflections on ideas on a bit wider perspective. How I have succeeded in this, remains for my readers to judge, of course.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Things are about to change. Just now I see a need to record some of my personal history also here in this blog that has always been the favorite child among my blogs. The basic reason for this is that was diagnosed with inoperable cancer in November of 2011. Cancer was by then already deeply embedded in my liver and lungs. It simply cannot be removed from liver without destroying the liver also, anymore.&lt;br&gt;
I am still here thanks to chemotherapy that has given me an additional year and a half, but the therapies were terminated a week ago because their ability to fight my cancer has waned off. I am on my own now, but nobody knows how soon the end will come. However, it is quite certain that I will not see my 56th birthday in January of 2014.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-9sCMb0zesn4/UUbznYnDSUI/AAAAAAAAQgk/2FoF9vHeivk/s855/aamuherkut.jpg" alt="Picture: Jaakko J. Wallenius" title="Picture: Jaakko J. Wallenius"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;However, numbers are just numbers. Of the 55 years that I have had, the last seven ones have been the happiest, most calm and productive period of my life. Most of all, I have loved the thousands of hours that I have spend writing and editing this blog.&lt;br&gt;
A firm base for my current happiness is that we bought a house in 2011 with a fantastic garden. The hours spend in the garden have given me immense pleasure. I also got my own little hideaway, when we built a the old garage into a modern working-space.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;This is my very own little world. In there, I can sit in weekends into five in the morning sipping some brandy and watching amazing videos from Beyond Belief -conference or TED-talks. Besides I can be working on any of the eight blogs in two languages and nearly 40 Facebook -fan-pages for secular philosopher, writers and scientists that I have created during the last few years.&lt;br&gt;
I have been a full-time journalist in our local newspaper for 21 years. Besides it, I have been also running a little computer-maintenance business for the last ten years. I have fixed the computers of good inhabitants of Lohja at a very suitable rate of two or three a week. This has kept me in the picture with the digital world. Making a dead computer alive again gives also a great feeling of accomplishment.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;There has been also very hard times in my life. After abandoning my university-studies, I had a period when I had, for example, work in chemical factory where even gas-mask was at times unable to protect one from the strong fumes. I have slept in hallways of strange houses for a week, I have been for a while a jobless half-drunkard just drifting around and much more. Happily, I did find a steady career in journalism and soon I had steady jobs again.&lt;br&gt;
Then I found Marjaliisa. We have been married nearly 22 years. She has been the balancing power in my life. In fact, she is the solid base on which my whole life lies. Without her strong prompting we would not have this house, and without this house and the new kind of working environment that it provided there quite probably would not be this blog, either.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(The following was added 16th of April, 2013)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Sam_Harris-20100211.jpg/220px-Sam_Harris-20100211.jpg" alt="Sam Harris - Wikipedia" title="Sam Harris - Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;My life was changed on another lever just after we had bought our current house in 2004, when I was quite innocently listening in my car a CD that contained talks from an IT-seminar. I used to burn such CD:s as a form of entertainment for the long drives that my work in newspaper sometimes required.&lt;br&gt;
Suddenly there was a speech by some atheist fellow called &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)"&gt;Sam Harris&lt;/a&gt;. This happened even if I had picked up a podcast that had promised views on latest developments in the field of information technology.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;I was really surprised when this man told in public the same things about religions that I had been thinking secretly for decades. I remember shouting “Yes, that is just so” (only in Finnish....) with a raised fist every time he opened up a new argument. I listened to that CD at least four or five times in a row.&lt;br&gt;
I also Googled him right away when I got to home and ordered his book “The End of Faith”. Very and soon I had also the books by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and many other “new atheists” in my bookshelf.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;It was not a moment of religious conversion. In fact, I have never believed in any kind of religion or a religious dogma for a single moment of my life. Even in the elementary school I treated religious teaching as a form of story-telling that adults do to keep children happy and occupied.&lt;br&gt;
Soon I had an urge to have a deeper understanding of the subject and a bit more scientific books by people like Pascal Boyer, Scott Atran and Daniel Dennett did end up in my reading list. I did read every serious book I got hold of on the subject.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;However, at this point it should perhaps be told that I was a quite fanatical IT-person at that time when I bumped into Sam Harris. We had bought our first computer in 1997, when my wife needed one for her studies at nursing school she had just started.&lt;br&gt;
The sturdy Packard Bell cost 13 000 Finnish marks or 2200 modern euros. It had 150 megahertz processor, 16 megabits of central memory and 1,6 gigabytes of hard disk... The first night after we got our compute unpacked already went to wee hours. I wanted to know this thing worked. The next day I went to the library and loaned every book I could lay my hands on the subject of computers. In fact, I did also read them from cover to cover them during the following weeks.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The thing got so serious in a couple of years that I started my own computer-related column in our newspaper. In this by-weekly I told column readers about my recent adventures in the world of computers. A bit later (in 2001) I was walking our first dog Osku (a sheltie) when the idea hit me: “Bittitohtori”. In English it could be “A Doctor for Bits” or something like it. Before the walk was over, I had decided to start a firm that would repair the home-computers of good inhabitants of Lohja.&lt;br&gt;
I decided from the outset that it would not become my main occupation. I would do it on the side as much as time would permit. The next week I registered the “Toiminimi Bittitohtori Jaakko Wallenius” officially and started distributing leaflets advertising the new service in our neighborhood.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;I have cured about thousand computers during the over ten years that this little operation lasted. The firm did lay waste for a year, as I officially ended it two days ago because of my ongoing illness. (see &lt;a href="http://www.bittitohtori.com"&gt;http://www.bittitohtori.com&lt;/a&gt; )&lt;br&gt;
When my condition improved after chemotherapy I started it again early in 2013.&lt;br&gt;
This little enterprise gave all these years a good additional income also with its help we could finally afford to buy our current house.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;There was also a funny situation where I was for years at first chairman of local journalists union chapter in our newspaper and then the shop steward, but also a private entrepreneur at the same time. I will not dwell on this subject much more, as there would be no end to computer-related stories I could offer. However, I’d like to say (even if it sounds a lot like bloody self-advertisement) that it soon became apparent that the main satisfaction from the computer-repair business did come from the happy customers.&lt;br&gt;
I soon learned three main rules that kept my business going for ten years and made customers return time after time. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;1) Never promise something that you cannot do. &lt;br&gt;
2) Always build the timetable for work so that you can do the work faster than customer expects. &lt;br&gt;
3) Always give customers something extra.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The last one was easy. I always installed an extra software-pack. It consisted of free programs, but it made possible to use computer right away after repairs in a home in all typical uses of computer at home. As I said, I could babble on the subject of computer and computer-repairs endlessly, but I must return to my other passions.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;After the phase described in the beginning I soon was an extremely vocal and passionate atheist. Besides reading a bookshelf of related books, I did also watch every single video on offer of the fantastic Beyond Belief-conferences and, in fact, every available video-lecture in the Internet and all too many blogs and much, much more.&lt;br&gt;
At this point, I perhaps must explain one thing; why I seem to have so much time on my hands? The answer is simple: during the last 20 years, I have not watched television much. In any case, dwelling in atheism alone soon felt restricting, and I started to explore a little wider. I soon found out that humanistic thinking did offer a sound foundation for an atheist world-view. Then I found Epicureanism and Stoicism or the last and most advanced big schools of philosophy that were not contaminated by the Christianity.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ZbMlyMcUoWI/TqLw7FmVOGI/AAAAAAAABwI/OWFmyBKasxg/s855/2011-10-22+19.05.34.jpg" alt="Kuva: Jaakko J. Wallenius" title="Kuva: Jaakko J. Wallenius"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;One thing led to another. Soon I was knee-deep in philosophy. My bookshelf took a new direction with books on things like history of philosophy, Epicureanism and similar subjects by fellows like Bertrand Russell, Karl Popper and A.C. Grayling.&lt;br&gt;
Now I would like to call myself a &lt;em&gt;"Secular Humanist Epicurean Stoic Russellian Popperian Democratic Socialist Global Solidarist"&lt;/em&gt; if that would be possible. Atheism needs not to even mentioned as it just given fact for me. Atheism it is not a world-view, but just rejection of certain types of superstition and dogma.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;That a person is an atheist does say very little about him or her. An atheist can build a world-view based on other important ideologies like humanism, socialism, libertarianism or feminism. A human just always needs higher goals and even if I think that just telling others what atheism is and how religions work is a good hobby, but thinking person needs to have real ideals too.&lt;br&gt;
Things like Humanism, Epicureanism and Stoicism offer a good base for a worldview. However, things like furthering true equality, a sustainable and balanced society, freedom of speech and most of global solidarity of all humans are goals that I just now need have to keep me going. Ah, that all sounds much more pathetic than I though. However, I will let it pass as these sentences really tell about the feelings that I now have at this stage of my life.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;(The following was added added 17th of April,2013)&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My name is Jaakko, and I am an addict. I am addicted to reading”.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;I have written this little piece over my life with all honesty that I have mustered. In the face of death, the need to hide away things seems just to evaporate. I feel free now to tell even the darkest secrets of my life. The other side of coin is that I now feel that I can finally drop all the modesty that has made me not to mention certain facts about my life before. These things simply would sound look like idiotic boasting and self-advertising, if I would tell  these things in any company.&lt;br&gt;
However, I finally feel that I have the willpower to do even this disservice for myself now. I will tell this also because I feel that this background is needed to understand my current standing in my creative work. I did learn to read at the age of six all by myself. I probably just looked how my 11 months older "nearly-twin-brother" did it. Suddenly I just saw what these little markings did mean. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.finlandiakirja.fi/media/catalog/product/cache/1/small_image/168x300/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/1/1/118147_2.jpg" alt="Helmikoristeinen kirjanmerkki" title="Helmikoristeinen kirjanmerkki"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The first book that I did read was the &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_Hjalmar_Nortamo"&gt;&lt;em&gt;‘Helmikoristeinen kirjanmerkki’&lt;/em&gt; by Hjalmar Nortamo&lt;/a&gt;. It was a regular novel for adults and probably it was just the first book in our bookshelf at my height. This bookshelf was an immense one. Every single member of our family of eight was a voracious reader. My journalist-father also did get large amounts of books every year for review. We had also a cellar full of books....&lt;br&gt;
At the second class at the elementary school I did read the 600 pages of “Historian Pikkujättiläinen” or “The Pocket History of the World”. This kick-started my still ongoing love-affair with history. After the second class of elementary school, in the middle school and high school I did not do my homework not even once. For the exams, I did sometimes read the relevant passages the night before in mathematics, physics and the like, but in most subjects I did not do even that.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;At his point, I should perhaps tell that I was also once in summer-school learning mathematics before I was allowed to proceed to the next class. I passed the test with the lowest possible grade or 5- minus after a harsh month-long training with a private teacher. Mathematics just was something that I did not ever get. I know now that I can not ever learn it, no matter what I do. Still, I am very good at basic arithmetic's....&lt;br&gt;
All in all, I graduated from high school with the second highest ‘Magna Cum Laude Laudatur’ as my overall grade if I remember right. It could have been a ‘Laudatur’ also, as I faintly remember it being in a border-case, but I don't know where the diploma is... I did this without opening a single school-book in the three years of high school and without any preparation for the final exams. This was mostly because the things that were asked in exams I knew most of them already from other sources.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;All in all, classes in school were always a severe form of Chinese water-torture for me. Time passed immensely slowly, when the teacher mumbled at the blackboard about things that I so often already knew very well. I developed a kind of utter numbness to endure the classes. I saw that they were the price I had to pay to get to my loved books waiting patiently in home.&lt;br&gt;
When I got home I could read 7-8 hours in a row about the wonders of our world and our universe. Non-fiction was always my priority number one. However, I consumed also a lot of novels. I simply loved the likes of Kurt Vonnegut, George Orwell, Ernest Hemingway, Miguel Angel Asturias, Gabriel Garcia Marques, Mario Vargas Llosa and Italo Calvino. In fact, I did read most of the ‘&lt;a href="http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keltainen_kirjasto"&gt;Keltainen Kirjasto&lt;/a&gt;’ or ‘The Yellow Library’ that did publish the best modern novels of that time.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.ilmankansipaperia.antis.fi/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/keltainen1.jpg" alt="Keltainen kirjasto" title="Keltainen kirjasto"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;I faintly remember counting once that had read over one hundred books from this series. However, I must admit that the more esoteric ones were often left unfinished, as I could never stand just playing with words for the sake of it. I now notice that I loved crisp and straight-forward writers. By strange (or not....) coincidence all my most favourite writers seem to have been agnostics or atheists also, even if I did not know it then....&lt;br&gt;
My first love was Mika Waltari. His novels that were set in medieval history made a deep impression to at the age of 8 or 9. I did naturally read all of the big Finnish authors. I did read Väinö Linna’s ‘Tuntematon Sotilas’ or ‘&lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unknown_Soldier_(novel)"&gt;Unknown Soldier&lt;/a&gt;’ for 10 or 11 times at least. In fact, we do quote this book very often still in daily situations with my wife. She has just the same kind of relationship with this book as me. Strange co-incidence is that I courted just this woman for many years and did not give up until I got her, is it not?&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;I must admit that the lectures in university were similar painful torture for me as school-classes had been; they were just longer and often even duller. Of course there were a few interesting lectures also, but they were few and far between. However, the library of Turku City and university-library did open up all new vistas for me. I simply had consumed all of the interesting books in my little hometown library by the time I was 18 and new books did arrive painfully slowly.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Especially during my bouts of severe depression I now spent all my free time with books. In the worst days of depression I did go nowhere but to and did read 15-16 hours a day. I consumed all interesting books on history, autobiographies and all kinds of books on science.&lt;br&gt;
Science fiction was also near my heart and I now also bought my first books, as the paperback science fiction was cheap. With a student-loan I had my real amounts of my own money, the first time in my life.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/The-Stars-like-Dust-by-Isaac-Asimov.jpg" alt="Asimov" title="Asimov"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;But now, now, I quite forget; I had paid employment before, as I had worked all three years of high-school in the newspaper where my father worked, I worked for 1,5 hours a day five days a week. I did answer the phones and I did write a few little news-stories every night that were stolen from the Finnish news agency STT.&lt;br&gt;
I just tape-recorded the 17.30 -news and wrote 4-5 stories from this material and the STT never got a hang of this activity, as I changed the style of the stories always a bit. However, the newspaper paid a pittance for me also for this service. In any case, I did spend it mostly on stamps that I also collected at that time.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;At this point, I would like also to tell about my hobbies. They were also an important part of my education. I did learn English when aviation and modelling were my hobbies, German when I collected stamps and Swedish when I was an enthusiastic follower of track and field -sports.&lt;br&gt;
At the age of six or seven, I found a series of books called “The Fighters of The Second World War” from a cupboard at our home. My eldest brother had left them when he moved from home. During the following years, I did read them time after time and every time I understood a bit more, until  5-6 years later I could read them quite well.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Of course, I did learn English also at school at the same time. I started also a hobby of modeling and did build a dozens and dozens models of aeroplanes with my nearly-twin-brother. Btw. I still know that a Messerschmitt Bf-109G-6 had a 1475 horse-power Daimler-Benz water-cooled engine, a 20 mm cannon and two 13 mm machine guns and a top speed of 390 miles per hour...&lt;br&gt;
As a militant pacifist nowadays it is sometimes hard to admit now that military history has been always been one of my pet subjects in history.... German was the lingua franca of the stamp-collecting world. The major catalogues or the Swiss Zumstein and a German big catalogue Michel were published in that language. I just had to learn the basics to be able to use them.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1981-Zumstein-Europa-Europe-Stamp-Catalog-/00/s/NDAwWDMwMw==/$(KGrHqV,!lEE+3BPZu!1BQFQ(jPb1Q~~60_35.JPG" alt="Zumstein" title="Zumstein" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;This was a bit more troublesome. I had had no classes in German before high school and I just had to jump into the cold waters of that language with no aid. In the end, I did write a ‘Cum Laude Approbatur’ in German also in the final exams, and that is all thanks to stamp-collecting.&lt;br&gt;
Track and field was my other hobby for many years. The only good year-book with good statistics in this sport was a Swedish one and reading all the existing 30 year-books a few times did help me learn also Swedish, in spite of the fact that I detested it as a subject in school with all of its idiotic and irrational grammatical rules. Btw. Swedish is a compulsory subject for all Finnish people in school as it is minority-language here, even if only 6 per cent of Finnish people speak it at home.&lt;br&gt;
However, Finland was part of Sweden for over 600 years. The ruling elite was largely Swedish-speaking even after 100 years of Russian rule in 1917, when Finland become independent. So, Swedish language did became a sacred cow that was given a position that no minority-language has nowhere else in the world.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Back to the main story. After dropping out of the university after four years of ups and downs, I had varying time to read during the next decade. I had some periods of unemployment also, when I did spend 10-16 hours just reading again. Even when I was in the windy west coast town as a reporter in the 1980’s I did not have any television, but I did go to library two or three times a week. I did not have one when I spent the unfortunate year in Tampere studying journalism.&lt;br&gt;
History, biology, geography, space exploration, travel, you name it. I did read anything which told about the real world and had a factual base. I did grow out of fiction for reasons that I don't really know. The awful bouts of depression caused me to avoid things that did come too close to my own reality, as learning new facts was also a way to escape my own life that was just miserable at times.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;After Marjaliisa finally accepted my desperate courting 22 years ago and after finding a steady job 21 years ago in Lohja in the local newspaper as economics editor, my reading habits did not change much. Marjaliisa and I found a balanced situation where she could watch the things in television that she liked, and I spent my free time reading  in the bedroom.&lt;br&gt;
However, reading did give some (or a lot, sometimes) room for computer-maintenance after I started that side-business ten years ago. Blogging in eight blogs and maintaining my 40 fan-pages for secular greats in Facebook took some time off my favorite pastime more later on. Also, the source of reading matter did change, when we got out student loans paid and economy on a stronger footing. I finally started buying new books instead of loaning them from the library.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Amazon_Kindle_3.JPG/220px-Amazon_Kindle_3.JPG" alt="Kindle" title="Kindle"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Now I have a good library of my own in the subjects I most like, even if I have started ordering Kindle-books also for my Samsung Android-phone. I can now read them when sitting and waiting for a doctors appointment and the like.&lt;br&gt;
I freely admit this addiction, but at the same time I think that this habit offers a firm base for my current activity as a thinker and writer. I have always loved to read about out real world, our real societies and our reality. I think that this offers a solid base for a thinker and writer who wants to explore from new points of view how all this works.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;My name is Jaakko and I am an addict. I am addicted to reading”.&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/04/11/is-it-finally-time-to-say-goodbye-15746377/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2013-03-29:/2013/03/29/the-wonderful-joy-of-just-being-alive-or-some-thoughts-on-human-life-15691190/</id><title>"The wonderful joy of just being alive" or some thoughts on human life</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/03/29/the-wonderful-joy-of-just-being-alive-or-some-thoughts-on-human-life-15691190/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2013-03-29T21:49:43+01:00</published><updated>2013-03-30T02:17:07+01:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Water_droplet_blue_bg05.jpg/800px-Water_droplet_blue_bg05.jpg" alt="Wikipedia" title="Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;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 thirsty. You can also feel the wonderful joy of being alive on a quite ordinary day after you have tasted death."&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I can get stronger, when I admit my weakness&lt;br&gt;
