Table of Contents

The Little Book of Humanity.............................................................................................................................1

Philip K. Dick on reality and beliefs..................................................................................................................2

Bertrand Russell on war.....................................................................................................................................5

Bertrand Russell on certainty............................................................................................................................8

Ryszard Kapuscinski on achieving goals........................................................................................................10

Richard Feynman on not fooling oneself........................................................................................................13

Feedback for Post "Richard Feynman on not fooling oneself"..............................................................16

Bertrand Russell on reason and courage........................................................................................................17

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on reason and courage"...............................................................19

Molly Ivins on confusion in democracy..........................................................................................................20

Feedback for Post "Molly Ivins on confusion in democracy"...............................................................23

Thomas Jefferson on democracy.....................................................................................................................24

Friedrich Durrenmatt on state as a mythical entity......................................................................................27

George Orwell on truth as a revolutionary act..............................................................................................30

William Hazlitt on love of liberty and love of power.....................................................................................33

Thomas Paine on renouncing reason..............................................................................................................36

Feedback for Post "Thomas Paine on renouncing reason"....................................................................39

Bertrand Russell on virtuous and wicked nations.........................................................................................41

Robert G. Ingersoll on happiness...................................................................................................................44

Feedback for Post " Robert G. Ingersoll on happiness".........................................................................46

Robert Owen on the interests of human race.................................................................................................47

Feedback for Post "Robert Owen on the interests of human race"........................................................49

Steven Weinberg on farce and tragedy of human life...................................................................................50

Jared Diamond on patriotic and religious fanatics........................................................................................53

Baron May of Oxford on dangers of fundamentalism..................................................................................56

John Stuart Mill on discovering new truths...................................................................................................59

i
 Table of Contents
Marcus Aurelius on death................................................................................................................................62
Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on death".....................................................................................65

Epicurus on need for natural science..............................................................................................................66

Robert Owen on spirit of universal charity....................................................................................................69

Bertrand Russell on man as a credulous animal............................................................................................71

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on man as a credulous animal"...................................................74

Mark Twain on traditions................................................................................................................................75

Stephen Weinberg on good and evil................................................................................................................78

Feedback for Post "Stephen Weinberg on good and evil".....................................................................80

John Stuart Mill on want of ideas..................................................................................................................81

Bertrand Russell on the lack of exact truth....................................................................................................84

George Orwell on war-propaganda................................................................................................................86

Epicurus on myths and pleasure.....................................................................................................................89

Kurt Vonnegut on noticing happiness.............................................................................................................92

Feedback for Post "Kurt Vonnegut on noticing happiness"..................................................................94

John Stuart Mill on exercising power over individuals.................................................................................95

Feedback for Post "John Stuart Mill on exercising power over individuals"........................................98

Marcus Aurelius on crime................................................................................................................................99

Robert G. Ingersoll on the tyrant in heaven.................................................................................................102

Bertrand Russell on dogma and natural kindness.......................................................................................105

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on dogma and natural kindness"...............................................108

Marcus Aurelius on giving wealth away.......................................................................................................109

Sinclair Lewis on woes because of the devil..................................................................................................112

Thomas Paine on national institutions of churches.....................................................................................115

Epicurus on being alarmed by events in the boundless universe...............................................................118

Mark Twain on being dead............................................................................................................................121

Feedback for Post "Mark Twain on being dead "................................................................................124

ii
 Table of Contents
Marcus Aurelius on change...........................................................................................................................141

Marcus Aurelius on rejecting the sense of injury........................................................................................144

Thomas Paine on securing liberty.................................................................................................................147

Bertrand Russell on science and philosophy................................................................................................149

Bertrand Russell on good life.........................................................................................................................152

Mark Twain on loyalty to petrified opinions................................................................................................154

Feedback for Post "Mark Twain on loyalty to petrified opinions"......................................................157

Bertrand Russell on authority in science......................................................................................................158

Bertrand Russell on being cocksure..............................................................................................................160

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on being cocksure"...................................................................162

George Orwell on highly civilized human beings trying to kill him...........................................................163

Feedback for Post "George Orwell on highly civilized human beings trying to kill him"..................166

Bertrand Russell on advances in civilization................................................................................................168

George Orwell on the futility of revenge.......................................................................................................170

Feedback for Post "George Orwell on the futility of revenge"............................................................173

Thomas Paine on owning earth.....................................................................................................................174

Feedback for Post "Thomas Paine on owning earth"...........................................................................177

Bill Bryson on the unity of life.......................................................................................................................178

Feedback for Post "Bill Bryson on the unity of life"...........................................................................181

Bertrand Russell on relying upon authority.................................................................................................182

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on relying upon authority"........................................................185

Robert G. Ingersoll on ignorance..................................................................................................................186

George Orwell on atrocities...........................................................................................................................188

Bertrand Russell on skepticism and dogma.................................................................................................191

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on skepticism and dogma"........................................................194

Seneca on crimes committed by nations.......................................................................................................195

Feedback for Post "Seneca on crimes committed by nations "............................................................198

Marcus Aurelius on revoking pain................................................................................................................199

iii
 Table of Contents
Karl Popper on correcting errors in science................................................................................................202

Richard Feynman on explaining mysteries..................................................................................................205

Feedback for Post "Richard Feynman on explaining mysteries".........................................................208

Karl Popper on Utopia...................................................................................................................................210

Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on Utopia"........................................................................................213

Mark Twain on traditions..............................................................................................................................214

Bertrand Russell on enduring uncertainty...................................................................................................217

Aldous Huxley on improving the universe....................................................................................................220

Epicurus on accumulation of pleasures........................................................................................................223

Feedback for Post "Epicurus on accumulation of pleasures"..............................................................225

Iris Murdoch on making things holy.............................................................................................................226

Adam Smith on government and defending the rich...................................................................................229

A.C. Grayling on kindness, compassion, affection and mutuality..............................................................232

Marcus Aurelius on finding refuge from trouble.........................................................................................235

A. C. Grayling on whipping up lurid anxieties............................................................................................238

Voltaire on dangerous opinions.....................................................................................................................241

Feedback for Post "Voltaire on dangerous opinions"..........................................................................244

Bertrand Russell on indifference to happiness.............................................................................................247

Erich Fromm on greed as a bottomless pit...................................................................................................250

Kurt Vonnegut on death as entertainment...................................................................................................253

Feedback for Post "Kurt Vonnegut on death as entertainment"..........................................................256

Author's friends..............................................................................................................................................257

About the author.............................................................................................................................................259

Pageviews.........................................................................................................................................................260

iv
The Little Book of Humanity
Philip K. Dick on reality and beliefs

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

Philip K. Dick is of course presenting here in a few terse words a very basic and very
universal truth. In fact it is so extremely basic truth that we need somebody to put it in words
to really appreciate it.
After reading this sentence we may even think that everybody should quite naturally
understand its meaning.

However a harsh fact of life is that there are a lot of people who seem to believe that not
thinking about something makes it go away or that just wishing very hard for something to be
true really can make it come true.
People have of course all kinds of reasons for doing this. I think that reality is just often seen
as too harsh a place to be faced without a safety net offered by soothing and comforting
beliefs.

Even if a belief in soothing and comforting lies and half-truth does not make the reality go
away, the safeguarding and securing those comforting and soothing lies and half-truths can
lead into altering our personal view of reality.
Such a view is always deep buried in our mind and through it we do interpret the things that
do happen in real world.

Our own view and understanding of reality can really be changed by beliefs, and we can
ultimately act to change reality to suit our beliefs and not the other way around.
Through this process our beliefs can in the end really affect reality, even if these beliefs
would originally be based on quite irrational premises.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick
by jaskaw @ 01.01.2010 - 13:14:50

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/01/reality-is-that-which-when-you-stop-believing-in-it-7672157/
Bertrand Russell on war

"War does not determine who is right - only who is left." - Bertrand Russell (attributed)

There is no certainty if this quote is really by Bertrand Russell, but it fits his character so
exceedingly well, that I for one am quite willing to believe that he was the originator of this
great quote.
The quote shows a quick wit that he did certainly possess. First and foremost Bertrand Russell
was a dedicated pacifist all his life, who did oppose violence in its all forms.