I can get to be less fearful, when I admit my fearfulness&lt;br&gt;
I can gain more understanding, when I admit my foolishness."&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Success is about how others evaluate you, but your true value depends on how you really develop yourself. Sometimes enhancing this value of oneself does produce success that is appreciated by others, sometimes not." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;On the moment of inception, a thought can be crystal clear; it can shine like a diamond in one's own mind. However, when it is offered to the world at large, it is soon swallowed by the immense swamp of random information, never to be seen again."&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We must strive to achieve the courage with which we can at least try to change the things that we think need to be changed. However, just as important is that we also can accept the things in our lives that we simply cannot change. Most of all we must continuously strive to achieve the wisdom with which we can decide which is the case in any individual situation."&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;(an old saying a little updated)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The worst things will happen when people who believe in their absolute and unswerving goodness acquire power and/or weapons."&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Trying to understand is not the same as forgiving. This is one of the hardest things to understand for many. It is always easiest just to class something or somebody as "evil" or "bad" and not to give any further thought to the whole issue.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Knowledge is not wisdom and wisdom is not just knowledge. Wisdom is the ability to see the relationships that do exist between different facts. A person with lot of knowledge but little wisdom can be very useful in those fields of life where just a lot of knowledge is needed, but a knowledgeable person with too little or distorted wisdom can be even dangerous. Men of wisdom or knowledge are commonly sought out for guidance. However, a wise man with too little or distorted knowledge or a knowledgeable man with too little wisdom can lead people even totally astray."&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Mere words cannot change reality, but they can change in a fundamental way in which we see and most of all understand that reality. Homo Sapiens can be defined to be the only species of animals that can make itself doubt the reality of the universe that has produced it." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;(&lt;em&gt;Actions that are based on words can naturally change reality, but that is another story.)&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaakko_Wallenius"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaakko_Wallenius&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
"Jaakko Wallenius (b. 30.January 1958 Hämeenlinna) is a Finnish writer and journalist."&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.facebook.com/jaskaw"&gt;http://www.facebook.com/jaskaw&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;a href="http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi"&gt;http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;a href="http://atheistnews.blogs.fi/"&gt;http://atheistnews.blogs.fi/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;a href="http://twitter.com/beinghuman"&gt;http://twitter.com/beinghuman&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/wallja"&gt;http://www.youtube.com/user/wallja&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/03/29/the-wonderful-joy-of-just-being-alive-or-some-thoughts-on-human-life-15691190/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2013-03-22:/2013/03/23/our-almost-unlimited-ability-to-ignore-our-ignorance-or-the-very-best-bits-by-daniel-kahneman-15659289/</id><title>"Our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance" or the very best bits by Daniel Kahneman</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/03/23/our-almost-unlimited-ability-to-ignore-our-ignorance-or-the-very-best-bits-by-daniel-kahneman-15659289/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2013-03-23T01:41:54+01:00</published><updated>2013-03-23T01:42:26+01:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Daniel_KAHNEMAN.jpg" alt="Wikipedia" title="Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Paradoxically, it is easier to construct a coherent story when you know little, when there are fewer pieces to fit into the puzzle. Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation; our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Daniel Kahneman in “Thinking Fast and Slow” (2012)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Leaders who have been lucky are never punished for having taken too much risk. Instead they are believed to have had the flair and foresight to anticipate success and the sensible people who doubted them are seen in hindsight as mediocre, timid and weak. A few lucky gambles can crown a reckless leader with halo of prescience and boldness&lt;/strong&gt;.”&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Daniel Kahneman in “Thinking Fast and Slow” (2012)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Stories of how businesses rise and fall strike a chord with readers by offering what the human mind needs: a simple message of triumph and failure that identifies clear causes and ignores the determinative power of luck and the inevitability of regression. Those stories induce and maintain an illusion of understanding, imparting lessons of little enduring value to readers who are all too eager to believe them.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Daniel Kahneman in “Thinking Fast and Slow” (2012)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The idea that large historical events are determined by luck is profoundly shocking, although it is demonstrably true." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Daniel Kahneman in "Thinking, Fast and Slow" (2012)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The illusion that we understand the past fosters overconfidence in our ability to predict the future". &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Daniel Kahneman in "Thinking, Fast and Slow" (2012)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Optimism is highly valued, socially and in the market; people and firms reward the providers of dangerously misleading information more than they reward the truth tellers."&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;em&gt;- Daniel Kahneman in “Thinking Fast and Slow” (2012)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.” &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;― Daniel Kahnemanin "Thinking, Fast and Slow"&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A general “law of least effort” applies to cognitive as well as physical exertion. The law asserts that if there are several ways of achieving the same goal, people will eventually gravitate to the least demanding course of action. In the economy of action, effort is a cost, and the acquisition of skill is driven by the balance of benefits and costs. Laziness is built deep into our nature.” &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;― Daniel Kahneman in "Thinking, Fast and Slow"&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;This is the essence of intuitive heuristics: when faced with a difficult question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;― Daniel Kahneman in Thinking, Fast and Slow&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
"Daniel Kahneman (Hebrew: דניאל כהנמן‎) (born March 5, 1934) is an Israeli-American psychologist and winner of the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. He is notable for his work on the psychology of judgment and decision-making, behavioral economics and hedonic psychology. With Amos Tversky and others, Kahneman established a cognitive basis for common human errors which arise from heuristics and biases (Kahneman &amp; Tversky, 1973; Kahneman, Slovic &amp; Tversky, 1982; Tversky &amp; Kahneman, 1974), and developed prospect theory (Kahneman &amp; Tversky, 1979). He was awarded the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his work in prospect theory."
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/03/23/our-almost-unlimited-ability-to-ignore-our-ignorance-or-the-very-best-bits-by-daniel-kahneman-15659289/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2013-02-20:/2013/02/20/one-of-thegreatestdifficultiesin-assessing-any-kind-of-human-behavior-is-15552493/</id><title>How can we know more of the real reasons why people do things?</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/02/20/one-of-thegreatestdifficultiesin-assessing-any-kind-of-human-behavior-is-15552493/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2013-02-20T22:44:40+01:00</published><updated>2013-03-15T00:34:39+01:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To understand the true quality of people, you must look into their minds, and examine their pursuits and aversions."&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Marcus Aurelius in Meditations, book 4, section 38 &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;One  of the greatest difficulties in assessing any kind of human behavior is that humans are often quite unaware of the real motives for even of their own actions. The publicly declared motives are quite generally suspect. However, even the motives that a person him- or herself thinks to be the real reasons for his or her own actions are normally just a tip of the iceberg of the motives that make us tick.&lt;br&gt;
For example, when one develops a hatred towards somebody, one generally soon has a comprehensive list of rational reasons for it. We just are rationalizing animals. We so much like to think that our decisions are based on rational reasons.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;However, we are not often even aware of the cause for our hate. Of course, irrational feelings that are roused by the appearance or behavior of the person in question are always at play. Very often people will never confront these issues. They just stick to the rationalizations that they have created.&lt;br&gt;
I have been talking in this blog how a systematic method for rationally analyzing the motives of people could be useful tool in many situations. I have named my method as ?Stochastic Motivational Analysis?.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The idea of ?stochastic analysis? comes from Nassim Nicholas Taleb. The word 'stochastic' means that the analysis is just the currently best possible one. The stochastic results can change the whole time quite freely with the arrival of new information. In a ?Stochastic Motivational Analysis?, there are never final, unmovable results.&lt;br&gt;
Let us take the example of somebody hating another person. When we analyze the motivation for it, we need to ask, for example, could there be hidden ideological or political motivations. We can also ask if the person can have a deeper financial motive.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9b/Hans_Hofmann%27s_painting_%27The_Gate%27%2C_1959%E2%80%9360.jpg" alt="Hans Hofmann The Gate, 1959–1960. - Wikipedia" title="Hans Hofmann The Gate, 1959–1960. - Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, one needs to ask if some kind of public debate has had an effect on the person. After all, the person in question could be just following a trend where certain types of people are portrayed as detestable. One needs also to ask if the social group, institution or organization that this person belongs to have some kind of special relationship with the social group or institution that the hated person does belong to.&lt;br&gt;
Similar batteries of questions can be constructed to cover all facets of human behavior. Naturally, some or even all of these motives can well be also openly declared too. Of course, the deepest personal motivations can never be fully known. However, a mere act of trying to understanding them can show us how the declared motives are often just a thin layer that is laid out to hide the reality. This process can help us even immensely at times, when we try to figure out why people do different things.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;This does not mean that people would knowingly lie about their motives. They just often are not willing to face reality. Rationalizing decisions is so often much easier than trying understand what makes one do different things. If this is true of one?s own actions, how much easier is to accept the explanations of others whom one sees as his or her allies on their face value?&lt;br&gt;
Trying to understand human behavior can be a burdensome process. Doing it can also be interpreted as lack of trust if the openly declared motives of some human or organization are questioned. Still, I feel that it would be worthwhile if we just could pause more to think why people do different things. It can only increase our understanding of humans and how they operate.&lt;br&gt;
The simple process of pausing to ponder and wonder also the motivations of people in different situations can only be beneficial to our general ability to think.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/02/20/one-of-thegreatestdifficultiesin-assessing-any-kind-of-human-behavior-is-15552493/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2013-02-12:/2013/02/12/can-a-single-ideology-provide-all-the-answers-15525829/</id><title>Can a single ideology provide all the answers?</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/02/12/can-a-single-ideology-provide-all-the-answers-15525829/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2013-02-12T18:45:50+01:00</published><updated>2013-02-12T23:44:22+01:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;There are two general methods of how one can approach ancient systems of thought like Epicureanism and Stoicism. The first is a top-down view, where one looks at the general principles of the school of thought. If one finds them wanting, one can also dismiss the individual ideas of that school as useless.&lt;br&gt;
The other option is to look at the individual ideas and evaluate their worth at solving independent issues. At this point, it is good to remember that if you go through the works of Aristotle, you will find that he made countless elementary and even childish mistakes. However, he is still revered because his some other ideas are still seen as vital.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Similarly, I do not agree with Epicurus in some issues like participating in politics and on his attitude towards sex. However, I can still forward almost all of his other ideas that I see as still valuable and worthwhile after 2400 years. There is just a small step from here towards my attitude on the Stoic philosophy. There are many basic concepts that I do not agree with in Stoicism. For example, their pantheism is not for me at all.&lt;br&gt;
This is true, even if pantheism is the most rational idea of a "god" that there does exist. The pantheistic idea of Nature and the universe as a ”god” is a natural one. It is an idea that also Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein also held. The idea of Earth as one organism or Gaia is also extremely similar.&lt;br&gt;
The Stoic idea of not letting your bare emotions make your life miserable is not about “repressing emotions” as many opponents of Stoic thinking say. It is about striving into being able to control one’s own emotions to a certain degree. There is a common misconception in this respect.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Anyway, the idea that all ideologies and philosophies can contain valuable and important individual ideas is obviously strange and even dangerous one for all too many people. Most people seem to be happy to choose one pet ideology as their own and discard all the rest with one swell swoop. Most of all religious ideologies (but also ideologies like communism) are constructed in a way that makes it hard to accept ideas from other ideologies. The very idea of picking the best ideas from several ideologies is simply dangerous anathema to very many people on this little blue planet.&lt;br&gt;
In the end, the only tool that one can rely on in picking and choosing of best ideas from different and even competing ideologies is one’s own reason. This tool will, normally develop further during the process of acquainting oneself with different ideas and ideologies.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Raphael_School_of_Athens.jpg/800px-Raphael_School_of_Athens.jpg" alt="Raphael" title="Raphael"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The process of learning a single ideology even deeply just cannot produce similar results as does the opening of one’s mind to different possibilities and situations in human life as study of large array of different ideas can. One can even learn the ultimate goal of accepting that there just might be not just one right answer to human and social problems. There can be several good and acceptable answers at the same time.&lt;br&gt;
Naturally to be able to conduct policies in the real one, one needs to choose the ideas that he or she wants to forward. However, one can at the same time accept the fact that even a competing idea can have some merit. In an ideal world, one will be able to choose the idea that best suits the current situation in hand. I know that this is simply impossible in the real world. People do become so easily attached to single ideologies, that the ability to evaluate freely different ideas and ideologies does exist only in theory.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;One can well ask what can make a person choose, for example, Epicureanism in the first place? It is a bit circular reasoning to say that some of the Epicurean ideals makes him choose it. People choose it if they see this system of thought as reasonable and valid. This really happens as a rational process, because Epicureanism in never learned in childhood like religions. Choosing it is always a decision that is made by a reasonable adult.&lt;br&gt;
They use reason to choose Epicureanism. This is not the Reason of Platonist's, but the reasoning of Karl Popper and Bertrand Russell. Most of all Russell has been instrumental in showing me how important questions in human social life can have several valid answers at the same time. He did show me how there can be no absolute and final truth in these matters.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Of course, there are many things in the natural world that have a quite stable answer, but even things like the size of the Sun or distance from Earth to Moon do change every second. However, I do speak now strictly only about human social behavior and interactions. Human societies and human interactions are so varied that there simply cannot be one answer.&lt;br&gt;
One answer simply can bit cover all possible variations in complex modern human societies. Sadly many people like so many devout Christians or followers of Islam still do think so. However, it is good always to remember that one size simply does not fit all. The more complex a society is the more varied the ideas need to be that are used to guide that society.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;This piece is loosely based on my comments on a discussion I had in the Epicurean discussion-group "The Garden of Epicurus" at &lt;a href="http://www.facebook.com/groups/gardenofepicurus/"&gt;http://www.facebook.com/groups/gardenofepicurus/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
It is a closed group, but all newcomers have been accepted thus far. I founded it a few years ago, but it has been going strong even without me for a long time.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/02/12/can-a-single-ideology-provide-all-the-answers-15525829/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2013-02-10:/2013/02/10/it-is-impossible-for-a-man-to-learn-what-he-thinks-he-already-knows-or-the-wisdom-of-the-ancients-15518759/</id><title>"It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows"  or some Wisdom of the Ancients</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/02/10/it-is-impossible-for-a-man-to-learn-what-he-thinks-he-already-knows-or-the-wisdom-of-the-ancients-15518759/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2013-02-10T15:02:10+01:00</published><updated>2013-02-10T15:10:58+01:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We cannot control the evil tongues of others; but a good life enables us to disregard them." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- attributed often to Cato the Elder or Marcus Porcius Cato (234 BC - 149 BC)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Epictetus (AD 55 – AD 135). He was a Stoic philosopher&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;He is not poor who has enough of things to use. If it is well with your belly, chest and feet, the wealth of kings can give you nothing more."&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Quintus Horatius Flaccus (65 BC – 8 BC) (Known also as "Horace" in English) He was an Epicurean.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Quintus_Horatius_Flaccus.jpg" alt="Horace, as imagined by Anton von Werner. - Wikipedia" title="Horace, as imagined by Anton von Werner. - Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As we speak cruel time is fleeing. Seize the day, believing as little as possible in the morrow."&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; - Quintus Horatius Flaccus (65 BC – 8 BC) (Known also as "Horace" in English) "..dum loquimur, fugerit invida aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Happiness is a good flow of life." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Zeno of Citium (334 BC – 262 BC). He was a Greek philosopher from Cyprus, who founded Stoicism.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When the truth cannot be clearly made out, what is false is increased through fear."&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Quintus Curtius Rufus. He was a Roman historian, writing probably during the reign of the Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD) or Vespasian.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Old age isn't so bad when you consider the alternatives." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- attributed often to Cato the Elder or Marcus Porcius Cato (234 BC - 149 BC)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Philosophy does not promise to secure anything external for man, otherwise it would be admitting something that lies beyond its proper subject-matter. For as the material of the carpenter is wood, and that of statuary bronze, so the subject-matter of the art of living is each person's own life."&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Epictetus&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Epictetus is in Facebook at:&lt;br&gt;
&lt;a href="http://www.facebook.com/epictetusphilosopher"&gt;http://www.facebook.com/epictetusphilosopher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/02/10/it-is-impossible-for-a-man-to-learn-what-he-thinks-he-already-knows-or-the-wisdom-of-the-ancients-15518759/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2013-02-07:/2013/02/07/what-benefits-are-there-in-being-an-epicurean-15509687/</id><title>What benefits are there in being an Epicurean?</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/02/07/what-benefits-are-there-in-being-an-epicurean-15509687/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2013-02-07T14:04:36+01:00</published><updated>2013-02-07T14:18:15+01:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;The older I get the more I value the Epicurean ideals of moderation and controlling one’s needs and wants to achieve a better life. However, lately I have realized that there are added bonuses in declaring oneself as an Epicurean in public. Even the word "atheist" is a threatening one for all too many people. Many religious people have been listening to their pastors who tell them eagerly how terrible people atheist are. Even many less religious people seem to harbor images of atheism and atheists as something scary and threatening.&lt;br&gt;
However, when I can tell these people that I am an Epicurean, they will be more at ease. Of course, they do not know whom Epicurus was or what Epicureanism is. However, at least these words do not carry the enormous ballast which the words "atheist" or "atheism" do carry in so many people’s eyes.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;This does not mean that I am surrendering on the face of the enemy. Declaring myself as a follower of a religion-like philosophy can naturally also be seen as sinking to the level of the religious people. However, Epicureanism is a fully rational and even empirical system of thought or philosophy. Embracing it does not mean that I would give an inch away from my atheism and humanism.&lt;br&gt;
Words just are so powerful beasts. Going into a situation with the word “atheism” at the front just can be much more difficult as going in as an “Epicurean”. Of course, most people would not know what you are talking about when you bring up Epicureanism. However, the terrible and fearful word "atheism" can be brought up at a later stage (if needed). It will have less impact when people have learned to know you and can understand that you are a quite similar human being as them, even if you are an atheist.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Epicureanism is admittedly used here as a camouflage, but I think that it is quite allowed. Of course, one needs to familiarize oneself with the central teachings of Epicurus to be a true Epicurean. However, that is not a difficult task. The teachings of Epicurus are, after all, extremely straightforward and rational.&lt;br&gt;