In my mind this quote is important in reminding us that nations do not win wars because they
are morally more advanced than others or most of all because they would be carriers of the
only true ideology.
A feeling of moral superiority can of course help the war effort even greatly, but in the end all
wars are won by the nations that are more capable in the battlefield.
Wars are won by nations who can muster more powerful or technically advanced forces to the
battlefield or who can endure more and longer the hardships and suffering that is inevitably
brought about by the war.

It is all too easy easy also to forget the fact that Islam now holds sway over a billion people is
not because of its moral superiority or the greater truth-value of its message.
It is because the Arab armies storming out of the Arabian deserts into the Christian Byzantine
Empire and Zoroastrian Persia just were momentarily militarily superior to their opponents.

It did also help that these societies were beset by inner strife. The Orthodox Christian Church
of the Byzantine was very much preoccupied in a fight against the different heretic (mostly
Monophysite) sects of Egypt and Syria.
This inner conflict did weaken it considerably at the time of Arab conquest, the more so as the
many of Monophysites did ultimately welcome Arabs as liberators who saved them from the
attacks of the Christian state church.

If the Byzantine army would have been stronger and the state church more tolerant, Islam
could now be a small time religious enterprise, that is found only in the Arabian Peninsula
ands its immediate vicinity.
Quite similarly the line separating the Protestant and Catholic parts of Europe was not
decided on any kind of moral or ideological standards, but simply in the battlefields of the 30
Years War.
by jaskaw @ 02.01.2010 - 16:27:38

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/02/bertrand-russell-on-war-7678285/
Bertrand Russell on certainty

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

I do think that Bertrand Russell is setting here one of the most difficult tasks any man or
woman can face; the need to avoid accepting and having absolute certainties, as only then one
can really see all new evidence in a rational and open way.

Every single human is however so very easily and tempted to think that one has found the
only possible answer and only possible solution to difficult questions in life.
Overcoming this very human feature is not easy and I do not think it is always even possible.
However, I do think that setting this kind of unreachable goals is part of the way we really
can improve the human existence.

We can however be even very certain of very many things even if we are not absolutely
certain that these things are unmovable and eternal truths.
Think about it; there is a difference. In the end just this is the real difference between a
scientific 'truth' and a religious 'truth'.

A scientific truth is never absolute, as it can and must be changed, if new and better
information is obtained through the process of scientific inquiry.
Sadly, the act of obtaining fresh new information has never had similar effect on religious
'truths', as they are marketed as absolute and final 'truths'.

Religions do sell certainty as even their most important asset. However, it mostly is false
certainty that is not based on having the best possible answers, but more on rejecting all other
answers.

by jaskaw @ 04.01.2010 - 20:12:56

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/04/bertrand-russell-on-certainty-7692296/
Ryszard Kapuscinski on achieving goals

"Our salvation is in striving to achieve what we know we'll never achieve." - Ryszard
Kapuscinski

I was nearly overwhelmed by this quote when I first stumbled into it, as I see that it presents
in one short sentence so much of the things that I personally do see as the essence of human
enterprise and progress.

Firstly I see that Ryszard Kapuscinski is saying that humans should or even must have higher
goals in life. This is a thing that I do wholeheartedly agree with.
Secondly in my mind he is saying that striving to achieve those goals is the important thing,
not reaching them.
I do honestly think that really reaching any meaningful ultimate goals in a societal levelis
well nigh impossible, as in the real world goalpost in a society keep going further and further
when we approach them.

And this is as it should be, as I do think that every time humans have started to think that they
have reached some kind of ultimate goals in the level of whole society, the result has been big
trouble, as social development and progress have ultimately stagnated because of this illusion.
The other dangerous development is that all too easily people who are seen to threaten these
already achieved goals are soon seen as dangerous. Defending these achieved ultimate goals
can even get to be the primary function of the society.

I do really think that one can have noble and worthwhile higher goals in life, even if one
knows as Kapuzinski suggests that one can never really reach them.
The goals people do have do not become null and void because of that knowledge, but I do
think that they can even become greatly enhanced from accepting this fact.

This all is of course also all about rejecting absolutes, which of course are so dear to
mathematicians, but unfortunately non-existent in human societies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryszard_Kapu%C5%9Bci%C5%84ski

by jaskaw @ 05.01.2010 - 20:26:18

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/05/ryszard-kapuscinski-on-achieving-goals-7698454/
Richard Feynman on not fooling oneself
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and
you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman in lecture "What is and What Should be the
Role of Scientific Culture in Modern Society"

In my mind this quote collects in one sentence much of the contradictions and also of the greatness that is
always inherent in general scientific method used by the modern scientific world.

Science wants and tries to be as impersonal as is possible, but we must accept the fact all the things that
people do in the real world can become even very personal in the end.
When a scientist thinks that he or she has discovered something really new and worthwhile, he or she will
inevitably create a personal relationship with that discovery, whatever it is.

There is no escaping this fact that science is a personal thing also, but the true power of the modern scientific
method lies in the fact that these personal feelings do not generally matter very much in the long run.
In the end all scientific findings are put though the grueling test of peer review and overall scrutiny by the best
experts in the given field of expertise, before they can really be incorporated as part of the scientific
explanation of the world.
The aim is that all truly important findings are rigorously reviewed by people who are not friends of the
originators of the original idea or are in many cases even their worst competitors for scientific glory.
This system makes sure that the personal attachment to an idea by the originator of the scientific theory does
not matter in the end.

Because of this science can truly be a vehicle for attaining a much truer and clearer view of the world than any
single human being can ever reach alone, even if all individual scientists are just human beings, with all the
failings of the human beings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

by jaskaw @ 07.01.2010 - 23:48:19

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/07/richard-feynman-on-not-fooling-oneself-7712099/
Feedback for Post "Richard Feynman on not fooling
oneself"

Mike Layfield [Visitor]

08.01.2010 @ 07:51
Great quote! There is a typo in the commentary. second line: "ion" s/b "in".

jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
08.01.2010 @ 09:34
Thanks Mike, its corrected now!

Hrothgir [Visitor]

08.01.2010 @ 14:48
I'd add Feynman's comments on Challenger

"[... R]eality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
Bertrand Russell on reason and courage
"To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage to proclaim what reason
shows to be true." - Bertrand Russell

I fear that this idea by Bertrand Russell is very hard to understand wholly, especially as the bad word "faith"
creeps into the discussion here.
I however think that crucial point here is to understand what Bertrand Russell really means by "faith".

A fact is that to really understand that for example air consists of collection of different gases you need faith
in that science can really resolve this kind of things.
At deep down in the very bottom there is always the issue of "faith". However, I do think that "trust" would be
a much better word in this case.

That trust is in the case of science built on real world achievements and concrete results in making our lives
easier and explaining the world in meaningful ways.
On the other hand in the case of religions faith is built on mostly wanting things to be like religions so
soothingly claim to be.

If we do not think that problems are best solved with rational processes, what do we have? We have a
situation where can start accepting all kinds of things at face value, just because we so dearly want them to be
true as is the case with religions.
This does not mean at all that humans would be rational creatures, far from it. It is is about trying to harness
our inherent irrationality to a certain degree, so that decisions in a societal level at least could be based on
rational arguments when these are available.

The aim could just be not to base decisions on the level of society on for example on irrational claims and
ancient texts written in strikingly different societies.
I do fear that humans are in the end quite irrational beings. However that does not stop us form striving
constantly to achieve a greater degree of rationality.
Perfect and full rationality is of course quite unattainable, but achieving even a little bit higher degree of
rationality in our the decision-making process of our society can only benefit it.

by jaskaw @ 08.01.2010 - 23:53:04

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/08/bertrand-russell-on-reason-and-courage-7718350/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on reason and
courage"

bakrds [Visitor]

10.01.2010 @ 18:27
Speaking of irrationality, isn't it both irrational and a wee bit arrogant to assume that Betrand Russel wasn't
aware of the connotations of the word 'faith' when he said 'faith in reason'. And what of assuming that your
readers are not capable of separating faith in reason from faith in religion?