Of course, there is the widespread misconception of Epicureanism having something to do with food or fine eating. This is based on the slurs that the Christian (and Stoic) competitors of Epicureanism did throw at Epicureans. This did happen before the Christians succeeded in eradicating this philosophy that they hated from the bottom of their heart.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.epicurus.info/pictorials/23.jpg" alt="Epicurus" title="Epicurus"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Just now much is happening in the world of Epicureans after this philosophy has been laying rather dormant for 1 500 years. There has been very little development after the ruling Christians of Rome suppressed and destroyed Epicureanism completely in the fifth and sixth centuries.&lt;br&gt;
There has been occasional revivals of Epicurean ideals after that, as in United States of 18th century, where even Thomas Jefferson declared himself as an Epicurean. Also in France of roughly the same time there was a short-lived Epicurean revival.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;However, there are just now quite realistic ideas and plans for reviving the Epicurean philosophy again as a working and organized entity. If this happens, this fellowship of Epicureans could also offer a haven to all of those who find existing superstition-based religions as just too much for themselves.&lt;br&gt;
If something like “The International Society for the Friends of Epicurus” is formed at some point, there could be a real revival for this philosophy that has so much to offer most of all to modern atheists and secular humanists.&lt;br&gt;
Things are happening also in Finland, a group of Epicureans have been meeting regularly since last autumn. Their next meeting is in Helsinki at 23th of February: see &lt;a href="http://www.facebook.com/events/473312979396808/"&gt;http://www.facebook.com/events/473312979396808/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;If you are interested, there is an easy way to get to know what Epicureanism is about. Epicurean central teachings are concentrated in the 40 Principal Doctrines. Reading them will give one a good picture of what Epicureanism is.&lt;br&gt;
The 40 doctrines are to be found here: &lt;a href="http://www.epicurus.net/en/principal.html"&gt;http://www.epicurus.net/en/principal.html&lt;/a&gt; or here &lt;a href="http://www.epicurus.info/etexts/PD.html#1"&gt;http://www.epicurus.info/etexts/PD.html#1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;If you want to delve a bit deeper, there is the collection of Epicurean sayings that was found from the library of Vatican. They are called the Vatican Sayings for this reason. However, they really have nothing to do with the Vatican or the Catholic Church. They can be found here: &lt;a href="http://www.epicurus.net/en/vatican.html"&gt;http://www.epicurus.net/en/vatican.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
The classic “Letter to Meneoceus” does contain many of the central ideas of Epicurus. It is here: &lt;a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Epicurus/menoec.html"&gt;http://classics.mit.edu/Epicurus/menoec.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;I have written extensively about Epicurus and Epicureanism in this blog; see:&lt;br&gt;
&lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/search/epicurus/AND/"&gt;http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/search/epicurus/AND/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/search/epicureanism/AND/"&gt;http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/search/epicureanism/AND/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Active Facebook-page for Epicurus is to be found in &lt;a href="http://www.facebook.com/epicureanphilosopher"&gt;http://www.facebook.com/epicureanphilosopher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
I must admit that I am the founder and the other admin of this site. I have also founded the discussion-site “Garden Of  Epicurus” in Facebook at  &lt;a href="http://www.facebook.com/groups/gardenofepicurus"&gt;http://www.facebook.com/groups/gardenofepicurus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
However, I have been happy to observe that this site has lived a life of its own for a long time without my active participation.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Excellent sites for the interested are also:&lt;br&gt;
The New Epicurean at &lt;a href="http://newepicurean.com/"&gt;http://newepicurean.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
The Epicurus.info at &lt;a href="http://www.epicurus.info/"&gt;http://www.epicurus.info/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
The Epicurus.net at &lt;a href="http://www.epicurus.net/"&gt;http://www.epicurus.net/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/02/07/what-benefits-are-there-in-being-an-epicurean-15509687/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2013-02-01:/2013/02/02/trust-men-and-they-will-be-true-to-you-treat-15490736/</id><title>Thoughts on money, power and trust</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/02/02/trust-men-and-they-will-be-true-to-you-treat-15490736/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2013-02-02T00:43:16+01:00</published><updated>2013-02-02T00:55:50+01:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Benjamin_Franklin_nature_printed_55_dollar_front_1779.jpg/760px-Benjamin_Franklin_nature_printed_55_dollar_front_1779.jpg" alt="Wikipedia" title="Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Trust men, and they will be true to you; treat them greatly, and they will show themselves great.”&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Ralph Waldo Emerson, Essays, On Prudence&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Money is like muck, not good except it be spread.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Francis Bacon, 'Of seditions and Troubles', Essays, 15.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Riches are a good handmaid, but the worst mistress.&lt;br&gt;
Wealth is a good servant, a very bad mistress.” &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Francis Bacon, De Dignitate et Augmentis Scientiarum (1623), Book Six&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Money often costs too much.”&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Ralph Waldo Emerson, The Conduct of Life (1860), Chapter III, "Wealth".&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If there's no money in poetry, neither is there poetry in money.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Robert Graves (1895–1985), English novelist and poet. 'Mammon', Mammon and the Black Goddess (1965)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is probably true that business corrupts everything it touches. It corrupts politics, sports, literature, art, labor unions and so on. But business also corrupts and undermines monolithic totalitarianism. Capitalism is at its liberating best in a noncapitalist environment.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Eric Hoffer, "Thoughts of Eric Hoffer, Including: 'Absolute Faith Corrupts Absolutely'", The New York Times Magazine &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Corporations care very much about maintaining the myth that government is necessarily ineffective, except when it is spending money on the military-industrial complex, building prisons, or providing infrastructural support for the business sector.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Michael Lerner in The Politics of Meaning&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Abraham Lincoln, First State of the Union Address (3 December 1861)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It is true that the materialistic society, the so-called culture that has evolved under the tender mercies of capitalism, has produced what seems to be the ultimate limit of this worldliness. And nowhere, except perhaps in the analogous society of pagan Rome, has there ever been such a flowering of cheap and petty and disgusting lusts and vanities as in the world of capitalism, where there is no evil that is not fostered and encouraged for the sake of making money. We live in a society whose whole policy is to excite every nerve in the human body and keep it at the highest pitch of artificial tension, to strain every human desire to the limit and to create as many new desires and synthetic passions as possible, in order to cater to them with the products of our factories and printing presses and movie studios and all the rest”.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Thomas Merton, in The Seven Storey Mountain (1948)&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It cannot be said too often — at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough — that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamed of. Professor Hayek is also probably right in saying that in this country the intellectuals are more totalitarian-minded than the common people. But he does not see, or will not admit, that a return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;George Orwell in a review of The Road to Serfdom (1944) by Friedrich Hayek&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If we command our wealth, we shall be rich and free; if our wealth commands us, we are poor indeed.”&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Edmund Burke, Letters on a Regicide Peace&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Lord Acton,in a letter to Mandell Creighton (5 April 1887), published in Historical Essays and Studies (1907)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One needs to be nominalistic, no doubt: power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, p.93.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The impulse of power is to turn every variable into a constant, and give to commands the inexorableness and relentlessness of laws of nature. Hence absolute power corrupts even when exercised for humane purposes. The benevolent despot who sees himself as a shepherd of the people still demands from others the submissiveness of sheep. The taint inherent in absolute power is not its inhumanity but its anti-humanity.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&lt;br&gt;
Eric Hoffer, in "The Ordeal of Change" (1963), Ch. 15 : The Unnaturalness Of Human Nature&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/02/02/trust-men-and-they-will-be-true-to-you-treat-15490736/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2013-01-26:/2013/01/26/has-christianity-really-been-the-source-of-western-individualism-15468259/</id><title>Has Christianity really been the source of western individualism?</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/01/26/has-christianity-really-been-the-source-of-western-individualism-15468259/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2013-01-26T22:44:06+01:00</published><updated>2013-02-06T02:45:26+01:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;A surprisingly large part the history of ideologies is, in fact, about a fight between the ideas that people do exist for the benefit of the societies or if societies do exist for the benefit of the people. There is a vast difference between these two conflicting ideas, but this extremely deep-seated conflict of ideas has been surprisingly little talked about lately.&lt;br&gt;
It can be quite safely assumed that in societies like the ancient Egypt or Assyria the state came first. The inhabitants of these states were largely seen just as tools and resources of the state. In these societies, there was little room for individualism as we know it. This is true, even if humans are and always will be individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The base for modern individualism was laid out in Greece. Philosophers like Epicurus saw that the goal in human life can also be to guarantee the maximum happiness of the individual members of the society.&lt;br&gt;
Of course, individualistic ideas have been floating in the minds of people as long as humanity has existed. However, in the Greece of antiquity these ideas were formulated and expressed for the first time as systematic ideas in the form of philosophy.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;These ideas were not the ideas of majority even in individualistic Greece. The needs of the warring and struggling city-states normally overruled concern for the well-being of the individuals. However, Greece also saw the birth of an idea of a state where individual had no rights and the whole society was geared to maximize the well-being of the state.&lt;br&gt;
This was place was naturally Sparta. It has been a role model for totalitarians ever since. This model contrasted in many ways with the individualism of Athens, even if also in Athens the needs of the state came first when going got tough.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Rome-_Ruins_of_the_Forum%2C_Looking_towards_the_Capitol.jpg/340px-Rome-_Ruins_of_the_Forum%2C_Looking_towards_the_Capitol.jpg" alt="Rome: Ruins of the Forum, Looking towards the Capitol (1742) by Canaletto. - Wikipedia" title="Rome: Ruins of the Forum, Looking towards the Capitol (1742) by Canaletto. - Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Rome was again a state that was geared to war and plunder, but there was a strong streak of individualism underneath. Greek ideas had a strong influence on Romans.&lt;br&gt;
Also, the Greek individualism found a receptive audience there. These traditions naturally affected also the new Christian religion that emerged on the height of the Roman Empire.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Christianity is often falsely portrayed as the source of western individualism. This is grounded on the idea that this religion is in part based on the idea of an individual salvation. However, this idea did soon become only window-dressing. It was used to hide the normal role of religion and most of all the religious organizations as tools of the state.&lt;br&gt;
In reality, when individual Christian makes his individual decision to accept the Christian ideology, he automatically loses much of his ability to make individual decisions in  many facets of life. This happens, as the Christian religion is based on a total submission to all of the ideas that are included in this religion.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;In reality,  even the original "choice" of salvation is normally only an illusion. An overwhelming majority of Christians are taught the central ideas of this ideology even before they learn to read. In reality, they will never "choose" Christianity by themselves. This ideology is forced on them by their family and society acting together.&lt;br&gt;
Christianity is still able to feign individualism. This is because most of the original versions of Christianity really were individualistic ideologies that were often chosen to be followed by adult people.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;However, the whole nature of the religion underwent an incredible transformation during the time this religion did become the state religion of the Imperial Rome in the fourth century. The religion of the slaves was transformed into a religion that also the slave-owners could well accept and adopt.&lt;br&gt;
Christianity was, in fact, transformed into a tool of the Imperial Roman state. However, the original individualistic statements and ideas were not deleted, but they remained in the holy texts of the religion.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;These ideas just had no effect on the practical policies of the religious organizations anymore that were forwarding this still quite new religion in the late Roman Empire. This dualism did make Christianity a perfect tool for all highly unjust and repressive medieval societies.&lt;br&gt;
In theory, Christianity offered individualism. However, in practice it was a tool of the rulers and submission to this religion meant normally also total submission of the individual needs to the needs of the state.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;During the rise of Renaissance, Age of Enlightenment and Reformation the old Greek individualistic ideas surfaced again. These ideas deeply changed the way how the eternal conflict between the state and the individual was seen. Most of all, the rise of modern humanism did bring about also the new rise of individualism.&lt;br&gt;
However, a new enemy for western individualism also emerged in modern times with the rise of Communism. It did embrace the ideals of totalitarian Sparta and not of the individualistic Athens. At the same time the western, democratic socialism developed into opposite direction. Democratic, western socialism did later become a major opponent for the totalitarian communism.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;In many modern Western European Christian Lutheran state churches the situation has been, however, even totally reversed during the last hundred years. The original individualistic message has been salvaged, and it has surfaced again. In fact, the needs of the all the time more secular states are not near to their hearts of many Christians anymore.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Isle_of_Graia3.jpg/220px-Isle_of_Graia3.jpg" alt="Wikipedia" title="Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Islam is a different story altogether in the story of an eternal battle between the needs of the individual and the state. In theory in Islam there is also the idea of individual choosing to be saved by this religion.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;However, in practice the conversions to Islam are rare exceptions and the modern billion followers of this religion have been indoctrinated into accepting this religion in their early childhood. The name of the religion tells the real story; Islam means submission. The needs of religion and most of all the needs of the Islamic states do trump the needs of the individual on all imaginable levels.&lt;br&gt;
The totalitarian nature of Islam made it a perfect tool for the medieval feudal rulers. This religion is still the best friend of all feudal rulers that still do exist in the lands with clear Islamic majority. Quite medieval feudal rule does still exist in the Islamic world, even if it has largely disappeared from the rest of the world. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Sadly, this religion has never undergone any kind of reformation. It was, after all, the Reformation that has made it possible in Christian world the advent of all new kind of humanistic and even individualistic Christianity.&lt;br&gt;
In Islam, the effect of modern humanism is hardly discernible. This is true even if western colonial masters did leave seed for it behind in some Islamic countries.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Judaism has developed into a highly individualistic religion, even if it started out as an important tool of the rulers of Judea. The destruction of Jewish state and ensuing diaspora meant that Judaism was a religion of a (often oppressed) minority for nearly two millennia.&lt;br&gt;
This odd little religion was perfected as a tool for maintaining a tight and strictly closed community of believers. However, the needs of  state did play a smaller role than maybe any of the modern religions. This meant also that the individual has a lot of elbow-room, even if the needs of the Jewish community did always come first in Judaism.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/01/26/has-christianity-really-been-the-source-of-western-individualism-15468259/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2013-01-10:/2013/01/11/are-religious-people-stupid-15416095/</id><title>Are religious people stupid?</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/01/11/are-religious-people-stupid-15416095/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2013-01-11T00:21:53+01:00</published><updated>2013-01-11T01:24:37+01:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;Sometimes people seem to forget that theists are overwhelmingly quite normal, intelligent, and caring people. They are normally just carefully indoctrinated into believing in some untrue and sometimes admittedly even quite silly ideas.&lt;br&gt;
People like to do that because sweet lies do so often give sweet comfort. One need not to face the some truths like your own mortality anymore. The humanly invented idea of an afterlife can take much of fear of death away.&lt;br&gt;
However, this happens only as long as a person can retain a belief in this fragile idea and many people see a direct need to protect it. One can also believe in a "god" that guides and protects a person when the real dad is incapable of protecting and guiding one anymore.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;It is easy to understand why sweet lies like this can gain so immense popularity even among other ways quite sane people. Most religious ideas are carefully crafted to be as immune to rational inspection as possible. People mostly just love to be told sweet little lies in all fields of life.&lt;br&gt;
Most of all people are taught religious ideas in an age when they still trust everything an adult tells them. After these ideas are repeated time after time, their utter familiarity makes them believable in a new way. This is the case, even if the often quite similar beliefs of a neighboring religion can sound even laughable. Many people also have been duped into believing that morality and ethics can come only from their pet religion.&lt;br&gt;
Many conservatives love the strong social conservatism that is part of almost all religions. Throughout the history, most religions have associated themselves with the needs of owning and ruling classes, and they have always served them well. However, there is nothing insane or stupid in this. People tend to love ideologies that do serve their interests.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;There is a growing group of people who really are not even theists. They do embrace a religion as a part of the package of some (normally national) cultural heritage. They often believe that even an ancient religion can still be important even in a society that is extremely different from the one in which it was born.&lt;br&gt;
A major problem is that these "cultural religionists" often end up accepting ideas that confirm their decision to support a religion. In practice, their actions and ideas can be quite like those of "real theists". Most of all they all too often see the opponents of their religion as also their opponents. This can be the case, even if they do not really believe in many of the odd supernatural parts of that religion.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Naturally, one cannot forget the immense forces for social cohesion that do protect all ruling religions, and even many strong minority religions and cults.  When a religion gains an upper hand in society or in a local community, the social pressure not to ever even doubt it in any way can become immense.&lt;br&gt;
This social pressure is often even the most important reason for the continuation and a strong position of a religion. Without this pressure, humans would follow a very natural tendency to forego strong ideologies. Most people would live their lives as humans have always lived; in a way that would cause them the least trouble.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;All successful religions do contain large collection of myths, ideas and practices that can take hard work to learn. After investing much time and effort in learning these thing, many people end up defending their major mental investment in a religion.&lt;br&gt;
A paradoxical fact is that the more difficult a religion is to master wholly, the greater the mental investment can become. Quite sane and intelligent people can end up defending a earlier heavy investment even against their own rational thinking.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Yazilikaya_B_12erGruppe.jpg/800px-Yazilikaya_B_12erGruppe.jpg" alt="Copyleft: Jaakko J. Wallenius with Creative Commons 2.0" title="Copyleft: Jaakko J. Wallenius with Creative Commons 2.0"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Sometimes quite harmless collections of small untruths and lies can grow to become gruesome systems of self-deception. They can become even engines for repression, cruelty, and hatred. This normally happens when a religion grows to the status of a state-sponsored ideology.&lt;br&gt;
However, even the people who do sell and market these ideologies as their paid full-time job are not normally insane or stupid, even if some extreme cases they can seem to be so. Of course, even the most insane sounding extremists can fake their extremism if they are smart enough.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;When people choose a religion as their career and source of livelihood, some of them just will often want to be beat the other professionals even in that field of life. The human tendency for wanting to be good at everything we do plays into the hands of religions too.&lt;br&gt;
People have always invented new ways to be better believers that their co-believers. When intelligent people do this, they can also come up with some quite clever new ways for forwarding their pet religion. The existence of a paid class of clergy is normally a major reason why religions do live on as strongly as they do. A person will always fight and work to retain his job and future source of livelihood. This is more so if this profession is the only one for which he has education and qualifications.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The clerical profession is often also a quite pleasant one, when one has learned to endure sorrow and grief that is associated with some religious rituals. Many sane and intelligent people will keep up the appearances, even if they have no real faith left. However, even a fake professional believer will help to keep the religion going.&lt;br&gt;
The teaching of the future clergy also normally employs a lot of professional people, who also have a strong vested interest in forwarding the religion. These people are normally quite sane and intelligent. The need to protect the source of their livelihood does often guide even their thinking. This is the case also in very many other professions too. This process is often subconscious. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Religions are commonly used to define and even create strong and durable communities. Strong dietary regulations are often used to good effect in this respect. A person who has, for example, learned all his life that eating pork is somehow disgusting will easily see those who do eat pork as disgusting as people too.&lt;br&gt;
A common belief in things that are hard to believe is a also strong bond-creator. Paradoxically enough the more hard to believe a believed thing is the stronger is the bond that the belief in it can create. This is one of the reasons why a fully rational religion will quite inevitably lose to an irrational one. A rational religion is unable to create similar community and bonding as a more irrational religion can create.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;There are many other methods that the religions can use to bolster their position in a society. Blasphemy laws often prohibit all serious discussions over these human ideologies. Religions are then allowed to hide behind a self-generated claim of "divine origin" that is supposed to make their critique impossible.&lt;br&gt;
This is a common policy because it is a fantastically effective one. It can bolster the position of a religion in a society even immensely. Also in societies where there are no blasphemy laws any more, the keenness of the true believers can make real public discussions over a religion so hard and unpleasant experience that people will soon learn to avoid them, which is often the goal in the first place.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/01/11/are-religious-people-stupid-15416095/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2013-01-04:/2013/01/04/why-masturbation-is-a-sin-in-christianity-15394812/</id><title>Why is masturbation a sin in Christianity?</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/01/04/why-masturbation-is-a-sin-in-christianity-15394812/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2013-01-04T15:46:04+01:00</published><updated>2013-01-04T15:46:25+01:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;There still are some strong taboo’s left in even in the open western societies, that even otherwise quite progressive people seem not to want to talk about in the open. One of them is masturbation. Nearly every single man does it in some point in his live, but normally nobody admits it.&lt;br&gt;
The taboo is so strong that a person admitting to being a masturbator is quite universally rejected and shunned in public. This happens even if every single person doing this condemnation has done the same thing himself at some point of his life.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The origins of this strange taboo can be naturally extremely diverse. Our western cultures are, after all, patchworks of bits and pieces from all over the continent and even the whole world.&lt;br&gt;
However, an undeniable fact is that the Christian religion still plays an immense role in how sexuality is perceived in western societies. First of all,  Christianity has inherited from Judaism a extremely strict condemnation of all sexual activity that is not aimed at reproduction.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;It has been theorized that the origins of this policy are in the early days of  Jewish independent kingdoms. They were small with a small population and the Jewish kings wanted the population to grow as fast as possible. So, all such sexual activity that would not produce more babies needed to be made forbidden and taboo.&lt;br&gt;
Christianity inherited this strange attitude towards sexuality like so many other strange ideas of Judaism. However, it has been said that the rise of Christianity brought a quite new angle into the question.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The key issue was not to enlarge Christian population through reproduction, when new converts were flocking in droves. However, according to a theory Christianity accepted the essence of Jewish sexual morality because the creators of the new religion wanted to please women. Women were after all often the real backbone of the new movement.&lt;br&gt;
Christian church elders decided to ban masturbation and most of all forms of sex outside the marriage like pre-marital sex or prostitution and homosexuality. According to this theory early church wanted to please those women, who wanted the church to support the idea that sex could be had only through marriage.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;In the open Roman society, other forms of sex were freely on offer. Some women could have felt that the lure of stable marriage would be diminished if other forms of sex than marital sex would be allowed.&lt;br&gt;
The ban on pre-marital sex is naturally terribly old. It stems from the time of birth of agriculture and rise of the idea that land could be private property. The passage of land and other property that started to accumulate was strictly through inheritance. This new system of inherited property necessitated that the name of the father was known for certain, when in hunter-gatherer societies the need for this was not so central at all.&lt;br&gt;
The ban on pre-marital sex stemmed also from the idea that having premarital sex would make girls less valuable as sellable items. It could even damage them as goods that were to be sold to men.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4c/Les_Demoiselles_d%27Avignon.jpg/579px-Les_Demoiselles_d%27Avignon.jpg" alt="Pablo Picasso. Les Demoiselles d" title="Pablo Picasso. Les Demoiselles d"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;According to a theory, the ban on masturbation was just part of the overall drive to make permanent marriage more luring as the only possible source of sex. Of course, this strategy has always worked badly. Also in all Christian societies there has been prostitution, pre-marital sex and most men have masturbated.&lt;br&gt;
However, this has not been so bad for the church at all. When one bans all possible forms of sexuality including having even sexual thoughts from young men, one can be quite certain that they will break these bans. Whey these young men have been taught to acquire a strong sense of guilt  for breaking the bans, the strategy works just well for the church.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;This strong sense of guilt is the base on which Christian religion builds one of its main strategies. It simply says to these young men that only it can forgive them from their terrible sins like sexual fantasies or masturbation.&lt;br&gt;
On the other hand, this forgiveness will be forthcoming even after inevitable new offenses. However, this forgiveness can be had only if the message of the church is swallowed as a whole without questioning it in any way.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Christian churches have succeeded in making hundreds of millions of men fear sex and even hate themselves and their bodies, when it has made extremely normal bodily functions like masturbation into something dirty.&lt;br&gt;
Masturbation has been seen even as something evil that must be fought against at all costs. This as lead to even mutilation of penises of small children.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The idea did spread that circumcision can make masturbation more difficult. At some  point even majority of American Christian males were circumcised in a desperate act in the fight against masturbation.&lt;br&gt;
This all has happened even if no causal relationship is known between masturbation and any form of mental or physical disorder.  Alfred Kinsey's studies even in the conservative 1950s on US population did show that 92 per cent of men and 62 per cent of women have masturbated during their lifespan. (Wikipedia: &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation)"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2013/01/04/why-masturbation-is-a-sin-in-christianity-15394812/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2012-11-22:/2012/11/22/why-is-being-a-moderate-so-difficult-15234630/</id><title>Why is being a moderate so difficult?</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/11/22/why-is-being-a-moderate-so-difficult-15234630/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2012-11-22T12:55:09+01:00</published><updated>2012-11-22T12:58:01+01:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;True moderates are an endangered species in a world that is so often driven to extremes by conflicts of dogmatic ideas. However, even dogmatic moderation and dogmatic willingness to search for a compromise are the least dangerous dogmas there can ever be.&lt;br&gt;
Moderation should not be about disputing facts and avoiding conflicts. Moderation should be about finding the facts among the haze of claims that are made by  followers of different dogmatic ideas. Moderation should be also be about putting them to a perspective with other known facts. Most of all moderation should be about sticking to facts and trying to give pure emotions as little room in the decision-making process in the society-level as possible.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Some of us just are always more emotional than others. Some people will allow their pure emotions to guide them in also in a thing like politics and economy more than other. We simply need more people who can keep their head as calm as possible, even when emotions run high over an issue. That is true moderation to me.&lt;br&gt;
Moderation should not be toothless avoiding of conflicts. It should be about trying to create compromises and solutions that can lessen overheated emotions and tensions.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Of course, every single person on this earth is driven mostly by his or her emotions. However, simply understanding and acknowledging this fact can get one a long way towards a better process of decision-making.&lt;br&gt;
We need also to realize that an animal that is largely driven by emotions has created all that we see in the news and read in the newspaper. Then we can also perhaps understand better that there can be two sides to every story. Then we can better appreciate the fact that the truth so often lies somewhere there in between. However, not necessarily just in the middle.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;There are many quite solid-looking things that are just-man made illusions. There are things like religions and other ideologies, private ownership or land or the existence of national states. They change when perception of them does change. In these kinds of things, there is always room for compromise between extreme views.&lt;br&gt;
However, there is the common or "objective" reality that consists of things like humans, stones, vegetation, animals, stars, galaxies, and stuff like this. They have properties that are non-negotiable, even if knowledge over their exact properties has changed dramatically in the past and can well change even more radically in the future. However, there is no way of compromising flat-earth-theory with theory of the round earth.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Ussr0454.jpg" alt="A Russian propaganda-poster from year 1942. - Wikipedia" title="A Russian propaganda-poster from year 1942. - Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;A general rule of thumb is that the less one knows of an issue, the easier it is to hold dogmatic, one-sided beliefs on it. However, cognitive dissonance also is a key factor. We just so easily dismiss out of hand information that does not fit into our prejudices.&lt;br&gt;
In our age information in on offer on a scale that would have been unbelievable just a few decades ago. Still, there are people whose knowledge is as restricted as before the current explosion in the availability of information took place.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;However, people generally just love simplicity. When a complex issue is reduced to “friends” and “enemies” or “right” and “wrong” we just feel ourselves better. The need to think about things and ideas individually is reduced dramatically when one has chosen a side of one's own.&lt;br&gt;
Naturally the people who run all kinds of propaganda-machines of this world are well aware of this tendency. They happily feed on it. They offer endless supply of material that one can build up the case for “our side”. At the same time, one can happily dismiss the things the “other side” produces as pure propaganda without even noticing the irony of it all.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;We all just so easily will retreat inside a personal information-bubble that accepts in only that information that fits into our beliefs. Naturally, this stands to all of us, even the writer of this piece will never be free of this bias. It just is an inbuilt defense-mechanism of the human mind.&lt;br&gt;
However, the role of the moderate is to try to listen to both sides and try to find legitimate grievances and leads for compromise when. However, all too often this will end up only to shit coming in from both sides.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The need to belong to in-groups just might be even the main reason who so many people end up taking strict and finite stand on even complex and to them quite foreign issues like the situation in Middle East. People just love to have friends, and not picking "your side" will often lead into losing friends on both sides of the fence.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;"I react to what is necessary. I would like to eschew any formula. There are some things where the government is absolutely inevitable, which we cannot get along without comprehensive state action. But there are many things — producing consumer goods, producing a wide range of entertainment, producing a wide level of cultural activity — where the market system, which independent activity is also important, so I react pragmatically. Where the market works, I'm for that. Where the government is necessary, I'm for that. I'm deeply suspicious of somebody who says, "I'm in favor of privatization," or, "I'm deeply in favor of public ownership." I'm in favor of whatever works in the particular case." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;-John Kenneth Galbraith in "Booknotes interview" (1994) or in interview with Brian Lamb, on Booknotes C-SPAN&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/11/22/why-is-being-a-moderate-so-difficult-15234630/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2012-11-10:/2012/11/10/how-simple-and-frugal-a-thing-is-happiness-15187334/</id><title>How simple and frugal a thing is happiness?</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/11/10/how-simple-and-frugal-a-thing-is-happiness-15187334/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2012-11-10T11:08:32+01:00</published><updated>2012-11-18T16:31:06+01:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How simple and frugal a thing is happiness: a glass of wine, a roast chestnut, a wretched little brazier, the sound of the sea. … All that is required to feel that here and now is happiness is a simple, frugal heart.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Nikos Kazantzakis in “Zorba the Greek” (1946).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;However, on the other hand&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A happy life consists not in the absence, but in the mastery of hardships.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Helen Kellerin "The Simplest Way to be Happy" (1933).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;We are happy when we decide that we are happy. Happiness is a subjective state of mind. The most important thing in being happy just might be able to stop and see the situations where one can be happy. Instead of wanting more and better things, our happiness may well be founded on the things that we already have.&lt;br&gt;
On the other hand, happiness is very much about enjoying doing something that makes one happy. Humans are active animals and just enjoying good meals, and the sound of the sea just might not be enough for most of us. We need activity that can make us happy. We need challenges, and we need hardships that we can overcome. However, the road to happiness can be spoiled by consequences of eating and drinking too much, or it can be ruined because of trying to achieve too much in too short time.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Striking the right balance with enjoying the small joys of life and at the same time striving to achieve something worthwhile and even larger than life just might be a possible road to happiness. The Epicurean ideal of moderateness in all we do could just be the real key.&lt;br&gt;
There just might not be a single or simple solution for achieving happiness, but achieving a state of happiness just might be a precarious balancing act, where different and even conflicting needs are taken into consideration. As I love to say; “Too much of any good thing just might be bad.”&lt;br&gt;
On the other hand, there just cannot be any kind of objective criteria for happiness. This is true, even if there can be objective criteria for material or even mental well-being. These things can also be measured and quantified. However, happiness is something that we just feel in our bones, and nobody other can reliably ever know if we are happy or not.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/SantoriniPartialPano.jpg" alt="Santorini - Wikipedia" title="Santorini - Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;One can well develop criteria for measuring happiness, but they are doomed to be just subjective attempts of faking objectivity. So strongly subjective thing as personal feeling of happiness is a thing that only a person him- or herself can ever asses reliably.&lt;br&gt;
Even asking if a person is happy is not a reliable way of determining true state of happiness at all, as there are countless reasons why people would lie of their true mental state. They might well exist a need to appear stronger and more successful than people really are. Unhappy people may be classed as losers by the society and one can feel the need to lie about his or her true state of happiness when asked about it.&lt;br&gt;
In addition, the relationship between the person questioned and the person doing the questioning can be a decisive factor. One may well feel the need to lie to please the person doing the asking.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;In the end, dollars or euros have precariously little to do with real feeling of happiness. After the basic needs are satisfied, it is so much more about how we personally relate to things that we already have. Of course, a very basic requirement for happiness is a safe society and one which divides the fruits of the economy as justly as possible. However, after they have been reached, people need to realize what they already have.&lt;br&gt;
Unfortunately, the human mind seems to be built in a way where things are extremely easily taken for granted, and their presence is realized only after they have been lost. I am naturally speaking of the post-industrial western nations here; in all too many countries striving for happiness still consists of striving to survive.&lt;/p&gt;
	

&lt;a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/103910319964038990672/Wisdom?authuser=0&amp;feat=embedwebsite"&gt;&lt;img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-zHTQGb-Mw2k/UKjpygdIl1E/AAAAAAAAOfw/KtIZj11fOTQ/s160-c/Wisdom.jpg" width="160" height="160"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

	
&lt;a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/103910319964038990672/Wisdom?authuser=0&amp;feat=embedwebsite"&gt;Wisdom&lt;/a&gt;


	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The foolish man seeks happiness in the distance;&lt;br&gt;
The wise grows it under his feet.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;James Oppenheim in "The Wise"&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/11/10/how-simple-and-frugal-a-thing-is-happiness-15187334/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2012-11-01:/2012/11/01/is-oversimplification-a-central-feature-of-conservative-thinking-15153343/</id><title>Is oversimplification a central feature of conservative thinking?</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/11/01/is-oversimplification-a-central-feature-of-conservative-thinking-15153343/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2012-11-01T12:09:44+01:00</published><updated>2012-11-01T14:06:08+01:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;A central problem with conservatism is the common tendency of conservatives to oversimplify complex issues. Of course, it is always simpler and easier to do things in the way in which they have been always done. However, the process of simplification is also a tool that is used to make fast and easy judgments about new ideas, people, and things.&lt;br&gt;
One can also, for example, lump thousands of extremely different life-stories under one tidy heading, when one speaks of “lazy poor”. In fact, by doing this one can also remove these people from consciousness. If poverty is caused by failures of humans themselves, society needs not to worry about the poor.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;For example, calling unemployed simply “lazy” is a classic example of a process where a complex social issue involving major changes in the economy that has lead to lack of suitable job openings is turned into a simplistic issue of lack of character or personality of the jobless.&lt;br&gt;
The process of conservative simplification is at play here. We humans just seem to be prone into thinking groups of other humans through concrete examples. When we, for example, think of term “unemployed”, we just are prone to build a vision of a single individual who has certain characteristics.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;With the word “unemployed” a conservative is seemingly just is prone to think of lazy bum, who has never even wanted to work. At a same time, a progressive can think of metal worker who has been laid off against his own will after 30 years of diligent service.&lt;br&gt;
Both ideas are just as true. Both types of people do exist, as do all kinds of mixtures of these two extremes. However, a true conservative simplification works by removing other ideas out of one’s mind and sticking totally to the mental image that serves one’s personal interests or the interest of one’s class the most.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Newman-Onement_1.jpg" alt="Barnett Newman, Onement 1, 1948. During the 1940s Barnett Newman wrote several important articles about the new American painting. - Wikipedia" title="Barnett Newman, Onement 1, 1948. During the 1940s Barnett Newman wrote several important articles about the new American painting. - Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Of course, liberal and progressive people can be and often are extremely simpleminded and bigoted too. However, I think that in general the biggest difference between conservatives and progressives is in their willingness to see different shades of gray in complex issues.&lt;br&gt;
A conservative ideology seems to produce a black and white world-view. In the conservative universe people, things and ideas can be and must be classed into just two general classes; good and bad. All to often there just is nothing in between.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;In the background of this kind of black-and-white-thinking is also the Christian dichotomy. In it just two classes of people does exist: good people who go to heaven and bad people who go hell. In this basic Christian dichotomy there is no wiggle-room for good people doing bad things under pressure or bad people committing noble acts. However, we all know that people generally are not especially good or bad, but they are just lead to different kinds of actions by circumstances in life.&lt;br&gt;
Those books, plays and movies, where people are categorized into just two classes, also foster a conservative, simplistic mindset where there are just heroes and villains. The real complexity of life has crept into literature, movies and theater a long time ago, but the conservative simplification still lives and thrives in many areas and subcultures.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;In the core of the problem is a common and natural human tendency to simplify complex issues. Of course, the process of simplification is very often necessary to make the core areas visible in complex issues. It can be said that also science is in its core a process of simplification.&lt;br&gt;