I am sorry if this seems harsh, but I find this assumption a bit insulting.

Science is built on faith just as much as religion is, in some ways even more. True, trust is a similar word but
does not capture the leap - the 'inspiration' that drives the lifetime of toil and belief it sometimes takes to find
the answers in science.

Faith is just a word. Why are you afraid to let it stand?

| Show subcomments
jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
10.01.2010 @ 20:15
My comments are in fact based on my earlier publication of this quote in a different context, where some
readers were outraged by the fact that Bertrand Russell even dared to use the word "faith" in the context of
science.
I however really do think that the "faith" Bertrand Russell is speaking of here is not the kind of blind and
unblinking "faith" religions are demanding from their followers and I wanted to clear up this fact.
Molly Ivins on confusion in democracy

"The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires
a certain relish for confusion." - Molly Ivins

I do think that Molly Ivins is hitting the head of the nail here and hitting it hard. The big
problem in democracy for many is that it is often not very easy to predict the outcomes of
democratic processes.
The hard fact remains that democracy can also fail miserably and produce a lot of wrong and
mistaken decisions.
However, the really big thing in democracy is that it is the only known form of government
that includes a inbuilt and demonstrably workable system of error-correction.

It is all too easily forgotten that the only real alternatives to democracy are different forms of
totalitarian systems of government.
The hard fact is that all totalitarian systems do also necessarily produce quite similar errors of
judgment and wrong decisions as a democratic process does.
However, these errors can soon get much, much worse, when the feed-back loop is missing
completely in a totalitarian system.

The big thing why democracy in the end wins over totalitarianism is the process of correcting
the mistakes that have already been made.
In a democracy also errors of judgment can be brought up and discussed openly, but in a
totalitarian system they are all too often swept under the rug.
In totalitarian systems problems start all too easily piling up, as a ruling elite very often falls
into the fallacy that problems that are not talked about do not exist. They can think that
simply controlling the media will make problems disappear.

Even if you have the most brilliant administrators in the world, they will make ultimately
wrong decisions, if these decisions are based on warped set of data.
As they say in the computer world: "Rubbish in, rubbish out". It does not help if you have the
best computer in the world if it is fed the warped data.

The other really big thing of course is that in a democracy a failed government can simply be
elected out, but in totalitarian systems you all too often need violence and raw force to do the
 same.
No government has ever been eternal and I really do think when the change of government
can be accomplished without shedding any blood, the society benefits in a big way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Ivins

by jaskaw @ 10.01.2010 - 11:08:27

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/10/molly-ivins-on-confusion-in-democracy-7725856/
Feedback for Post "Molly Ivins on confusion in democracy"

Paul Stillman [Visitor]

10.01.2010 @ 21:49
Actually, republicanism is an alternative to democracy and a positive one at that. Our Founding Fathers
rightly feared giving too much power to the unwashed masses and created a republic when they drafted the
constitution. They created a Chief Executive who was to be selected by an electoral college, a senate that was
to be elected by the state legislatures, a House of Representat,ives that was to be elected by the people, and a
Judiciary that served for life whose members were nominated by the president with the advice and consent of
the people. Today, we have the voters, who frequently pay very little attention to the issues of the day, directly
amending their state constitution based on political commercials that appeal to their emotions rather than their
intellect. california, the most ungovernable state in the country, grants its voters the power of intiative,
referendum, and recall. Consequently, in the 1970's, California amended its constitution with Proposition 13, a
measure that permanently affected the way property taxes are raised in the state. Thirty years later, the state is
plagued by huge deficits and underfunded schools. If we returned to our republican roots, we would elect
people, arguably, who had the time, temperament, and knowledge to make rational decisions for us. Each
branch of the federal govt would act as a check and balance on the other two so that no one constituency
gained too much power; similarly, the states would act as a check on the powers of the federal govt and vice
versa. While the founders didn't create a perfect system, they did create a system that, in my opinion, is
preferable to the one that has evolved. We have become a virtual direct democracy where the whims of the
majority ride roughshod over the rights of the minority. People who lack the education and knowledge to be
decisionmakers threaten our elected officials and frequently prevent them from acting in the best interests of
the nation rather than in the interest of the loudest and most vocal faction. What we have become is not what
our Founders intended and, frankly, is inferior to what they bestowed on us. We have become a democratic
tyranny rather than a republic ala Cicero and Rome.

Daniel [Visitor]

11.01.2010 @ 21:23
That's a fair point.
The article posits a bit of an "either or" argument without really considering all of the possibilities.
Thomas Jefferson on democracy
"The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the
rights of mankind." - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Hunter (11 March 1790)

It can be now hard to remember that the Founding Father Thomas Jefferson was a extremist and a radical in
his time. As he did slide on the revolutionary road he necessarily questioned all the things that had been for
centuries taught for generation after generation to be god-given and eternal.
This process of radicalization on all fronts was quite inevitable for the group of men that did finally lead the
fight for American independence.

The British government and the ruling Christian state church of Britain were intertwined as one great whole
and renouncing the other one part necessitated rising against also to the other.
In fact the official Anglican Christian Church of that day was just a support arm of the government and those
who rose against the British Government had to stand up against the British state church also.

Of course this process was greatly helped and eased by the fact that a great deal of Americans were religious
dissident in the first place, who had emigrated to America just to escape the wrath of the official Anglican
church.
From this it was much easier to take the next logical step forward; to move outside the Christian religion
altogether and many of the Founding Fathers did really take it.

Thomas Jefferson had no certain religious affiliation, but is widely seen as being a deist, even if he classed
himself as Epicurean. However, Epicureanism is not normally in modern times classed as a religion, even if in
reality it was a direct competitor of early Christianity in the Empire of Rome.
Epicureanism was of course a school of philosophy, but rational philosophy in those days often had also the
role that now is reserved solely to religions based on supernatural beliefs.

Deism on the other hand is a religious and philosophical belief that a some kind of a higher force had created
the universe.
However, deists do also believe that also that this basic idea can be determined using reason and observation
of the natural world alone. It can be done without a need for either faith, holy books, priests nor any kind of
organized religion.
Thomas Jefferson saw clearly also the inherent inequality that was inbuilt in the totalitarian feudal form of
government and his words ring true to this day.
Experience shows that all totalitarian forms of government have in real world have ended up harming and
oppressing some part or parts of the population under their rule.
There is no real reason to expect that the totalitarian governments of the future would be any better in this
respect.

All people can of course never be happy in a democracy either, but we have real world evidence that the
median level of contentment will be higher in democracies in the long run.
Democracies just are capable of change and development in a way that is mostly unachievable in totalitarian
systems, as can well be seen in the modern totalitarian countries like Saudi-Arabia or Iran.

PS. There was no Republican party in existence when Thomas Jefferson wrote this quote and the word
'republican' was a synonym for 'democratic'. A republican was then basically just a person who opposed
monarchy.

by jaskaw @ 11.01.2010 - 22:01:46

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/11/thomas-jefferson-on-democracy-7736911/
Friedrich Durrenmatt on state as a mythical entity

"For people who have no critical acumen, a state is a mythical entity, for those who
think critically it is a rational fiction, created by man in order to facilitate human
coexistence. " - Friedrich Dürrenmatt

There still seemingly exists a belief that some things need to be as they are in a society
because of some kind of higher or even 'divine' plan.
Some people just do not understand that things are as they are in a society just because some
things are necessary for the well-being of human inhabitants of that society and to keep the
society going.

There really are people who think that some things should be labeled as sacred and outside
any scrutiny. I do think that this can be because some people do see certain features of society
to be so useful for themselves or the society that they must never be allowed to change.
Declaring some things 'sacred' can just be a strategy for keeping certain important things out
of the normal critical scrutiny.