However, there is always the danger of taking simplification too far. Many issues are much easier to handle when the almost endless variations which exist in real life are stripped away. Decisions are easier to make if you must simply decide if “are you with us or against us” and all other possible variations are just forgotten or hidden from view.&lt;br&gt;
Of course, it is also gross oversimplification to say that all conservatives are prone to oversimplification. However, I see that this tendency is inbuilt in most current flavors of conservatism. It is also sadly present in all major forms of radical neoconservatism like the right-wing libertarian movement.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/11/01/is-oversimplification-a-central-feature-of-conservative-thinking-15153343/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2012-10-25:/2012/10/25/can-a-sunni-really-become-a-shia-in-five-seconds-15125330/</id><title>Can a Sunni really become a Shia in five seconds?</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/10/25/can-a-sunni-really-become-a-shia-in-five-seconds-15125330/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2012-10-25T11:14:43+02:00</published><updated>2012-10-25T11:14:43+02:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;One of the major reasons of conflict and violence throughout the world just now is the idea that religion is a similar inherited property of a person as blue eyes or dark hair. For example, Shias are just now killing Sunnis and Sunnis are killing Shias in Iraq, Alawis are killing Shias and Sunnis and both are killing Alawis in Syria.&lt;br&gt;
However, all these people speak the same language and do not differ in any physical way from their mortal enemies. Their only difference is that they believe in a different version of Islam. Yes, they all even share similar basic tenets. They all see themselves as Muslims; even if they do not think that their opponents are true Muslims.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;There just might be a slight difference how these people dress, behave, and eat, when the differences in religious matters have lead people to develop their own habits. These differences in habits are often codified in the religious traditions of the sect. However, normally it is impossible to tell if a person is a Sunni, Shia or Alawi without asking. The most fantastic thing is that a person just could become a Sunni, Shia or Alawi in five seconds, just by proclaiming to be one.&lt;br&gt;
People are just now in the real world killing other people because they harbor minor differences in their religious traditions. These differences have no real meaning or importance as such. However, they are used to foster ugly tribalism that serves the needs of the leaders of different religious groups. They can do this as long as religion is seen as something that is inherited like blue eyes or pointed ears. The idea of religion being an unchangeable part of a human is, in fact, one of the most dangerous ideas that humans can have.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Muharram_procession_2%2C_Manama%2C_Bahrain_%28Feb_2005%29.jpg/794px-Muharram_procession_2%2C_Manama%2C_Bahrain_%28Feb_2005%29.jpg" alt="Shia Muslims in Bahrain hitting their chests during the time of Muharram in remembrance of the hardships Hussein ibn Ali went through. - Wikipedia" title="Shia Muslims in Bahrain hitting their chests during the time of Muharram in remembrance of the hardships Hussein ibn Ali went through. - Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;When people realize that religion is always just a collection of human ideas and an ideology with another name and people can change their religion at will, a major source of violence, hatred and war has been eradicated. However, the spread of this basic idea is simply impossible in places where it would be needed the most.&lt;br&gt;
The leaders of all different religious factions will always do their utmost to fight the idea that religion is not an unmovable property of a human. This is simply one of the most dangerous ideas that they can think of, as it would directly threaten the base of their power.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;A sad fact of life is that ignorance breeds fear and fear breeds hatred. The areas where religious differences are used as excuses and covers in the fight for power are often those where also education is the hands of religious organizations.&lt;br&gt;
Especially the religious Madrasa-schools are hothouses for bigotry, ignorance, and religious hatred. In many of them no real education is given, but rote-learning of Koran seen as the only necessary task. People with wholly Islamic education are normally in no position to understand that their religious opponents are similar humans as themselves, but they just have a different version of the same ideology and this ideology is and can be changed at will.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Getting religion out of education should be the a major goal for all of the people who are interested in making our little planet a better place. This must be the ultimate goal, if we truly want to strive for a world where people do not kill other people simply for minor differences in religious dogma. People in Syria would be just now enormously better off, if the religious differences between Shias, Sunnis and Alawis would be forgotten.&lt;br&gt;
The division among religious lines in Syria is in the end, as artificial as any division of humans can get. There  are no real racial or linguistic reasons for these divisions, even if the long-standing separation of different religious groups has fostered differences in dress, customs and eating habits.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/10/25/can-a-sunni-really-become-a-shia-in-five-seconds-15125330/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2012-10-15:/2012/10/15/can-humanism-be-my-religion-15044293/</id><title>Can humanism be my religion?</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/10/15/can-humanism-be-my-religion-15044293/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2012-10-15T08:42:14+02:00</published><updated>2012-12-11T21:58:53+01:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;My religion is humanism. Humanism happens to beat all existing religions in its true respect for humanity but also in respect for nature and most of all in its lack of any kind of beliefs in supernatural. After all atheism is just lack of religion, but humanism can be a viable alternative to religions.&lt;br&gt;
Of course, many people will inevitably have a problem with not running with the pack even in this respect. Even most humanists will seemingly reject this idea without even pausing to think. However, that is wholly their own problem. A truly independent mind  needs not to be out in search of the approval of others even in this respect, but one can be out to find tools to build up one's own inner strength and mental integrity.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;There simply needs to be a real alternative to modern anti-humanistic religions. A basic fact is that humanism already contains the basic ideas on which one can build a religion also. Of course, most humanists do not want to even compare humanism with religions.&lt;br&gt;
However, this needs to change, as simply rejecting religions is not enough, there needs to be an also a real alternative where people can turn if they cannot wholly give up the warm blanket that a religion does offer.&lt;br&gt;
Happily, modern secular humanism is a loose collection of ideas. A religion that is built on real humanistic principles can easily avoid the trap of creating closed minds with a set of dogmatic beliefs. However, there are basic tools for moral and enlightened life already on offer in humanism.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The finest part in treating humanism as a religion is that one needs not to build a new religion from scratch to be able to offer an alternative to existing religions. Some of the greatest minds humanity has ever produced have already perfected humanistic thinking for a very long time.&lt;br&gt;
Secular humanism already offers ideas on which a good life can be built. Most of all it offers ground rules on which the foundations of a good society can be laid on. One needs not invent or implement any grand new ideas or trust some odd, newfangled preachers who are proclaiming some kind of a “new age for humanity”.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/HumanismSymbol.svg/312px-HumanismSymbol.svg.png" alt="Humanism symbol - Wikipedia" title="Humanism symbol - Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Nobody needs to benefit financially from this new religion, when any real "new" religion would quite inevitably be seen as an attempt to cash in on people's religious sentiments. This is true, as long as humanism works at the level of a personal idea that can give a moral and ethical basis for a good life. There is a strong and wide collection of humanistic ideas and teachings already on offer and there is no real need to produce any new ones.&lt;br&gt;
A humanistic religion really can be a set of ideas that everyone acknowledges to have been created by humans for advancing of human flourishing. These ideas can also change with time when societies change, when they are being based on strong respect for science.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;A humanistic religion can even well be a religion of one person only. Being the only follower of this religion can, in fact, be quite enough for a person. Why should people go on proclaiming their religion to anybody else, if having this idea satisfies them personally? Even if most of humanists do not want to see humanism as a religion needs not to be a problem. This fact does not need to change how other people want to call the kind and caring ideology of humanism.&lt;br&gt;
There really can well exist even a grand majority of people who do not want to treat humanism as religion at the same time as others will do just that. There is no harm done to either party in this kind of situation. This is true, even if people who do believe in the existence of One Truth will always be extremely uncomfortable in such a situation.&lt;br&gt;
If somebody else wants or does not want to share this view, will not increase or decrease the personal satisfaction and strength that I can derive from treating some ideas and values as more important and basic as some others. This idea of treating humanism as a personal religion of mine does not in practice need to mean anything more.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;I well know that even most atheists are thrown to the hind legs by even the mention of a secular "religion" as the word "religion" so often is too much for them. However, it is impossible to think that religions could ever just vanish without any kind of alternatives taking their place. Communism was such an alternative, and we can well now see how immense destruction and misery also a dogmatic religion-like ideology can cause.&lt;br&gt;
However, a nondogmatic religion that is basically simply a humanistic life-stance can be a nondogmatic alternative to existing dogmatic religions. Naturally a certain rigid set of ideas is naturally needed for a thing to be called a religion in the first place. However, the existing humanistic basic ideas can offer them, even if they do not tie people to certain ways of living and spending of their days. See: &lt;a href="http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I"&gt;http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Maybe it could be possible to build a humanistic religion that does break the old mold. This humanistic religion need not to be a tool for control and extending power and economic fortunes of a formal religious organization as so many of the current religions are.&lt;br&gt;
Maybe there needs to be no calls for unity or uniformity in this new religion, but people could build their own versions of it from some common building blocs. Maybe there could be even hundreds or thousands of different personal versions of the common basic ideas? Maybe everybody could be able to roll a religion of his or her own. However, they could share a group of common reference points that can help them navigate the vast and uncharted sea of life a bit easier and with a bit greater confidence.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;PS. I must add that the idea idea that humanism would make humans the center of the universe is an old ruse used by theists. It comes from the fact that humanists acknowledge the idea that humans themselves decide how their lives and societies will turn out.&lt;br&gt;
However, this idea is is presented in contrast with the theistic idea of divinely ordained societies and it does not at all mean that nature or universe would exist solely for the benefit of humans. I can see how this idea can arise from the wording from some of the humanist declarations, but it is still a completely false interpretation of an anti-theistic idea. In fact, the humanistic basic idea that humans themselves bear the responsibility for all of their actions is a base on which also a real ecological awareness can be built on.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/10/15/can-humanism-be-my-religion-15044293/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2012-10-02:/2012/10/02/running-with-the-herd-or-the-very-best-bits-from-jaakko-j-wallenius-14947173/</id><title>"Running with the herd" or the very best bits from Jaakko J. Wallenius</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/10/02/running-with-the-herd-or-the-very-best-bits-from-jaakko-j-wallenius-14947173/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2012-10-02T21:20:52+02:00</published><updated>2012-10-02T21:49:44+02:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Au8rr65KL98/UGs90s2a2fI/AAAAAAAAMA8/tNafhKQeAKo/s610/wallenius_reality.JPG" alt="Copyleft: Jaakko J. Wallenius - Creative Commons" title="Copyleft: Jaakko J. Wallenius - Creative Commons"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We interpret reality every single second we do exist on this planet. We can do a better or worse job at it depending on which kind of tools we use in this process. Of course, many people are even extremely happy with a completely false interpretation of reality. A correct interpretation of reality can, in fact, make us unhappy. This can happen when reality is too heavy and threatening. However, all too often a realistic interpretation of reality is needed to avoid future even more severe unhappiness that may follow from falsifying reality to yourself for too long."&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If things are going smoothly in your life and you are just running with the herd, one is very easily drawn into accepting the ideas appreciated by the herd without questioning them. Human beings just are extremely social animals and acceptance of ones social group is of paramount importance for any person. Often there must be a trigger-incident that throws a person off balance or outside the herd for at least a moment. When this happens a person is often drawn into questioning the ruling ideologies of the herd. But when the flood-gates are finally opened, there is very often no going back. This happens when one realizes on how a shallow base even the most established traditions so often really stand."&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You can cringe, grind your teeth, hit your forehead in shear disbelief when you follow the news about politics, but that is how it should be. It just shows that you really care how our common affairs are conducted and what could ever be more important in a democracy?"&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Remember this; nobody owes you anything. Many people just want to live in a just and honorable society that will take care of all of its members even in the darkest hours of their lives. When this will goes away, the just and honorable society will collapse and you are on your own." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The history of mankind is a sad story of absolute truths that were spoiled by the ultimate test of reality."&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Thinking that even the greatest, noblest and grandest of human ideas is the only possible answer will quite inevitably lead to trouble." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If you think that some kind of important human activity can have only positive effects, think again; you have surely missed something." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If gardening is all about creating order in a chaotic universe, philosophy is all about creating order in a chaotic mind." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Maybe the most virtuous people are not those who by their natural inclinations are not drawn to vice, but those who must fight their nature and natural instincts to be virtuous." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The most fantastic thing in the world is how in the end most people manage to live normal, good lives among all the fanatics, raving madmen, preachers and salesmen of different ideologies (and most of all news outlets) who try gain from making them believe that they are in imminent and constant danger.” &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Religion is the art of inventing easy and simple answers to difficult and complex questions and pretending that we can really have an easy and simple answer to every question that can trouble us." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I just can't decide which is the saddest thing on earth; the man dying unnecessarily just to further an idea or the man killing him unnecessarily just to further his own, a bit different idea." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Son, I have only one piece of advice for you: suspect any idea that cannot be laughed at. It is a sure sign that this idea is something that must be accepted not because what it really stands for, but because this idea is useful to somebody else, but who can never admit this fact publicly." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The difference between just having strong ideas and being an irrational idealist is hair-thin at times. A sad fact is that 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, it is the human ideas that do drive our societies forward, if only their followers just don't lose touch with reality and most of their ability to work and compromise with others who have different sets of ideals. " &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If man hasn't discovered something that he will live for, he isn't fit to die." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;br&gt;
(Admittedly only a slight variation of an original idea from Martin Luther King who said "If man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live.")&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Philosophy allows us to freely explore also those important areas of life that do not have and cannot have definite, final explanations." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Jaakko J. Wallenius&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaakko_Wallenius"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaakko_Wallenius&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
"Jaakko Wallenius (b. 30.January 1958 Hämeenlinna) is a Finnish writer and journalist. Jaakko Wallenius is the economics editor in the newspaper Länsi-Uusimaa which is published in Lohja. He has hold this position since the year 1990. In the year 2001 Jaakko Wallenius started a private enterprise called Bittitohtori, which concentrates on the maintenance of home computers and web-design."&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/10/02/running-with-the-herd-or-the-very-best-bits-from-jaakko-j-wallenius-14947173/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2012-09-17:/2012/09/17/it-is-wise-to-do-what-the-angry-islamists-want-14817389/</id><title>Is it wise to do what the angry Islamists want?</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/09/17/it-is-wise-to-do-what-the-angry-islamists-want-14817389/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2012-09-17T20:44:53+02:00</published><updated>2012-09-17T20:45:54+02:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;The real answer to Islamist taking offense for this or that cannot be trying to second guess what can offend a group of violent extremists. The answer cannot be to suppress all such activity that somebody may some day interpret as 'offensive". One just cannot do that in the long run.&lt;br&gt;
It is simply impossible to tell what extremists will in the end deem as offensive. The goals just might be raised all the way, if these extremist find out that they are getting results just by threats and violence.&lt;br&gt;
It really is not other people's problem if some extremists choose to be offended for their own reasons and motivations. Nobody can ever tell over which new thing these people choose to be offended the next time. Censoring of all possibly offending material will never solve the problem. The only real solution is that even extremist Muslims learn to live with the six billion non-Muslims, and stop being offended by trivial insults.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;In fact, the thing the rest of the world need to do just now is to make it perfectly clear that violence and threats will not get these extremists anywhere. The rest of the world needs to make it clear that no tiny group of Islamic extremists cannot intimidate the six other billion humans who have nothing to do with Islam. Any other course of action can just add to future levels of violence.&lt;br&gt;
The point here is if random Muslim groups have the right to define what non-Muslims can do or cannot do thousands of miles away, if these other people do act within the limits of the laws of their own states. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/A_protest_against_an_anti-Islamic_film.JPG/800px-A_protest_against_an_anti-Islamic_film.JPG" alt="- Protests in Bahrain - Wikipedia" title="- Protests in Bahrain - Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;A very basic problem is that Islam is a hopelessly outdated system for guiding a complex, modern society. We already know that the more a society clings to Islam, the less successful it is. At the same time, all too many people are taught from earliest childhood that Islam is the perfect system for guiding a society.&lt;br&gt;
However, these people simply cannot fail to see how their own societies are loosing in almost all respects of life to the non-Islamic societies. All too often, they enter a state of cognitive dissonance that they try to overcome by claiming that the problems in their societies are not created by Islam itself, but somehow by its enemies.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Of course, Christianity is also an extremely outdated system for guiding a society. Happily nobody even tries it in earnest anymore. Unfortunately, Islam does in all too many societies play a role in every single field of life.&lt;br&gt;
Most of all, Islam hinders intellectual development to an unbelievable degree. Sadly, the intellectual capabilities of a society do become increasingly important with every passing day. The negative effect of dogmatic Islam becomes greater with time if its grip of some societies is not removed.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Our only real hope just now is a sweeping reformation of Islam in the model of Christianity as Islam is not going anywhere soon. As the result of European reformation, the extremely Islam-like Catholicism lost its mental dictatorship in Europe and the intellectual opening of Christian countries did become possible.&lt;br&gt;
This intellectual openness did produce the scientific revolution and with time also the birth of modern democracies and welfare-states. Practice already does show that these things are impossible to implement under the current major versions of Islam. One should not forget that the most prosperous, peaceful and generally good places to live on earth are the Scandinavian countries. In these countries the idea that religion should guide societies was abandoned quite totally a very long time ago.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;I must still point out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Arabs or Muslims as humans. They are quite similar people as everybody else. The big problem is that the advent of humanism that has transformed Western societies during the last two centuries has been blocked by dogmatic interpretations of Islam. Islam keeps the ancient, pre-medieval and pre-humanistic inhuman ideas alive in the form of inhuman Sharia law.&lt;br&gt;