There are people who may think that even evaluating and analyzing central social rules and
conventions does threaten them.
It seems that they could fear that any kind of of questioning of the established basic principles
of a society may start the downfall of that society and at least make the established social
order crumble.

In my mind Friedrich Dürrenmatt is however just stating the fact that states and nations are
useful tools, but there is nothing sacred or divine or sacred in them or their inner workings.
Even states are just human creations that are created to serve humans, not the other way
around.

A great deal of all the things we choose to believe in of course fiction, which we choose to
believe because this fiction is so useful to us.
Acknowledging that fact is however very hard, and it made even harder by the fact that as
fiction that is believed hard enough often becomes quite indistinguishable from the reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_D%C3%BCrrenmatt

by jaskaw @ 12.01.2010 - 21:03:18

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/12/for-people-who-have-no-critical-acumen-a-state-is-7743037/
George Orwell on truth as a revolutionary act

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George
Orwell

It is quite fascinating how often a very simple and basic psychological process happens; when
a crucial decision had been made, very soon all evidence starts pointing in ones mind that the
decision that was made was the only one possible. Soon there simply is no contradictory
information to be even seen anywhere.

We don't of course ever notice when this happens, as we just don't see the contradictory
evidence anymore and we have no idea that our ideas could even be problematic.
On the level of individual this is often quite harmless and even necessary process, as
otherwise we could be stricken with remorse for ages after every major decision we do make.

However, on the level of a whole society this process can lead to situations where public view
of reality is warped to accommodate the state policies, the official party line, or the views of
the official church.
This in turn can lead to situations where policies are followed long after they have already
turned out to be quite obsolete, and they do not really relate anymore to the current state of
development in the society.

The once even valuable old ideas can even turn into something harmful or even evil. This can
very easily happen when the world and reality have changed, but our perception of it has not
because we cling to ideas that were born in a different age and in a different society.

In situations like that we sorely need people like George Orwell to raise their voices.
by jaskaw @ 13.01.2010 - 20:50:39

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/13/george-orwell-on-truth-as-a-revolutionary-act-7749570/
William Hazlitt on love of liberty and love of power

"The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves." -
William Hazlitt

For me at least this is a extremely strong sentence. It is loaded with many meanings, but the
central theme for me is the fact at the core of freedom is responsibility.
When a person gives away his or her freedom he or her is also relieved from responsibility, as
also this responsibility is handed over to the authority controlling your life.

This is of course a very tempting preposition for many, even more so, as one is
simultaneously relieved from the need to think about the motives and reasons for doing things
in certain ways.
The success of radical Marxism, radical Islam or radical Christianity shows clearly how very
many people really desperately want this liberation from the need to think for themselves and
most of all from carrying the responsibility for making decision based on their own ideas.

On the other hand freedom and liberty require responsibility, as without responsibility
freedom simply does not work.
When a person is not forced to do certain things in a certain way he or she must reflect over
what are the consequences of one's actions in a quite different way than in a authoritarian
system, where somebody else can always be blamed for ordering things to be done in a
certain way.

The big paradox is that totalitarian system is a for many a very easy place to live, as you
always know your place and your future, but a free society can be personally much more
demanding place to live in.
However, I do see that Hazlitt is saying that a totalitarian system is egoistic, as the ease of life
that any single person achieves is in the end accomplished by taking away the freedom of
choice from all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hazlitt

by jaskaw @ 14.01.2010 - 19:55:08

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/14/william-hazlitt-on-love-of-liberty-7755865/
Thomas Paine on renouncing reason
"To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead." - Thomas
Paine in the "The American Crisis" (1776)

This quote of course needs no explanation as such. The message is as clear as it can get; there is no point in
arguing with a person who lets adherence to a dogma wholly dictate his or her thoughts and ideas.

Thomas Paine was not of course not familiar with the Internet-debates of today. However, anybody even with
a passing acquaintance with the world of debates raging in thousands of mailing lists, chats and
comment-pages will instantly recognizes the type Thomas Paine is speaking about.
Thomas Paine speaks clearly also about the person who is splurging out endless streams of dogmatic liturgy
spiced with endless quotes from some holy book in every discussion he takes part in.

Even over 230 years ago it was quite plain to Thomas Paine that there is no point in trying to convince a
person who really does not want to listen. The truth all too often lies in the old saying: "You can't teach a pig
to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig."

On the other hand giving the field to people think differently than you is not always necessarily a good
strategy either.
One cannot also deny the fact that argumentation for just argumentations sake just is sometimes a great
pastime.

Also, often nothing else makes ideas more clear in one's head than trying to figure out ways to convince a
stubborn debater who opposes the idea.
Even if the other debaters may not be seemingly moved at all with my ideas, the very process of thinking
things over once again may be only beneficial to me as a person.

So, the debate must continue, but we just should have patience to remember that a good intellectual debate is a
end at itself and it can always be beneficial to us, even if results are nowhere to be seen at the very moment.
One can never also tell how the ideas presented in the debate may affect people's thinking in the long run, if
and when they start slowly sinking in.

This effect is of course quite impossible to measure, but it just can be there, given of course that we have the
patience not to offend and ridicule people who's ideas seem silly to us at the moment.
Sad truth just is that a real debate becomes quite impossible when it degenerates into insults and ad-hominem
attacks.
by jaskaw @ 15.01.2010 - 20:45:25

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/15/thomas-paine-on-renouncing-reason-7762228/
Feedback for Post "Thomas Paine on renouncing reason"

Brenda P [Visitor]

15.01.2010 @ 21:29
This is hilarious and great timing. Thanks.

Anders [Visitor]

15.01.2010 @ 22:27
I know the type all too well.

This is another good quote;

"What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair
hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?"
-George Orwell

James Stripes [Visitor]

http://historynotebook.blogspot.com/
07.11.2010 @ 17:05
The quote in the epigram is inaccurate. You need ellipses to mark omissions.

"TO argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in
holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist
by scripture."

| Show subcomments
jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
07.11.2010 @ 20:57
James, you are quite right, but this quote is always presented as the shorter version. In fact the shortened
version appears in hundreds of places, when the longer version was extremely difficult to even find, when I
checked it out. Thanks for your input, in any case, James.

James Stripes [Visitor]

http://historynotebook.blogspot.com/
08.11.2010 @ 02:07
It took me less than two minutes to find the full quote in the e-text of The Crisis, but then I got sucked into
Paine's writing and spent the next half hour enjoying his wit. I highly recommend the experience. This quote
begins a pamphlet addressed to General Howe in which Paine seeks the appropriate way to honor him for his
crimes against Americans.

I particularly enjoyed this paragraph:

"But how, sir, shall we dispose of you? The invention of a statuary is exhausted, and Sir William is yet
unprovided with a monument. America is anxious to bestow her funeral favors upon you, and wishes to do it
in a manner that shall distinguish you from all the deceased heroes of the last war. The Egyptian method of
embalming is not known to the present age, and hieroglyphical pageantry hath outlived the science of
deciphering it. Some other method, therefore, must be thought of to immortalize the new knight of the
windmill and post. Sir William, thanks to his stars, is not oppressed with very delicate ideas. He has no
ambition of being wrapped up and handed about in myrrh, aloes and cassia. Less expensive odors will suffice;
and it fortunately happens that the simple genius of America has discovered the art of preserving bodies, and
embellishing them too, with much greater frugality than the ancients. In balmage, sir, of humble tar, you will
be as secure as Pharaoh, and in a hieroglyphic of feathers, rival in finery all the mummies of Egypt."