It is a relief that one can still oppose Christianity without being classed as anti-christian bigot and racist. There really are people who oppose Islam for the wrong reasons, but that fact does not mean that one would need to stop criticizing Islam as an ideology. It is, of course, important to always state that one does oppose an religious ideology, not people. This simple idea separates one from the bigoted, racist crowd.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/09/17/it-is-wise-to-do-what-the-angry-islamists-want-14817389/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2012-09-05:/2012/09/05/in-internet-not-a-part-of-our-reality-14678936/</id><title>Is Internet not a part of our reality?</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/09/05/in-internet-not-a-part-of-our-reality-14678936/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2012-09-05T19:47:04+02:00</published><updated>2012-09-06T13:41:21+02:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;It is a odd how people can expect other people to do the hard work to please their wishes for free in the Internet. However, they would never expect free work from a plumber, carpenter, or other artisans who serve them in outside the realm of Internet.&lt;br&gt;
The root of the problem just might be that there is a significant philosophical misconception going around. Many people seem to think that there is a "real world" and separate somehow “unreal” world of Internet, where everything is free and does not require real work.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;However, Internet is an essential part of the real world. It is only a new tool and using it is just as real a real thing as using a hammer. It is easier to contact people using the Internet, but there is nothing "unreal" in this. Real people discuss real things also in the Internet.&lt;br&gt;
There is no difference if I write things on paper in the "real world" or to the screen in the Internet. The basic work is the same, even if making corrections is easier in the electronic form. There is no difference if I send the results by snail-mail or by e-mail.&lt;br&gt;
Why would the things I write in the Internet be less real than the ones I write in the paper? Books have no other value than that is contained in the words they do contain. Why would transferring these words from books to screen make them unreal?&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;I am the admin of over 40 different pages in Facebook. This piece was inspired by a follower of one of my pages who wanted recently me to research, find and publish all kinds of extra details on the quotes I publish on my pages. I understand that this person does not perhaps know how much extra work fulfilling his wish would require. However, I am also afraid that people have no regard for all of the free work that is done to entertain them in places like Facebook. People just expect to get all kinds of services free in the Internet. They do not realize that often somebody needs to do some hard work to create and administer those services.&lt;br&gt;
Many people will even whine loudly about ads. This can happen, even if these people get valuable services free, just because they are paid for with ads. In this Internet-culture, people just expect free services and they do not think at all why somebody would provide them free of charge forever.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Assorted_computer_mice_-_MfK_Bern.jpg/668px-Assorted_computer_mice_-_MfK_Bern.jpg" alt="Computer mice built between 1986 and 2007- Wikipedia." title="Computer mice built between 1986 and 2007- Wikipedia."&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;A second problem is there is a kind of “border” between reality and the Internet ion many peoples minds. This idea is largely created by the fact that people can still use pseudonyms in the Internet. This is naturally just because the current system allows it. However, I have spoken against this practice for a long time. People need to be in the Internet also as themselves, like a lot of people have always done.&lt;br&gt;
This anonymity in the Internet is, however, not any different than the anonymity of people in the street in a big city. People do not have any kind of nametags on them. They can also present themselves as whoever they like. What is the difference, really? This situation does not create a space that would be outside the norms of reality.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The use of pseudonyms does not make the ideas that people present somehow "unreal". It just makes easier to be nasty and evil to other people, as with anonymity people can easily escape responsibility for their actions. This is a situation, which should be corrected. The use of pseudonyms in walled gardens like Facebook should be prohibited. Those who like to play that anonymous game should go to their own gardens. In these communities the cowardly ambushing of other people under the disguise of pseudonym could well be allowed to continue.&lt;br&gt;
People are inevitably more nasty and evil if they do not have to bear any responsibility for their actions. Making this culture of ambush and evilness go away from the public eye would be a vital step towards a better world, I think.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Some people say that the Internet is not real because it is just words. However, uttering words is surely a real action. Using words to convey ideas is, in fact, the most powerful form of human action there can be. There is no doubt about this.&lt;br&gt;
The people who operate under pseudonyms can hurt real people and their real feelings with their use of words. They can do this with impunity only just as long they are allowed to do it. If we announce that we will not allow it anymore in our neighborhood, they would go to play with themselves.&lt;br&gt;
A great deal of hatred and human suffering are caused by the use of "mere" words. One does not need guns to hurt people. With a few well-chosen sentences, one can cause incurable mental wounds.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;For a practical example of the results of anonymous hate see:&lt;br&gt;
&lt;a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/09/goodbye-for-now/"&gt;http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/09/goodbye-for-now/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/09/05/in-internet-not-a-part-of-our-reality-14678936/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2012-08-20:/2012/08/20/the-arts-put-man-at-the-center-of-the-universe-or-then-very-best-bits-from-kurt-vonnegut-jr-14581766/</id><title>"The arts put man at the center of the universe" or the very best bits from Kurt Vonnegut Jr.</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/08/20/the-arts-put-man-at-the-center-of-the-universe-or-then-very-best-bits-from-kurt-vonnegut-jr-14581766/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2012-08-20T21:17:43+02:00</published><updated>2012-08-20T21:18:07+02:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/V/Kurt-Vonnegut-9520329-1-402.jpg" alt="Kurt Vonnegut Jr." title="Kurt Vonnegut Jr."&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bergeron's epitaph for the planet, I remember, which he said should be carved in big letters in a wall of the Grand Canyon for the flying-saucer people to find, was this: WE COULD HAVE SAVED IT BUT WE WERE TOO DOGGONE CHEAP. Only he didn't say 'doggone."&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;em&gt;- Kurt Vonnegut Jr. in "Hocus Pocus" (1990)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;– Kurt Vonnegut in "Mother Night" (1961)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The arts put man at the center of the universe, whether he belongs there or not. Military science, on the other hand, treats man as garbage — and his children, and his cities, too. Military science is probably right about the contemptibility of man in the vastness of the universe. Still — I deny that contemptibility, and I beg you to deny it, through the creation of appreciation of art.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Kurt Vonnegut in “Bennington College address” (1970)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Many people need desperately to receive this message: "I feel and think much as you do, care about many of the things you care about, although most people don't care about them. You are not alone."&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Kurt Vonnegut in ”Timequake” (1997)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;"You hate America, don't you?" she said.&lt;br&gt;
"That would be as silly as loving it," I said. "It's impossible for me to get emotional about it, because real estate doesn't interest me. It's no doubt a great flaw in my personality, but I can't think in terms of boundaries. Those imaginary lines are as unreal to me as elves and pixies. I can't believe that they mark the end or the beginning of anything of real concern to the human soul. Virtues and vices, pleasures and pains cross boundaries at will." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Kurt Vonnegut in "Mother Night" (1961)&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The two real political parties in America are the Winners and the Losers. The people don’t acknowledge this. They claim membership in two imaginary parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, instead."&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Kurt Vonnegut in "In a Manner that Must Shame God Himself" &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We are healthy only to the extent that our ideas are humane.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Kilgore Trout's epitaph in Breakfast of Champions (1973) by Kurt Vonnegut&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;There are plenty of good reasons for fighting," I said, "but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God Almighty Himself hates with you, too. Where's evil? It's that large part of every man that wants to hate without limit, that wants to hate with God on its side. It’s that part of every man that finds all kinds of ugliness so attractive." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Kurt Vonnegut inn "Mother Night" (1961)&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One of the great American tragedies is to have participated in a just war. It's been possible for politicians and movie-makers to encourage us we're always good guys. The Second World War absolutely had to be fought. I wouldn't have missed it for the world. But we never talk about the people we kill. This is never spoken of." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Kurt Vonnegut in an interview by Roger Friedman, "God Bless You, Mr. Vonnegut" (2002)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Kurt Vonnegut in Introduction to "Mother Night" (1961)&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;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.” &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Kurt Vonnegut in "God Bless You, Dr. Kevorkian" (1999)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;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.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Kurt Vonnegut in "Cold Turkey" (2004)&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Ink and paper are as cheap as sand or water, almost. No board of directors has to convene in order to decide whether we can afford to write down this or that. I myself once staged the end of the world on two pieces of paper- at a cost of ...less than a penny, including wear and tear on my typewriter ribbon and the seat of my pants. 'Think of that." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Kurt Vonnegut in ”Palm Sunday” (1981)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Kurt Vonnegut is in Facebook at &lt;a href="http://www.facebook.com/vonnegutwriter"&gt;http://www.facebook.com/vonnegutwriter&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/08/20/the-arts-put-man-at-the-center-of-the-universe-or-then-very-best-bits-from-kurt-vonnegut-jr-14581766/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2012-08-11:/2012/08/11/can-the-admiration-of-violence-breed-more-violence-14460394/</id><title>Can the admiration of violence breed more violence?</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/08/11/can-the-admiration-of-violence-breed-more-violence-14460394/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2012-08-11T19:03:12+02:00</published><updated>2012-08-14T12:31:30+02:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;To have a non-violent culture, one needs consciously cultivate a non-violent culture. One needs to refrain from adoration of violent acts, even if they are committed as acts of self-defense. In a non-violent culture, even wars of self-defense are seen as causes for sorrow and anguish and not as something to be revered.&lt;br&gt;
In a non-violent culture, when these necessary wars are remembered, the acts of violence that were needed to curb the onslaught of the aggressors are not revered and glorified. They are remembered with deep sorrow. They are remembered as moments when good men were forced to commit bad deeds because the situation warranted it.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Even the best of men are sometimes forced to kill fathers, sons and brothers of other men with whom they have no quarrel or enmity, just because the political leaders of these men have lured or outright forced them into that war.&lt;br&gt;
However, there should no reason for jubilation and festivities when we remember their deeds, but time for sorrowful reflection on the evil that war always inevitably is.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;No one in his right mind 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 is a good thing under certain circumstances, and we cannot ever get rid of theft, and so we just need to live with theft, the willingness of people to steal just could be somewhat heightened.&lt;br&gt;
There are strong interest groups in our societies which want to make sure that violence is condemned only when wrong kind people commit it. The kind of universal condemnation of violence similar to that of theft is just not possible.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Apotheosis.jpg/800px-Apotheosis.jpg" alt="The Apotheosis of War (1871) by Vasily Vereshchagin - Wikipedia" title="The Apotheosis of War (1871) by Vasily Vereshchagin - Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Nobody expects that psychopaths would be changed by anything. However, changing our attitude towards violence just can have an effect on the majority of normal people, who just tend to go with the crowd.&lt;br&gt;
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 would also think that physical violence is always bad there just would perhaps not be a need for self-defense in the first place.&lt;br&gt;
As long as people propagate the belief that violence is good in some instances, there will more violent tendencies in a society than in a society where all violence is condemned.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;The need to fight religious or nationalistic extremists will quite probably 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 simply cannot react with any other means, our world would be a much nicer place to live; there is no doubt about it.&lt;br&gt;
A culture that glorifies and admires violence will always breed violence. This admiration of violence inevitably lowers the threshold for using violence even in situations that would not really warrant it. The evidence for this is everywhere around us.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;However, there are extremely strong and vocal forces in our societies, whose interests are best served by maintaining an atmosphere of fear of imminent violence. The need to defend one from thugs (political or otherwise) is a quite different thing than adoration and wholesale acceptance of violence as an accepted means for conducting politics. It is funny how this distinction is so difficult to make for so many people.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/08/11/can-the-admiration-of-violence-breed-more-violence-14460394/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2012-08-02:/2012/08/03/the-sky-god-is-a-jealous-god-or-the-best-bits-by-gore-vidal-14365991/</id><title>"The sky-god is a jealous god" or the best bits by Gore Vidal</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/08/03/the-sky-god-is-a-jealous-god-or-the-best-bits-by-gore-vidal-14365991/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2012-08-03T00:16:36+02:00</published><updated>2012-08-03T13:16:19+02:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Gore_Vidal_3_Shankbone_2009_NYC_cropped.jpg/220px-Gore_Vidal_3_Shankbone_2009_NYC_cropped.jpg" alt="Gore Vidal - Wikipedia" title="Gore Vidal - Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved — Judaism, Christianity, Islam. These are sky-god religions. They are, literally, patriarchal — God is the Omnipotent Father — hence the loathing of women for 2,000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, of course. He requires total obedience from everyone on earth, as he is in place not for just one tribe but for all creation. Those who would reject him must be converted or killed for their own good. Ultimately, totalitarianism is the only sort of politics that can truly serve the sky-god's purpose."&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Gore Vidal in "America First? America Last? America at Last?", (1992)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western World. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity — much less dissent."&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;em&gt;- Gore Vidal in "Cue the Green God, Ted" (1991)&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Everybody likes a bit of gossip to some point, as long as it’s gossip with some point to it. That’s why I like history. History is nothing but gossip about the past, with the hope that it might be." &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Quoted in Gert Jonkers, "Gore Vidal, the Fantastic Man," (2007)&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The hatred Americans have for their own government is pathological, if understandable. At one level it is simply thwarted greed: since our religion is making a buck, giving a part of that buck to any government is an act against nature."&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Gore Vidal in "The State of the Union", Esquire magazine, (1975)&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;At any given moment, public opinion is a chaos of superstition, misinformation, and prejudice.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Gore Vidal in "Sex and the Law," Partisan Review (Summer 1965)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Religions are manipulated in order to serve those who govern society and not the other way around."&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Gore Vidal in "Sex Is Politics" (1979)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The average "educated" American has been made to believe that, somehow, the United States must lead the world even though hardly anyone has any information at all about those countries we are meant to lead. Worse, we have very little information about our own country and its past. That is why it is not really possible to compare a writer like Howells with any living American writer because Howells thought that it was a good thing to know as much as possible about his own country as well as other countries while our writers today, in common with the presidents and paint manufacturers, live in a present without past among signs whose meanings are uninterpretable.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Gore Vidal in "William Dean Howells" (1983)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I regard monotheism as the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race. I see no good in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam — good people, yes, but any religion based on a single... well, frenzied and virulent god, is not as useful to the human race as, say, Confucianism, which is not a religion but an ethical and educational system that has worked pretty well for twenty-five hundred years. So you see I am ecumenical in my dislike for the Book. But like it or not, the Book is there; and because of it people die; and the world is in danger."&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Gore Vidal in Appendix of "At Home" (1988)&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You cannot get through the density of the propaganda with which the American people, through the dreaded media, have been filled and the horrible public educational system we have for the average person. It's just grotesque."&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&lt;br&gt;
- Gore Vidal in "Gore Vidal's America" (2009)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You know, I've been around the ruling class all my life, and I've been quite aware of their total contempt for the people of the country."&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Gore Vidal in "Gore Vidal's America" (2009)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_vidal"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_vidal&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
"Eugene Luther Gore Vidal ( /ˌɡɔr vɨˈdɑːl/;[1][2] October 3, 1925 – July 31, 2012) was an American author, playwright, essayist, screenwriter, and political activist. His third novel, The City and the Pillar (1948), outraged conservative critics as one of the first major American novels to feature unambiguous homosexuality. He also ran for political office twice and was a longtime political critic."&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/08/03/the-sky-god-is-a-jealous-god-or-the-best-bits-by-gore-vidal-14365991/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2012-07-20:/2012/07/20/why-there-a-is-a-big-difference-between-having-strong-opinions-and-believing-in-absolute-truths-14158019/</id><title>Why there a is a  big difference between having strong opinions and believing in absolute truths?</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/07/20/why-there-a-is-a-big-difference-between-having-strong-opinions-and-believing-in-absolute-truths-14158019/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2012-07-20T18:46:48+02:00</published><updated>2012-07-20T21:08:33+02:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;"To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because one is sure that it is false, is to assume that one's own certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility."&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty" (1859)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Opinions are the basis of all human activity and societies. We have millions of opinions; some we learn as children, some from experience, some from books, some from television, some in the workplace and we learn them from many kinds of other sources.&lt;br&gt;
Human social life would be well nigh impossible without opinions. All ideologies and religions are opinions of how things should be. Human societies would simply not ever develop further if people would stop having opinions. However, good societies are quite universally based on compromises that are built between differing opinions and bad societies are commonly those where only one kind of opinion is tolerated.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Sadly, even most of our opinions are not based on some kind of impartial interpretation of facts. They are, in fact, results of many different kind of accidents. Most of all a decisive factor is where we happen to be born and in what kind of family we are born.&lt;br&gt;
However, important factors are also things like who we happen to meet, what books we happen to read, what movies did we happen to see, what kind of schooling did we happen to choose and what kind of job just happened to be on offer when we needed a job.&lt;br&gt;
All these accidents of life can lead to accumulation of different kinds of opinions. I think that it is often overlooked how tremendously the work we do for any longer period will change us and most of all our opinions to a certain direction.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Luckily for us, nowadays here in the west only the very religious people, the few remaining communists and also some libertarians seem to think that their opinions are some kind of absolute truths and not opinions. The rest of us well understand that we can have different goals in life. These will lead to different opinions and decisions are normally based on some kind of compromises.&lt;br&gt;
Opinions as such are really not a problem, as we would simply be lost without opinions. The problem arise when the level of passion with which opinions are held does rise. Problems do so often come when people do see their opinions as some kind of absolute truths.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Oer-Weimarer_Musenhof.jpg/776px-Oer-Weimarer_Musenhof.jpg" alt="Wikipedia" title="Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;However, the main deciding factor is the amount of "absolute truthers" in a society. Followers of an "absolute truth" are not a major problem as long they are a minority and most of all they do not get to dictate national policies or if there are several "absolute truths" competing for power.&lt;br&gt;
Luckily, even a former "absolute truth" can reach such a level of moderation that it is not a problem anymore, as has happened to mainstream Christianity in the Western Europe.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Fear is a very central problem with absolute truths. Many believers want to believe in an absolute truth, even if they deep inside fear that this "truth" (opinion) is not absolute. Such a person all too often sees even the existence of differing opinions as a threat and as an insult to his truth. This leads tom oppression and violence.&lt;br&gt;