I have the Project Gutenberg text on my iPad, which facilitates searching, but you also can read and search at
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/crisis/c-05.htm.
Bertrand Russell on virtuous and wicked nations
"No nation was ever so virtuous as each believes itself, and none was ever so wicked as each believes the
other." - Bertrand Russell in "Justice in War-Time" (1916)

Bertrand Russell of course points here to the life-blood on jingoistic nationalism. In it one's own nationality is
presented as something better and nobler than others, even if there mostly would no real reasons for that
elevation. The simple accident of birth is transformed into something that has a higher meaning.

Of course there are also even major differences between nations, but the biggest differences are always
transient things.
They are the results of accidental historical processes and unique situations that do very often evaporate as
time and history goes by.

On the other hand to say that for example Germans as a nation would have been wicked because the Nazis
were able to take hold of the political power in that country for a decade is not a reasonable thing at all.
For a bit over decade the machinery of the German state was hijacked by a ruthless gang of political
psychopaths and they misused that machinery of state for their own ends.
Of course they persuaded many to think like them, but they also forced a great deal of their fellow countrymen
with the inherent power and legitimacy carried with the idea of the state to take part in their evil and bad
deeds.

It would however be even an absurd thing to say that every German of Nazi era day would have been
somehow turned into something evil.
The nationalistic view of world however inevitably leads into this kind of generalizations.
In this model of thinking members of different nations are seen just as stereotypes and the incredible variety
of individuals in every society is in purpose hidden from view.

There is a simple reason for this; to reach a true nationalistic fervor of hating one's neighbors one needs to be
able to forget that the other hated nations are made up of quite similar individuals as you.

On the other hand accusing some kind of vague 'national character' for the bad deeds of the Nazi state
machinery relieves the pressure to analyze what was the real role of the state in all this.
We simple don't want to think the real reasons why the law abiding, decent citizens of Germany were so
easily lured and ordered into committing all the atrocities the German Nazi state did commit.

Then we need not to think that it was not only the evil Nazi party that made people do these things, but that
without the machinery of the state that had fallen into their hands they would not never had a chance of doing
most of the evil things that they did finally accomplish.
If we put the blame on some kind of 'national character' we do not also need to face the terrible possibility that
a ruthless enough gang of political psychopaths would succeed again in a thing like this someplace else and
that they could always take over an state machinery that is geared into obedience for the current regime
whatever it is.

by jaskaw @ 16.01.2010 - 17:46:01

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/16/bertrand-russell-on-virtuous-and-wicked-nations-7767061/
Robert G. Ingersoll on happiness
"The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others
so." - Robert G. Ingersoll

Colonel, American political leader, and orator Robert G. Ingersoll (1833 1899) can be rightfully considered
as the grandfather of the modern freethinker-movement.
He rose to oppose the religious dogmas, which by his day were again having the field wholly for themselves
after the hectic days of the American Revolution.

It is less known fact that many of the leaders of the American revolution were deists, who rejected the
Christian dogmas.
However, by the time when Robert G. Ingersoll was active after the American Civil War, the Deism of the
founding fathers had more or less evaporated. By his day American society was becoming more and more
infatuated by Christian religious ideas again.

Robert G. Ingersoll had also a deeply humanistic agenda of caring for others and most of all for caring for
those who were not able to take care of themselves. He was a friend of the down-trotten and a friend of the
working man in general.
Robert G. Ingersoll picked up the torch where Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and other
more or less Deistic founding fathers had left it.

He continued even further into a full-blown agnosticism. Robert G. Ingersoll ultimately rejected even the
Deistic idea of a god as a vague world-spirit that does not however interfere with the matters of the mankind.

Deists had already rejected the established religions, but Robert G. Ingersoll doubted also the very idea of a
god. He however believed in the inherent goodness embedded in mankind, if it just is allowed to blossom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll

by jaskaw @ 17.01.2010 - 17:17:17

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/17/robert-g-ingersoll-on-happiness-7773488/
Feedback for Post " Robert G. Ingersoll on happiness"

Mikel [Visitor]
http://atheistyogi.com
17.01.2010 @ 18:51
Lovely blog! I will check back here often.
Robert Owen on the interests of human race

"Is it not the interest of the human race, that every one should be so taught and placed,
that he would find his highest enjoyment to arise from the continued practice of doing
all in his power to promote the well-being, and happiness, of every man, woman, and
child, without regard to their class, sect, party, country or colour?" - Robert Owen
(1841)

Robert Owen was a humanist, philanthropist, the founder of modern co-operative movement.
In fact he was one of the first forerunners of the modern western democratic socialism.
He was also a practical man, who did run a successful business. There he did show with his
own example that a factory-owner could earn a good living, even if he cared for his workers
and arranged decent conditions for them.

This kind of compassion was absolutely not the norm in the business-world of his days, when
factories were often horrible and cruel places of physical torture.
Robert Owen developed more and more idealistic ideas in his later days. He was deeply
involved in building up idealistic community experiments that did in the end fail miserably.

After these failures he did eventually end up in the rising spiritualist circles of Victorian
England, but he always rejected the established religions.
Robert Owe always saw that the human race had only itself to rely if it wanted to improve its
lot. He also did really believe that human race really is capable of improvement, just if it
takes matters in its own hands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen

by jaskaw @ 18.01.2010 - 11:58:52

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/18/robert-owen-on-the-interests-of-human-race-7779141/
Feedback for Post "Robert Owen on the interests of human
race"

jose joseph [Visitor]

http://www.atheistnews.blogs.fi
18.01.2010 @ 12:33
every human being should live for the good of other fellow beings.othewise what is the meaning in calling
one a human being. make money for oneself,eat.defacate,sleep,procreate and die like a dog.it is better such a
person doesn't come to this earth.love is the true religion. if there is love in your heart,you cannot hoard when
your fellow beings are starving.all organized religions are doing harm to human race.the leaders enslave their
felowmen their mental slaves and make them lick the leaders feet. they preach terrorism of hell and
damnation.no goodness in their heart.they are the real terrorists.all brothers and sisters of this universe get
away from the clutches of these crooks.be simple,love everybody,try to help the needy and enjoy the life.

Kalle [Visitor]

08.11.2010 @ 17:54
Although his socialist experiments failed, he at least did not force anybody into them. Unfortunately, later
socialists used force and made Owen much forgotten.
Steven Weinberg on farce and tragedy of human
life

"The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things which lifts human
life a little above the level of farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy." Steven
Weinberg in "The First Three Minutes" (1993)

I do think that there is incredible beauty and poetry in the nature and in our whole universe.
There is also a unavoidable and beautiful sense of deep mystery when one looks at the origins
and character of our universe.

However, I do think that with the help of science we can marvel freely at the remaining
mysteries of the nature with the expectation that there will less and less of really mysterious
things with every passing year.
It does not really matter if know very well that we do not yet have all answers yet on how our
physical world was originally formed. It does not matter if we do even not yet probably know
all the laws and processes that have guided its development.

Only religions can make preposterous claims of having all the final answers on the origins
and the nature of our physical universe, but science can and will never make claims like that.
Science is all about accepting the fact that our knowledge will always be limited by what we
are, by where we live and how we can observe the universe.

Science bows its head humbly on the sight of all if new marvels of the universe it slowly and
methodically reveals bit by bit.
Scientists do always know that the answers they can give are just the best answers for the
moment, and those coming after them will provide even better, deeper and more magnificent
answers.
However, looking back what science has already accomplished, we can rest assured that our
knowledge will steadily grow, even if it will never be perfect or final.

Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg is well-known for his strong support for the scientific way of
thinking and his strong opposition of force of irrationality.
He was awarded the Nobel prize in Physics in 1979 for his contributions with Abdus Salam
 and Sheldon Glashow to the unification of the weak force and electromagnetic interaction
between elementary particles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg

by jaskaw @ 19.01.2010 - 20:25:27

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/19/steven-weinberg-on-farce-and-tragedy-of-human-life-7788821/
Jared Diamond on patriotic and religious fanatics
"Naturally, what makes patriotic and religious fanatics such dangerous opponents is not the deaths of
the fanatics themselves, but their willingness to accept the deaths of a fraction of their number in order
to annihilate or crush their infidel enemy. Fanaticism in war, of the type that drove recorded Christian
and Islamic conquests, was probably unknown on Earth until chiefdoms and especially states emerged
within the last 6,000 years." - Jared Diamond in "Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fate of Human
Societies"

Jared Diamond is one of the real big current names in the area of "Big History", or in the scientific attempt to
find and examine the often quite hidden real big and even universal trends in human evolution and human
history.
Big History has always been also my own specialty in history, as the big underlying currents of history and
especially the undeniable mental transformation of nations or changes in zeitgeist do fascinate me
enormously.