“Absolute truths” are important vehicles for power. Defending ones position of power is so often much easier when one can withdraw behind a smokescreen of “defending the Only Truth”.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;People can have political and ideological goals and can strive even strongly to achieve them without thinking that these ideas are a final and unmovable truths. In fact, such people often achieve more than people who believe that they are carriers of absolute truths.&lt;br&gt;
A compromise just is so often easier to accomplish than outright defeat of the opposing ideas. A compromise so often lives on even if your opponents get the upper hand later, when the results of an outright defeat are easily wiped out in such a situation. Our societies are based on compromises on a very large scale. They work reasonably well, when the uncompromising carriers of Final Truths in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia have disappeared.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Striving to achieve certain fixed goals like liberation of slaves or women is a different thing as trying to force all people to think like you on most facets of life. This is a thing that strong ideologies like traditional Christianity, Islam or communism commonly have tried to do.&lt;br&gt;
The idea of opposing slavery is based on an opinion that has been very widely accepted in our society, but is is still an opinion. It is a great, moral and most of all an extremely humanistic opinion, but it still is just on opinion and not absolute truth. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/07/20/why-there-a-is-a-big-difference-between-having-strong-opinions-and-believing-in-absolute-truths-14158019/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2012-07-19:/2012/07/19/how-could-we-get-rid-of-the-wave-of-rudeness-in-social-networks-14149887/</id><title>How could we get rid of  the wave of rudeness in social networks?</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/07/19/how-could-we-get-rid-of-the-wave-of-rudeness-in-social-networks-14149887/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2012-07-19T14:08:47+02:00</published><updated>2012-07-19T14:08:47+02:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;Internet has made rudeness more visible, and most of all it has given many people more opportunities to be rude without consequences. I would love to see a situation where everybody is allowed to be a comment in places like Facebook only with their own face, name and address. I think that this change would have a marked effect on the life in social networks.&lt;br&gt;
The move form anonymity to personal accountability would strip out a lot of unnecessary rudeness. It is now largely done just for the fun of it, and most of all because there just are no consequences.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;I do not like being rude myself, even if I must admit that I am sometimes myself carried away in defending the ideas that I see important. Stil, I normally try to make my point without being unnecessarily rude.&lt;br&gt;
However, I am not always successful, and I am ashamed of my failings that do normally happen in the heat of a debate. On the other hand, I have no problems with insults and rude behavior towards me personally. I can take anything with a grain of salt. This the more so, as I know a little about motivational theory and basic human psychology.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;However, I am worried about how the general level of discussion is lowered by those who ambush from the bush with false names and 100 per cent certainty. I think that they should have a playground of their own for themselves. The people who really want to discuss as adults should be allowed to kep arenas like Facebook to themselves.&lt;br&gt;
Facebook really was not built and intended as a platform for abuse and insults. It was created as a tool for communication between thinking and feeling human beings.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Social_Red.jpg" alt="Social network diagram, meso-level - Wikipedia" title="Social network diagram, meso-level - Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;I must stress I talk about the general future of platforms like Facebook. So many people just cannot take the rampant abuse and general idiocy anymore that normally comes from the people who are operating under false identities. The abusers will normally not do this kind of things to their neighbors or friends. Then their behavior would have real consequences. However, under the guise of anonymity they can do it freely and they will never really suffer any real consequences.&lt;br&gt;
If people's identities were really checked, some of the bad apples would perhaps move to Reddit or something like it to harass other people. As long as you can pretend to be anybody you like, you can also act anyway you like.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Of course, there should also be platforms for anonymous discussion too. They are needed, for example, for those who cannot air their ideas without fear for their neighbors. This is a real problem for many atheists and freethinkers especially in places like the Islamic world.&lt;br&gt;
However, just now I think that negative sides of anonymity do outweigh the positive sides in the general platforms like Facebook. Anybody should be welcome to participate if they just are willing to openly tell who they are. This could take out a big part of abuse and general idiocy that is so rampant in so many corners of Facebook just now.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Of course, one’s idiocy is others sincerely held opinion. I must stress at this point, that people should never be blocked from expressing their ideas, even if they might sound odd or even idiotic.&lt;br&gt;
However, expressing one's opinions is quite different thing as harassing and insulting people in the sole purpose of harassing and insulting them. It just is all too easy in an anonymous world, where there just are no consequences for one’s actions.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/07/19/how-could-we-get-rid-of-the-wave-of-rudeness-in-social-networks-14149887/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2012-07-09:/2012/07/09/these-men-have-replaced-mind-with-platitude-or-the-very-best-pieces-by-c-wright-mills-14073898/</id><title>"These men have replaced mind with platitude" or the very best pieces by C. Wright Mills</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/07/09/these-men-have-replaced-mind-with-platitude-or-the-very-best-pieces-by-c-wright-mills-14073898/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2012-07-09T16:52:00+02:00</published><updated>2012-07-10T21:04:55+02:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/data/13030/ms/kt7f59q5ms/figures/kt7f59q5ms_fig027.gif" alt="C. Wright Mills" title="C. Wright Mills"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;These men have replaced mind with platitude, and the dogmas by which they are legitimated are so widely accepted that no counterbalance of mind prevails against them. They have replaced the responsible interpretation of events with the disguise of events by a maze of public relations.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;C. Wright Mills in “The Power Elite” (1956)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Those in authority within institutions and social structures attempt to justify their rule by linking it, as if it were a necessary consequence, with moral symbols, sacred emblems, or legal formulae which are widely believed and deeply internalized. These central conceptions may refer to a god or gods, the 'votes of the majority,' the 'will of the people,' the 'aristocracy of talents or wealth,' to the 'divine right of kings' or to the alleged extraordinary endowment of the person of the ruler himself.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;C. Wright Mills in “Character &amp; Social Structure (1954)&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Religion, virtually without fail, provides the army at war with its blessings, and recruits from among its officials the chaplain, who in military costume counsels and consoles and stiffens the morale of men at war.”&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;C. Wright Mills in "The Power Elite" (1956)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;They know of no solutions to the paradoxes of the Middle East and Europe, the Far East and Africa except the landing of Marines. Being baffled, and also being very tired of being baffled, they have come to believe that there is no way out—except war—which would remove all the bewildering paradoxes of their tedious and now misguided attempts to construct peace. In place of these paradoxes they prefer the bright, clear problems of war—as they used to be. For they still believe that "winning" means something, although they never tell us what.”&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;C. Wright Mills in “The Causes of World War Three” (1960)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As a proportion of the labor force, fewer individuals manipulate things, more handle people and symbols.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;C. Wright Mills in “Character &amp; Social Structure (1954)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;In the United States… a handful of corporations centralize decisions and responsibilities that are relevant for military and political as well as economic developments of global significance. For nowadays the military and the political cannot be separated from economic considerations of power. We now live not in an economic order or a political order, but in a political economy that is closely linked with military institutions and decisions. This is obvious in the repeated "oil crisis" in the Middle East, or in the relevance of Southeast Asia and African resources for the Western powers…”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;C&lt;em&gt;. Wright Mills in “Character &amp; Social Structure” (1954).&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nobody talks more of free enterprise and competition and of the best man winning than the man who inherited his father's store or farm.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;C. Wright Mills in “White Collar :The American Middle Classes” (1951)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The American elite does not have any real image of peace — other than as an uneasy interlude existing precariously by virtue of the balance of mutual fright. The only seriously accepted plan for peace is the full loaded pistol. In short, war or a high state of war-preparedness is felt to be the normal and seemingly permanent condition of the United States.”&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;C. Wright Mills in “The Power Elite” (1956)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;One great lesson that we can learn from its systematic absence in the work of the grand theorists is that every self-conscious thinker must at all times be aware of — and hence be able to control — the levels of abstraction on which he is working. The capacity to shuttle between levels of abstraction, with ease and with clarity, is a signal mark of the imaginative and systematic thinker.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;C. Wright Mills in “The Sociological Imagination”  (1959)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The more we understand what is happening in the world, the more frustrated we often become, for our knowledge leads to feelings of powerlessness.&lt;br&gt;
We feel that we are living in a world in which the citizen has become a mere spectator or a forced actor, and that our personal experience is politically useless and our political will a minor illusion. Very often, the fear of total permanent war paralyzes the kind of morally oriented politics, which might engage our interests and our passions. We sense the cultural mediocrity around us-and in us-and we know that ours is a time when, within and between all the nations of the world, the levels of public sensibilities have sunk below sight; atrocity on a mass scale has become impersonal and official; moral indignation as a public fact has become extinct or made trivial.&lt;br&gt;
We feel that distrust has become nearly universal among men of affairs, and that the spread of public anxiety is poisoning human relations and drying up the roots of private freedom.We see that people at the top often identify rational dissent with political mutiny, loyalty with blind conformity, and freedom of judgment with treason. We feel that irresponsibility has become organized in high places and that clearly those in charge of the historic decisions of our time are not up to them. But what is more damaging to us is that we feel that those on the bottom-the forced actors who take the consequences-are also without leaders, without ideas of opposition, and that they make no real demands upon those with power.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;C. Wright Mills in “Letters &amp; Autobiographical Writings” (1954)&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Wright_Mills"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Wright_Mills&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
”Charles Wright Mills (August 28, 1916, Waco, Texas – March 20, 1962, West Nyack, New York) was an American sociologist, and a professor of sociology atColumbia University from 1946 until his death in 1962. Mills published widely in popular and intellectual journals, and is remembered for several books, among them The Power Elite, which introduced that term and describes the relationships and class alliances among the U.S. political, military, and economic elites, White Collar, on the American middle class, and The Sociological Imagination, where Mills proposes the proper relationship in sociological scholarship between biography and history and theory and method.”&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/07/09/these-men-have-replaced-mind-with-platitude-or-the-very-best-pieces-by-c-wright-mills-14073898/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2012-07-04:/2012/07/04/did-descartes-have-it-the-wrong-way-around-14046105/</id><title>Did Descartes have it the wrong way around?</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/07/04/did-descartes-have-it-the-wrong-way-around-14046105/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2012-07-04T18:46:48+02:00</published><updated>2012-07-04T18:55:13+02:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;“If philosophy is about how we see humans, societies the universe and also how we would like them to be, science is just about how they are. One could even say that philosophy collects opinions about facts, when science collects facts about opinions. However, we definitely need also opinions. The opinions that are presented by philosophy can help us to decide what we need to do with the facts that are presented by science.”&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Jaakko J. Wallenius in Being Human -blog(2012)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;"I am, therefore I think."&lt;/em&gt; I know that that is not what &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes"&gt;René Descartes&lt;/a&gt; said, but the exact opposite of it. However, he did know next to nothing about how the human brain and cognition do really work. If cognition is just brain activity and cognition does produce the brain activity that is sometimes labeled as "mind", there is no need to talk about other things than brain-activity and all other ideas are just empty talk.&lt;br&gt;
I know that there might still be "considerable philosophical debate" over many issues that science has solved a long time ago. This all too often because theists do never give an inch. They just stick to their guns and bring up the old philosophers who did theorize about things on which they had no real data available on their time.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;However, now we know so many things better than before. On many things we need not to theorize anymore, but we can have real knowledge. That is true most of all on issues that concern things like human cognition and "mind". However, the old philosophical "theories" are still kept alive, often by people who need them to support their ideology.&lt;br&gt;
Some people really seem to think that there are "philosophical issues" that can be totally removed from the reality. Often they label people who disagree with them "science-believers". This label is given to people who think that philosophy needs to address issues that really are known to exist.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;What Descartes did think or did not think about human cognition or "mind" is just not very relevant anymore. We know with extreme certainty that he just did not know what he was talking about when he wrote about the relationship between mind and brain.&lt;br&gt;
Of course, one can take philosophy as a form of crosswords. Then it is not really important how things that are debated relate to the things that we know with great certainty. The level of knowledge concerning the workings of the human brain and cognition was simply just laughable at the time of Descartes. What he uttered based on that knowledge is of historical interest only.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Frans_Hals_-_Portret_van_Ren%C3%A9_Descartes.jpg/490px-Frans_Hals_-_Portret_van_Ren%C3%A9_Descartes.jpg" alt="Rene Descartes - Wikipedia" title="Rene Descartes - Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Of course, there are especially Christians who just love to cling to these old ideas that all to often stem from the time of ignorance. They see that can protect their pet ideology with these outdated ideas. However, I just hope that serious followers of philosophy would not fall into that trap anymore.&lt;br&gt;
We just have masses of information concerning that Descartes simply did not have. It is also hardly likely that he would write anything similar is he would be alive today and would have the knowledge that we have now.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;After we die, we do live in the memories of others and in our works and deeds that have left their mark in the world. However, there is not a single shred of evidence that any part of consciousness would be left behind after a human’s brain stops working. Brain-activity creates the 'mind', and when there is no brain-activity there is no ' mind'.&lt;br&gt;
The sentence &lt;em&gt;"I am, therefore I think." &lt;/em&gt;in the beginning of this piece is from a piece by Michael Shermer that was published in Scientific American. In conclusion, he wrote;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;“No one denies that consciousness is a hard problem. But before we reify consciousness to the level of an independent agency capable of creating its own reality, let's give the hypotheses we do have for how brains create mind more time. Because we know for a fact that measurable consciousness dies when the brain dies, until proved otherwise, the default hypothesis must be that brains cause consciousness. I am, therefore I think.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Michael Shermer in: &lt;a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-happens-to-consciousness-when-we-die"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-happens-to-consciousness-when-we-die"&gt;http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-happens-to-consciousness-when-we-die&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/07/04/did-descartes-have-it-the-wrong-way-around-14046105/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2012-06-26:/2012/06/26/was-plato-the-grandfather-of-modern-totalitarianism-a-review-of-the-open-society-and-its-enemies-volume-1-the-spell-of-plato-by-karl-popper-13948802/</id><title>Was Plato the grandfather of modern totalitarianism? - A review of “The Open Society and Its Enemies: Volume 1: The Spell of Plato” by Karl Popper.</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/06/26/was-plato-the-grandfather-of-modern-totalitarianism-a-review-of-the-open-society-and-its-enemies-volume-1-the-spell-of-plato-by-karl-popper-13948802/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2012-06-26T19:25:48+02:00</published><updated>2012-06-29T10:30:00+02:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;I have stated before in this blog that Plato and Aristotle are in my mind the most overvalued and over-glorified men in the history of philosophy. This is mainly simply because their ideas can fit with the Christian ideology. Christians have for centuries promoted actively these men and their ideas. This has happened on the expense of the other (and even greater) Greek thinkers, who quite universally rejected the ideas of the supernatural kind that surprisingly found support from Plato and Aristotle.&lt;br&gt;
The first part of &lt;a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Open-Society-Its-Enemies/dp/0415237319/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1340730374&amp;sr=1-1"&gt;“The Open Society and Its Enemies”&lt;/a&gt; by&lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper"&gt; Karl Popper&lt;/a&gt; is basically an attack on Plato and his totalitarian ideology. Karl Popper does reveal time after time the totalitarian tendencies behind the thinking of Plato. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;I know well that this book will never find approval by the multitudes of people who had led to believe that Plato stood for something noble, when he requested that power in the society should be given to a “philosopher-king” and a class of professional philosophers supporting him.&lt;br&gt;
However, Karl Popper does show how this all is just a facade for the rule of the owning class and for the creation of a society where nothing ever will change. According to Karl Popper Plato did see change as as the big evil in society. Plato did, in fact, see change as a evil that needed to be combated all cost. He did see it as a even principal source for anarchy and social unrest.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Karl Popper does show how Plato longed to get back to tribal society, where everybody’s place in society is anchored at birth, and nothing ever changes. Karl Popper does also show how this is simply impossible in a more developed world that is full of change. Fight against change will cause only suffering and deprivation.&lt;br&gt;
Karl Popper shows how Plato tried to build a model for a perfect totalitarian society where every single decision and every single act needs to support one grand idea; to further the needs of the state.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://rogueoperator.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/open-society-and-its-enemies.jpg" alt="Open Society and its enemies" title="Open Society and its enemies"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Plato writes:&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;“The greatest principle of all is that nobody, whether male or female, should ever be without a leader. Nor should the mind of anybody be habituated to letting him do anything at all on his own initiative, neither out of zeal, nor even playfully.&lt;br&gt;
But in war and in the midst of peace, to his leader he shall direct his eye, and follow him faithfully. And even in the smallest matters he should stand under leadership. For example, he should get up, or move, or wash, or take his meals . . . only if he has been told to do so . . . In a word, he should teach his soul, by long habit, never to dream of acting independently, and to become utterly incapable of it. In this way, the life of all will be spent in total community. There is no law, nor will there ever be one, which is superior to this, or better and more effective in ensuring salvation and victory in the war. And in times of peace, and from the earliest childhood on should it be fostered: this habit of ruling others and of being ruled by others.”&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;This is a frightening dystopia. It is extremely difficult to see why any modern person would want to glorify a person who does harbor ideas like this. This is not an exceptional thing, but the works of Plato are filled with ideas like these. When the good of the state is raised to be the only worthwhile goal, the result is all too often thinking like this.&lt;br&gt;
It is easy to see why people with a totalitarian mindset have always been so fond of Plato. On this background it is not amazing why  Christian totalitarians and Communist totalitarians alike praise Plato. The totalitarian mindset just could be more important than the exact ideology that is used to further the totalitarian ideas. The goal is all the same: total submission of the individual to the needs of the society and the ruling class.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Plato also wrote these terrible and for a modern man quite frightening lines:&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;‎"In all properly ruled communities, each man has his particular work assigned to him in the state. This he must do, and no one has time to spend his life in falling ill and getting cured." According to Plato a physician has "no right to attend to a man who cannot carry out his ordinary duties, for such a man is useless to himself and to the state. "&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;This kind of horrible thinking is really possible when the interests of the state are seen as the only worthwhile goal, as Plato did see in his later years. One thing that causes much trouble is the fact that in his very first books Plato did present some of the ideas of Socrates. However, in later years his own thinking developed to be the exact opposite to the ideals of Socrates, but he did still present them as something developed by Socrates.&lt;br&gt;