The wonderful, well written and thoughtful books by Jared Diamond have opened at least my eyes into seeing
many things that I would in some cases may have never seen without him.
Jared Diamond has studied many wildly differentiating cultures and very often found surprisingly many
themes that are common to them all.

The basic reason for this is of course that all humans are basically very alike, as have started differentiating to
(in appearance) different 'races' quite recently.
However, the very basic psychology and physiology of the human species has been formed during the
millions of years of evolution of our more or less human-like ancestors.

The rulebook however changed dramatically first with the invention of speech and then even more with the
invention of writing, as one could develop complex local ideas that changed the landscape of humanity
forever for the better and for the worse in some things.
I do think that this is the big change to which Jared Diamond is referring in this quote. One could even say
that only after creation of society-wide ideologies like nationalism and religions did men really stop fighting
for their own survival (or recreation) only.

A man just wanting to live a bit better life maybe also on expense of the defeated does not benefit from utterly
destroying his opponent, but a man wanting to promote a ideology may do just that, even if this deed does not
benefit him personally, but only his ideology.
The theory of memes of course explains his behavior, as a very strong meme like a religion can overrun even
the most very basic human instinct; the instinct for personal survival.
by jaskaw @ 20.01.2010 - 22:26:34

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/20/jared-diamond-on-patriotic-and-religious-fanatics-7843687/
Baron May of Oxford on dangers of
fundamentalism

"Punishment was much more effective if it came from some all-seeing, all-knowing,
all-powerful deity that controls the world, rather than from an individual person. In
such systems, there is unquestioning respect for authority. Faith trumps evidence. But if
indeed this is broadly the explanation for how co-operative behaviour has evolved and
been maintained in human societies, it could be very bad news.
Because although such authoritarian systems seem to be good at preserving social
coherence and an orderly society, they are, by the same token, not good at adapting to
change. The rise of fundamentalism, not just in the Muslim world but in the United
States, and within the Catholic church, could actually make global co-operation more
difficult at a time when an unprecedented level of teamwork was needed." - Robert
May, Baron May of Oxford

Religions were created to fulfill a clear need in ancient societies. They were needed to create
a new kind of mental bond between the members of the new emerging state-like
communities.
These new communities began to emerge after the innovation of agriculture made it possible
to support armed ruling classes who could live on the surplus produced by others.

This same surplus was of course used to support also the new religious elite that allied itself
with the armed ruling class.
These new societies needed new things that would bond together people who would often
even never meet and did not often even speak the same language, but were often united only
by the fact that they had common rulers.

The emerging new kind of national religion was the social glue that was needed to bind these
new warrior states together.
The need for a new kind of social glue got even stronger after the stronger communities had
started taking over weaker ones and a idea of a modern state was invented.

This kind of bonding did serve these early societies very well, but the real problem is that
they got to be too good in their job.
Religions became closed systems or change-resistant memes, which got better and better at
creating intensive group cohesion and defining borders between different groups of people.
 However, they did soon turn out to be a real a problem in sitautions where co-operation with
strangers was needed, but only because of the religion the 'true believers' could be accepted as
equals.

Now in a globalized world where everybody is depending on what other people do, the kind
of tribalism which is triggered by the old religions is all too often a real liability not a
advantage at all anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_May,_Baron_May_of_Oxford

by jaskaw @ 21.01.2010 - 19:24:11

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/21/baron-may-of-oxford-on-danger-of-fundamentalism-7848701/
John Stuart Mill on discovering new truths

"There is always need of persons not only to discover new truths, and point out when
what were once truths are true no longer, but also to commence new practices, and set
the example of more enlightened conduct, and better taste and sense in human life." -
John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty" (1859)

Philosopher John Stuart Mill was a child of the Enlightenment. He personally rejected all
established religions as false, but admitted their usefulness for the society in certain
situations.
However, he saw that clinging to any kind of unmovable dogma would be always dangerous,
as it would inevitable became a hinder for advancement and development of new ideas in s
society.
He saw that also societies need to evolve and he believed that also the religions should evolve
with the societies.

By his time the old extremely dogmatic forms of Christianity were already fast losing ground
in the Western Europe. On the rise was a new kind of modern Christianity, that had been
immersed in and much changed by the ideas of secular humanism.
Among the very same Anglican church that had only a little earlier been a bastion of
opposition to all kind of change in the society there emerged the vibrant new anti-slavery
movement that in the end did put the end to the slavery in the whole of British Empire.

This opposition to slavery did did not arise because because in Christianity there would have
been any kind of inbuilt opposition to slavery. On the contrary, all Christian churches had had
nothing at all against slavery in all its forms for a millennium and a half.
This change did happen because the new humanistic ideas of equality of all men did gain
ground in the society.
The change did happen because certain prominent members of the church were changed by
them and they did change the direction of their church also. This change did not happen
because of Christian tradition, but in spite of it.

This example shows clearly how even religions can be forced into change when societies
around them change enough, given of course that they are not in the position to prevent the
change in the first place.
The latter was the case in medieval Europe and in the modern Islamic world, where the
 extremely strong position of the have religion precluded any kind of new ideas from even
entering and emerging in a society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

by jaskaw @ 22.01.2010 - 19:35:03

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/22/john-stuart-mill-on-discovering-new-truths-7854956/
Marcus Aurelius on death

"He who fears death either fears to lose all sensation or fears new sensations. In reality,
you will either feel nothing at all, and therefore nothing evil, or else, if you can feel any
sensations, you will be a new creature, and so will not have ceased to have life." -
Marcus Aurelius

The irrational fear of death has always been one of the main selling points of Abrahamic
religions (Judaism,, Christianity, Islam), as giving at least a false hope of something after
death seems to give great comfort to many people.
Too many are after all not able to deal with this inevitable part of life that is necessary part of
the life cycle of all living creatures.

We commonly assume that human species is the only species that spends time pondering
about its own death, even if in reality we do not know if other advanced species do have ideas
of their own about death or not.
To be able to think about also of the end of our life is of course the price we pay for the
highly developed intellectual machinery we do have in our disposal.
Thanks to this ability we can do a lot of things even other primates are unable to do, but as
said, there is a price even in this.

One of the most basic instincts that any living thing must have is avoiding things and
situations that can be lethal to it.
The instinct for survival has been perfected by evolution, as those with strongest aversion to
death have survived better than others.

I do think that this natural and necessarily often a very strong instinct for ensuring personal
 survival as long as it is possible may however contribute in creating a situation where even
the idea of the inevitable death becomes too difficult to handle.
This situation is used to to maximum by the Abrahamic religions, who benefit greatly from
heightening this fear of death

Marcus Aurelius is perhaps quite unknowingly attacking one of the pillars of Christianity,
when he reminds that in the end there is really nothing to be afraid in death.
However, like a true agnostic he covers all bases with the last sentence. This does not
however necessarily mean that he would himself have believed in this kind transformation of
the soul as is implied in the last sentence of the quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius

by jaskaw @ 23.01.2010 - 21:38:44

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/23/marcus-aurelius-on-death-7861315/
Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on death"

Julianne G [Visitor]

15.03.2010 @ 14:35
This is a simple truth, really. However most people choose to believe in soothing lies over troubling and
ambiguous truths. It is not this or that, but how we handle these truths, that defines our psychological
independence from society and our integrity of character..
Julianne

Ross [Visitor]

10.11.2010 @ 17:12
Since the "truth" of this issue is difficult to prove, I'm reluctant to dismiss metaphors and mythology I don't
agree with as lies. I am concerned about the fervor of those who accept metaphors as reality, but fear there is
little that can be done to calm the fears of those people. But my having called thes lies
"metaphors/mythology" is likely equally offensive to those people.

jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
10.11.2010 @ 19:53
I am of course not fully free of the fear of death, as I think that no man can ever get rid of it completely even
with the Christian ideas of eternal life. There always is the nagging question; what if you are wrong?
However, I do think that after thinking over the view by Marcus Aurelius and Epicurus, I have understood in a
much clearer way that worrying will just make things worse.

Remember Epicurus in this blog http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/epicurus-on-death-7480720/:

"Death is nothing to us; for that which has been dissolved into its elements experiences no sensations, and that
which has no sensation is nothing to us." - Epicurus (Principal Doctrine number 2)"
Epicurus on need for natural science

"If we had never been troubled by celestial and atmospheric phenomena, nor by fears
about death, nor by our ignorance of the limits of pains and desires, we should have had
no need of natural science." - Epicurus (Principal doctrines, 11)

/>

This Epicurean Principal Doctrine is not about morality or philosophy as many of the other 39
of the 40 Epicurean Principal Doctrines are, but I see it as more of an explanation for the very
human thirst for knowledge and in the end also for the birth of modern science.
In my mind Epicurus is simply saying that fear of unknown does motivate people to find
things out, but on the other hand really understanding why things do really happen in the
world gives a person also more real peace of mind.

I think that Epicureans are also saying in this doctrine that if we accept the religious
explanations for things around us, we would not need no more explaining and we would not
need to have science in the first place.
If we simply accept the explanations religions do give us, we have no reason the find out the
real causes for natural phenomena. This was also case under the rule of the medieval
Christian church, when natural sciences were quite completely ignored for a whole
millennium until the rise of Renaissance and new kind of humanistic thinking did open new
avenues for science also.

Epicurus did live in a time before the birth of the modern world religions, but even the
Ancient Greek religion was for a great deal born out the need to explain the things that did not
yet have on natural explanation at that time.

However, this role of the religion as a place-holder for a question mark was much more
marked in the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths.
These religions do still boldly profess to know the final answers to most of the big questions
concerning the nature of humanity and our universe, even if those answers in real world are
 mostly just legends, mystical stories and even wild guesses.
Only with the rise of the modern science did we start getting real answers to questions of our
own origins and the real nature of our universe.

http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/tags/epicurus/

by jaskaw @ 24.01.2010 - 21:28:56

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/24/epicurus-on-need-of-natural-science-7867068/
Robert Owen on spirit of universal charity
"I was forced, through seeing the error of their foundation, to abandon all belief in every religion which
had been taught to man. But my religious feelings were immediately replaced by the spirit of universal
charity not for a sect, or a party, or for a country or a colour but for the human race, and with a
real and ardent desire to do good." - Robert Owen in his autobiography (1857)

Robert Owen was a certifiable good person. He did spend his whole life and in the end even his personal
fortune in trying to develop more humane ways to organize production of goods and in trying to create a more
human model for a good society.
All his achievements as a philanthropist were not negated by the fact that towards the very end of his life he
did become entangled with all kinds of spiritualists and mystics also.

He was a philanthropist of the first class, but he did good things because he wanted himself to be a good
person and saw real value in making other peoples lives easier.
He was not a good person because he would have thought that doing good things would somehow be
rewarded to him, even in some kind of afterlife.
In fact I do think that such goodness done just in hope of some kind of personal reward is not real goodness,
but just another and more refined form of selfishness, even though even a faked goodness is of course often
better than no goodness at all.

It may be hard to remember that Robert Owen did live in a society where the life of ordinary men and women
had no real worth.
The new idea of providing at least somewhat equal opportunities and rights for all humans in a society was
still a new and quite revolutionary thing.
In fact these dangerous ideas was accepted only in the most radical and also often the most irreligious parts of
the British society and Robert Owen was one of these radicals.

Robert Owen did show by his personal example that the willingness and eagerness to help ones fellow
humans can be motivated solely by the devotion to the humanistic ideals and pure unselfish love for the
mankind.

by jaskaw @ 25.01.2010 - 22:10:15

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/25/robert-owen-on-spirit-of-universal-charity-7873636/
Bertrand Russell on man as a credulous animal
"Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good ground for belief, he
will be satisfied with bad ones." - Bertrand Russell in "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish," in
"Unpopular Essays" (1950)

One of the most important original functions of religions was to to give even some kind of an explanation to
things that simply could not be truly explained at that time.
Early religions offered a way to explain why world and nature behaved the way they did behave when no
other explanations were readily available.

Of course religions also served as tools for upholding social rules, building social cohesion and what was
most important for securing the power of ruling elites and the then current type of feudal ownership and
government.
Their role as explanation-giver was only one factor behind their success in taking over whole societies and
later even continents, but on a level of individual it was without doubt an important one.

As humanity progressed there however emerged real scientific explanations for most of the things that had
been explained with the aid of the religions in the past.
This process slowly ate away one of the crucial founding blocks of religions.

Soon religions soon had two different survival strategies open to them: they could either deny the role and
importance of the new scientific findings or they could adapt to a new world that was being built around them
with the aid of science.
Some religions did ultimately learn to live with the fact that there finally existed real knowledge of things that
had earlier been explained by them.

The western protestant Christian state churches of Europe did mostly opt for the course of accepting the new
role of science. Slowly but firmly they developed into a new kind of social and cultural organizations that
concentrated on giving solace and certainty for people living in a world full of uncertainty.
However, mainstream Islam and the many Christian fundamentalist revival movements did chose the path of
confrontation with science.

I do fear that even the main reason for choosing this difficult route was that they did not want to give up any
of the power the religions used to have, when they were the sole givers of answers.

The route chosen by the mainstream western protestant churches did also mean their ending up in the sidelines
in the power-structures of the modern western societies.
All religious leaders could not simply swallow this bitter pill and they would rather choose a confrontation
with science. I do think that in this they were helped by the clear unwillingness very common in the scientific
world to confront them.
I fear that all too many members of the world of science did think that the less of the conflict between
fundamentalist religions and modern science was talked about, the better for science.

by jaskaw @ 27.01.2010 - 21:53:13

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/27/bertrand-russell-on-man-as-a-credulous-animal-7887131/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on man as a credulous
animal"

jpfib [Member]
28.01.2010 @ 17:06

every organised religion perpetrates one or other kind of terrorism.they are created for the leaders and their
cronies.they terrorise feloowmen with hell and damnation. they proclaim they hold the keys of the
kingdom.who are ready to lick their feet will be allowed to enter the heaven.they are the sole custodians of
god.they hate each other and compete for positions among themselves. one religion preach hatred against the
other.love is the true religion.love every other being, human or otherwise.if there is true love one cannot fill
one's stomach when his fellowbeing is starving.here all religious leaders make money in the name of
charity.they committed and committing all kinds of crime.then theyuse money and power to get away from
law and punishment.in india two priests and a nn killed another nun for witnessing their sexual misdeeds and
using money and power to get away from the clutches of law.this is the religion.get away from all theses
wicked people.love is the true religion.if there is love you canot compel your fellowmen to accept your views
and make them your slaves. love expects nothing back.

Ken [Visitor]

12.11.2010 @ 14:21
Love is just one emotion of many and is hardly a cure for whatever "ails" humanity.
Mark Twain on traditions
"Often the less there is to justify a traditional custom the harder it is to get rid it." - Mark Twain in
"The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" (1876)

Author Mark Twain (or Samuel Langhorne Clemens in real life) was a skeptic all his life, but he became
agnostic and even atheist in his later years.
It is not very commonly known, as this fact was kept as a tightly kept secret by his family for a long time.