When Socrates was a defender of democracy, Plato developed to be its enemy. However, he did still use in his later books Socrates as a mouthpiece for ideas that were often quite symmetrically opposed to those of Socrates. This leads also to a strange situation when the later ideas of Plato can be explained away with references to his earlier work. However, in his earliest works he was still explaining the grand ideas of Socrates, and not his own as is the case in his later works.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Page after page, Karl Popper reveals the true nature of Plato as a worshiper of unlimited power of state. Of course, many people have difficulty in realizing this. The more so, as in the works of Plato there can be found many beautiful and quite humanistic passages also. Karl Popper does, however, show how Plato was in the real world an anti-humanist, who in the later part of his life did oppose all of the central ideas of humanism to further his totalitarian ideas of a perfect state.&lt;br&gt;
This book is not a light read at all. On the other hand, Karl Popper writes in a clear and crisp language. For him writing is the servant and not the master. He does not write to show off his own artisanship but just to present his own ideas and observations as well as he can.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Karl Popper is in Facebook at: &lt;a href="http://www.facebook.com/popperphilosopher"&gt;http://www.facebook.com/popperphilosopher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_popper"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_popper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
” 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".&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;br&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/06/26/was-plato-the-grandfather-of-modern-totalitarianism-a-review-of-the-open-society-and-its-enemies-volume-1-the-spell-of-plato-by-karl-popper-13948802/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2012-06-23:/2012/06/23/unthinking-respect-for-authority-is-the-greatest-enemy-of-truth-or-the-very-best-pieces-by-albert-einstein-13924583/</id><title>"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth" or the very best pieces by Albert Einstein</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/06/23/unthinking-respect-for-authority-is-the-greatest-enemy-of-truth-or-the-very-best-pieces-by-albert-einstein-13924583/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2012-06-23T11:54:06+02:00</published><updated>2012-06-23T11:57:44+02:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Einstein_1921_portrait2.jpg/480px-Einstein_1921_portrait2.jpg" alt="Albert Einstein - Wikipedia" title="Albert Einstein - Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Albert Einstein in a letter to Jost Winteler (1901)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;To punish me for my contempt of authority, Fate has made me an authority myself.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Albert Einstein in a aphorism for a friend (18 September 1930)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I am by heritage a Jew, by citizenship a Swiss, and by makeup a human being, and only a human being, without any special attachment to any state or national entity whatsoever.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Albert Einstein in a letter to Alfred Kneser (7 June 1918)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. … For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;br&gt;
Albert Einstein in “Gutkind Letter” (3 January 1954)&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I am neither a German citizen, nor do I believe in anything that can be described as a "Jewish faith."&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Albert Einstein in a letter to Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith, 3 April 1920&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Albert Einstein in a letter to his son Eduard (5 February 1930)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding. You cannot subjugate a nation forcibly unless you wipe out every man, woman, and child. Unless you wish to use such drastic measures, you must find a way of settling your disputes without resort to arms.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Albert Einstein in  a a speech to the New History Society (14 December 1930)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Albert Einstein in a letter to Guy H. Raner Jr. (2 July 1945) &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Albert Einstein in as quoted by Virgil Henshaw in Albert Einstein : Philosopher Scientist (1949)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth — rocks!”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Albert Einstein in as quoted in an interview with Alfred Werner, published in Liberal Judaism 16 (April-May 1949)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Albert Einstein as quoted in Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they might come to be stamped as "necessities of thought," "a priori givens," etc. The path of scientific progress is often made impassable for a long time by such errors. Therefore it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analysing long-held commonplace concepts and showing the circumstances on which their justification and usefulness depend, and how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. Thus their excessive authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, or replaced if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason.”&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Albert Einstein in obituary for physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach, Physikalische Zeitschrift 17 (1916)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when contemplating the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of the mystery every day. The important thing is not to stop questioning; never lose a holy curiosity.”&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Albert Einstein in a statement to William Miller, as quoted in LIFE magazine (2 May 1955)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
"Albert Einstein (14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955) was a German theoretical physicist who developed the theory of general relativity, effecting a revolution in physics. For this achievement, Einstein is often regarded as the father of modern physics. Einstein is generally considered the most influential physicist of the 20th century. While best known for his mass–energy 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."&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/06/23/unthinking-respect-for-authority-is-the-greatest-enemy-of-truth-or-the-very-best-pieces-by-albert-einstein-13924583/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2012-06-19:/2012/06/19/do-we-need-an-ideology-that-helps-us-to-justify-greed-13902873/</id><title>Do we need an ideology that helps us to justify greed?</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/06/19/do-we-need-an-ideology-that-helps-us-to-justify-greed-13902873/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2012-06-19T18:33:31+02:00</published><updated>2012-06-19T18:33:31+02:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;"He always pictured himself a libertarian, which to my way of thinking means "I want the liberty to grow rich and you can have the liberty to starve". It's easy to believe that no one should depend on society for help when you yourself happen not to need such help." &lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;-Isaac Asimov, in "I. Asimov : A Memoir" (1994)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;It is interesting to compare the lists of countries with heaviest taxation and lists of countries with highest general level of happiness or lists of countries with highest general level of living.&lt;br&gt;
The similarities are just striking, and they really are no coincidence. The message is clear as bell; if you want just the rich people to be happy, you can well cut taxation. However, societies where the rich do not pay taxes tend to be very unsafe, unstable and dangerous places most of all to the rich. The odd thing is that they never tend to see the connection.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Taxation is in the end a just a system where you give some of it to a common chest to be used to common purposes that benefit the whole society. From this common chest, this money is distributed back to the society to pay for the services and infrastructure that people need to live and prosper in a safe society.&lt;br&gt;
Only a fool (or a dogmatic Libertarian) would say that money, which is taken in by government and then a bit later spend on the same economy, would have somehow vanished in the process.Really, that same money is used to pay for teachers and builders of the bridges is paid in taxes. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Tax-money does not vanish from society, but it returns to society immediately when it is used to pay the teachers and doctors or build roads and bridges or to give pay pensions.&lt;br&gt;
On the other hand, money that is used just for endless gambling in old stocks in the stock markets is very often completely lost from the real circulation of money. The money in stock markets and most of all derivatives stays all too often in a closed system. The money just goes around from bad betters to better betters, but it does not do anything real while it just goes around in endless circles. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Taxation has nothing to do with socialism or communism as such. Taxation was extremely low in communist countries. There were extremely low taxes in Soviet Union, and as far as I can see it was not a paradise, far from it.&lt;br&gt;
According to one source: "Taxes in USSR were 12% from first 100 rubles per month and 8.6% from anything over 100 rubles per month plus 5% from total earnings for childless people. And only Communist party (or Komsomol) members were charged the dues."&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;There really are libertarians who think that governments are not needed at all. However, for example, governments do provide health services that save thousands of lives; even of those who have no money to pay for health services here in Scandinavia and Western Europe. That is possible because we have had strong governments and stability for a long time.&lt;br&gt;
Not having a government is often, however, extremely dangerous. As in a world without a working government, the ruffians and men with most hired guns have the power. You do need to have a lot of faith to see it as a better situation from the viewpoint of an ordinarily citizen. The rich can pay for their own security and health care in stateless societies, however, but who wants to build societies that are good only for the rich?&lt;br&gt;
Children will hate it when they are not allowed to what they want and many people complain about government regulating their business. For example, health regulations are a burden for a restaurant-owner that is for sure! It would be much easier, for example, if nobody checks that your refrigerators do work properly, and meat in there is not rotting. You would make much more money when you could sell also the stuff that has just a little rot in it.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/The_Kitchen_at_Delmonico%27s%2C_1902.JPG" alt="Wikipedia" title="Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Customer-safety is a typical example of safety in our society that has been produced by government regulations. There are situations where markets can help. However,  a restaurant is an arch-type of a situation where a customer just cannot ever know what happens in the kitchen and what he is really being served. We need an impartial referee to defend the customers from abuse,&lt;br&gt;
It is naturally really stupid to think that ALL businessmen are crooks. However, only a stupid person would not admit that inevitably always SOME are, and customers must be protected from these persons.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Libertarianism is the Communism of our day. Libertarians have a dogmatic idea of a Utopian ideal state. In this Utopia  there is no or very little taxation, and most of all governments do not interfere in the daily lives of people at all.&lt;br&gt;
The Libertarian utopianism is all too often not moved by facts as little as Communistic utopianism was moved by the apparent failures of real-world communism. A faith that is not changed or affected by apparent facts is always dangerous to rational society. The spread of Libertarianism is a real danger to all well-run and safe societies.&lt;br&gt;
Most of all, a good Libertarian is not moved by human suffering that is inevitably caused by his ideology as little as a good Communist was moved but the suffering of the class-enemy.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Libertarianism is made even more dangerous by the fact that it defends the interest of an already very powerful class in the society. It tells the rich that it is alright not to pay taxes. It tells that it is best to leave the poor to their own devices. Libertarianism gives a sweet coating of ideology to pure greed and cold-hearted selfishness.&lt;br&gt;
The frightening thing is that the rich are eager to accept ideas that make greed look good. An ideology that tells that it is okay not to help the less fortunate makes it to also harder for them to accept taxation.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;After a certain point, money and wealth do become just symbols of status. This happens when all of your basic needs are being taken care of. After that point it is, in fact, irrelevant if some part of income is, for example, lost in bad bets in the stock market or if it is given to state for building and keeping up of schools and hospitals.&lt;br&gt;
However, one can easily come up with reasons for not giving money to society and keeping it all to oneself, as human nature is just built in this way. We want to keep it all, even if we do not need it now. There is always the slight possibility that we could need it tomorrow.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;An ideology that we can use justify our personal greed is always welcome, as then we are not acting just on a personal greed, but we can point to a higher cause. However, Libertarians fail to see how building of a safe society is in the best interests of the rich themselves.&lt;br&gt;
They quite universally fail to see the connection between the lack of social safety nets and rise in criminality and general instability of a society. This naturally happens because Libertarians just do not want to see such a connection.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;They fail to see that by sharing some of the wealth that they really do not need they can help to build a society where they and their children can feel themselves a lot safer. Understanding this, however, requires the ability to rise above the daily humdrum and ability to look at society on a bit larger perspective. An unpleasant fact is that very many people lack this ability.&lt;br&gt;
This is one of the reasons why we need political parties and ideologies that try to keep the higher goals alive in a world that is more and more governed by personal greed.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The libertarian phobia as to the state reflects and reproduces a profound misunderstanding of the operative forces which make for social control in the modern world. If — and this is a big “if,” especially where bourgeois libertarians are concerned — what you want is to maximize individual autonomy, then it is quite clear that the state is the least of the phenomena which stand in your way.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Bob Black, in "The Libertarian as Conservative" (1984), published in The Abolition of Work and Other Essays (1986)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Unlike side issues like unemployment, unions, and minimum-wage laws, the subject of work itself is almost entirely absent from libertarian literature. Most of what little there is consists of Randite rantings against parasites, barely distinguishable from the invective inflicted on dissidents by the Soviet press, and Sunday-school platitudinizing that there is no free lunch — this from fat cats who have usually ingested a lot of them.&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- Bob Black, in "The Libertarian as Conservative" (1984)&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/06/19/do-we-need-an-ideology-that-helps-us-to-justify-greed-13902873/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry><entry><id>tag:beinghuman.blogs.fi,2012-06-10:/2012/06/10/the-art-of-life-is-to-know-how-to-enjoy-a-little-and-to-endure-much-or-the-very-best-pieces-by-william-hazlitt-13837532/</id><title>"The art of life is to know how to enjoy a little and to endure much" or the very best pieces by William Hazlitt</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/06/10/the-art-of-life-is-to-know-how-to-enjoy-a-little-and-to-endure-much-or-the-very-best-pieces-by-william-hazlitt-13837532/"/><author><name>jaskaw</name></author><published>2012-06-10T10:25:36+02:00</published><updated>2012-06-10T10:29:33+02:00</updated><content type="html">	&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/William_Hazlitt_self-portrait_%281802%29.jpg" alt="William Hazlitt - Wikipedia" title="William Hazlitt - Wikipedia"&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The art of life is to know how to enjoy a little and to endure much.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- William Hazlitt in "Common Places," No. 1, The Literary Examiner (1823)&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Corporate bodies are more corrupt and profligate than individuals, because they have more power to do mischief, and are less amenable to disgrace or punishment. They feel neither shame, remorse, gratitude, nor goodwill.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;-&lt;em&gt; William Hazlitt in "On Corporate Bodies" in "Table Talk: Essays On Men And Manners" (1821-1822)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The slaves of power mind the cause they have to serve, because their own interest is concerned; but the friends of liberty always sacrifice their cause, which is only the cause of humanity, to their own spleen, vanity, and self-opinion.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- William Hazlitt in   Review of Lord Byron's Childe Harold in Yellow Dwarf (1818), &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Those who aim at faultless regularity will only produce mediocrity, and no one ever approaches perfection except by stealth, and unknown to themselves.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- William Hazlitt in "Thoughts on Taste", Edinburgh Magazine (July 1819)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Man is a make-believe animal — he is never so truly himself as when he is acting a part.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;br&gt;
- William Hazlitt in "Notes of a Journey through France and Italy" (1824) &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The least pain in our little finger gives us more concern and uneasiness, than the destruction of millions of our fellow-beings.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- William Hazlitt in "American Literature — Dr. Channing," Edinburgh Review, (October 1829)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The origin of all science is in the desire to know causes; and the origin of all false science and imposture is in the desire to accept false causes rather than none; or, which is the same thing, in the unwillingness to acknowledge our own ignorance."&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;-  William Hazlitt in "Burke and the Edinburgh phrenologists". The Atlas (15 Feb 1829)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;When a thing ceases to be a subject of controversy, it ceases to be a subject of interest.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- William Hazlitt in "On The Spirit of Controversy," The Atlas (1830)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Books let us into their souls and lay open to us the secrets of our own.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- William Hazlitt in "The Sick Chamber" in The New Monthly Magazine (1830)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
There is, however, no prejudice so strong as that which arises from a fancied exemption from all prejudice.”&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- William Hazlitt in "On the Tendency of Sects" in "The Round Table" (1815-1817)&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Tory is one who is governed by sense and habit alone. He considers not what is possible, but what is real; he gives might the preference over right. He cries long life to the conqueror, and is ever strong upon the stronger side — the side of corruption and prerogative.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- William Hazlitt in "Political Essays" (1819)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- William Hazlitt in Political Essays (1819)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps; for he is the only animal that is struck with the difference between what things are, and what they ought to be.”&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- William Hazlitt in “On Wit and Humour" in "Lectures on the English Comic Writers" (1819)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Danger is a good teacher, and makes apt scholars. So are disgrace, defeat, exposure to immediate scorn and laughter. There is no opportunity in such cases for self-delusion, no idling time away, no being off your guard (or you must take the consequences) — neither is there any room for humour or caprice or prejudice."&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- William Hazlitt in "The Indian Jugglers" Table Talk: Essays On Men And Manners (1821-1822)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What I mean by living to one's-self is living in the world, as in it, not of it: it is as if no one know there was such a person, and you wished no one to know it: it is to be a silent spectator of the mighty scene of things, not an object of attention or curiosity in it; to take a thoughtful, anxious interest in what is passing in the world, but not to feel the slightest inclination to make or meddle with it.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- William Hazlitt in "On Living to One's-Self" in "Table Talk: Essays On Men And Manners" (1821-1822)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Even in the common affairs of life, in love, friendship, and marriage, how little security have we when we trust our happiness in the hands of others!”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- William Hazlitt in "On Living to One's-Self" in "Table Talk: Essays On Men And Manners" (1821-1822)&lt;br&gt;
 &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It has been the resolution of mankind in all ages of the world. No people, no age, ever threw away the fruits of past wisdom, or the enjoyment of present blessings, for visionary schemes of ideal perfection. It is the knowledge of the past, the actual infliction of the present, that has produced all changes, all innovations, and all improvements — not (as is pretended) the chimerical anticipation of possible advantages, but the intolerable pressure of long-established, notorious, aggravated, and growing abuses.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- William Hazlitt in "On Paradox and Common-Place" on "Table Talk: Essays On Men And Manners" (1821-1822)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;We are very much what others think of us. The reception our observations meet with gives us courage to proceed, or damps our efforts.”&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- William Hazlitt in "Characteristics, in the manner of Rochefoucauld's Maxims" (1823)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;An honest man speaks the truth, though it may give offence; a vain man, in order that it may. &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;- William Hazlitt in “Characteristics, in the manner of Rochefoucauld's Maxims" (1823)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hazlitt"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hazlitt&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
"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. During his lifetime he befriended many people who are now part of the 19th-century literary canon, including Charles and Mary Lamb, Stendhal, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and William Wordsworth."&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;William Hazlitt in "A Little Book Humanity":  &lt;a href="http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/14/william-hazlitt-on-love-of-liberty-7755865/"&gt;http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/14/william-hazlitt-on-love-of-liberty-7755865/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2012/06/10/the-art-of-life-is-to-know-how-to-enjoy-a-little-and-to-endure-much-or-the-very-best-pieces-by-william-hazlitt-13837532/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt; </content></entry></feed>