Keeping this secret was made much more easier by the Mark Twain did not want to endanger the well-being
of his family with coming out in the open in his lifetime. A person coming out in these matters was simply
asking for trouble in his time.
Majority of his various writings criticizing religions were kept behind locks for decades before the family
secret was finally spilled out. There is even reason to believe that some of the most explosive writings are still
under wraps.

In my mind Mark Twain is in this quote referring to a extraordinary ability inherent in all societies to keep up
traditions whose real meaning is not very clear to anyone.
However, the force of tradition is one of the strongest social forces there is. These traditions are all too often
upheld, even if nobody really knows what are the benefits they will give to the society.

One of the main beneficiaries of this very human failing has of course always been religion. Once a religion
has got the upper hand in any society, the immense force of tradition has made upholding its power an
incredibly easier task than the original acquiring of the position of power in a society was.
Judaism is of course a main example of this extraordinary and inexplainable force of tradition. For very many
of the more secular Jews their Jewishness consists simply of mechanical repeating of certain acts in given
moments of the year, but the reason why these acts really are seen as necessary is not even questioned.

It seems that for very many Jewishness is just a harmless collection of customs and traditions, but there is also
a more negative side to all this.
These traditions are used to create a strong sense of community among all followers of Jewish traditions, that
the fundamentalist and ultra-conservative forces among Jewish community have learned to use to their great
advantage.
This happens even if in real terms they often have extraordinarily little in common with the more secular
forms of Jewishness.
lt1=_blank&bc1=000000&IS2=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=ajatuksiaolem-21&o=2&p=8&l=as1&
style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0">

by jaskaw @ 28.01.2010 - 23:19:50

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/28/mark-twain-on-traditions-7894321/
Stephen Weinberg on good and evil
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people
to do evil that takes religion." - Stephen Weinberg in "A Designer Universe?

This quote by Nobel laureate Stephen Weinberg is already a classic among freethinking and atheist circles.
The quote is of course so popular because it contains an immense truth.

There is always even a majority of people in any society that are good and and well-mannered under all
normal circumstances.
These people are very often drawn to religions as they seem to secure order and certainty in a world
seemingly full of chaos in uncertainty.

On the other hand in every society there are sociopaths, psychopaths and people who just don't fit in the
society.
They will very easily end up outside the socially acceptable mode of behavior notwithstanding what is the
ruling religion in any given society.
One could even argue that the more strict the codes of conduct are in a society, the more people will end up
hitting the walls of allowed behavior.

The main point of Stephen Weinberg however is the religious dogma has in innumerable cases caused good,
peace-loving and law-abiding citizens to attack, torment and kill their quite similar good, peace-loving
law-abiding neighbors just because they believe in wrong kind of religious dogma or worst of all have no
dogma at all.

The saddest part of course is that these good fathers and husbands have throughout the history been lauded as
champions of the faith.
They are all too often rewarded handsomely by the society, when they kill and maim people just because they
harbor wrong kinds of thoughts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Weinberg

by jaskaw @ 29.01.2010 - 20:27:11

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/29/stephen-weinberg-on-good-and-evil-7899963/
Feedback for Post "Stephen Weinberg on good and evil"

Adelaide Dupont [Visitor]

http://duponthumanite.livejournal.com
30.01.2010 @ 04:08
For good people to do evil, it takes passion + ideology.

Passion blinds us to 'wrong' thoughts and ideology excuses them.

| Show subcomments
jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
01.02.2010 @ 22:41
You are quite right Adelaide, in the name of passionately felt communist ideology there has been done even
more harm in numerical terms than in the name of religions.

PS. Gmail has for a while gotten these messages for comments in my blogs in the spam-folder and I did not
know of your comments. That is the reason for the late reply, sorry.
John Stuart Mill on want of ideas
"God is a word to express, not our ideas, but the want of them." - John Stuart Mill

I do think that a great quote is one which can include in one sentence ideas that can take a whole book to
explain.
For me this classical quote by John Stuart Mill is one of those things that put a whole section of human
endeavor under new kind of light.

I do think that John Stuart Mill is highlighting here the fact that a very important function of the religions has
always been giving explanations to things that have had no real explanation.
Religion has in fact very often been just a substitute for a question mark, as the answers provided by religions
have simply been better than no kind of answer at all.

Of course this function is still present, even if the mysteries in our physical environment do not need religious
explanations in similar way than 2000 years ago.
Science has finally provided us with some real answers and removed the need for using the substitutes that
used to be provided by the religions.
There will however always remain some metaphysical questions that will never have a clear cut answer, like
"Why are we here" and "What is the meaning of life".

Science will never provide answers to questions like this, as they are basically ideological questions. Answers
to questions like this are based on values and not on bare facts alone, as there is no "truth" in things like this,
but answers are really often chosen by their efficiency in giving comfort.

Religions are seemingly good at giving answers to these deepest metaphysical question. However when these
answers are put under a closer scrutiny it is all too often revealed that they just seem to be real answers, but in
fact they are just wishful thinking and smokescreens that can hide a lack of any real and meaningful answers.

However, the current religions are not only ones giving answers to metaphysical questions. The history of
philosophy is a tale of the brightest minds of their day in search for meaningful answers to very similar
questions.
Philosophers have also found many good and even magnificent answers, but the difference is that they are not
presented as final and unswerving dogma as similar answers are presented in religious connexions.

Modern secular humanism is basically based on these philosophical ideas and it provides a good set of
answers to all major question troubling people.
However, they are not final truths, but they are the best answers we can give based an on the knowledge we
really do have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

by jaskaw @ 30.01.2010 - 14:38:08

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/30/john-stuart-mill-on-want-of-ideas-7904002/
Bertrand Russell on the lack of exact truth
"Although this may seem a paradox, all exact science is dominated by the idea of approximation. When
a man tells you that he knows the exact truth about anything, you are safe in inferring that he is an
inexact man." - Bertrand Russell in "The Scientific Outlook" (1931)

This idea presented by Bertrand Russell may seem odd at first glance, as we have very often learned to see
science as something very exact and rigid.
A fact of life is that the current central findings of science are often presented as some kind of absolute truths
in schools at least, even if this kind of thinking is exactly the opposite of the true scientific method.

True science does not have any final truths, as there just must always be the ability to take every single
scientific fact and theory under new scrutiny.
There always must exist also the possibility to modify and correct it, if it then proves to be wrong in some
way.
For example also the current theory of gravity must be corrected, if we get new information on its nature, even
if this theory has been quite unchanged and unchallenged for a very long time.

Science gives good, great and even magnificent answers about the most important questions concerning
human life and universe, but they are never final and unchanging answers.
As Bertrand Russell says science is art of approximation based on available facts. As the facts change, must
the answers given by science change too.

Of course a degree of rigidity is inbuilt in this system, as to change well-established scientific findings one
needs really compelling new evidence and getting them accepted can be a tedious and long job.
This inbuilt inertia however makes sure that the central scientific explanations do not change in a whim of a
single genius for example. The international scientific community makes thorough checks on all new ideas
before they are universally accepted.

However, Bertrand Russell is here referring to those who claim to have found exact and final answers to the
big questions concerning for example the nature of life and universe.
They are however normally not scientists at all, but followers of different kinds of ideologies that claim to
know the 'final truth', which is of course different in every single ideology.

by jaskaw @ 31.01.2010 - 21:10:36

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/31/bertrand-russell-on-exact-truth-7912715/
George Orwell on war-propaganda
"All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are
not fighting." - George Orwell

George Orwell was a strange kind of pacifist. He was a man who fought as a volunteer in a bitter civil war
that was really none of his business. He was also seriously wounded while fighting in the trenches for a cause
that in the end was not his at all.
George Orwell or Eric Blair was however an ardent believer in democratic socialism and his idealism got him
into the Spanish civil war fighting for the Republican government that was just only turning into a totalitarian
communist regime when he was there.
He fought among the Spanish anarchist and he did share with them the violent attacks of the communists,
when they finally turned against their earlier allies.

His experience in Spain made George Orwell lose forever all his illusions on totalitarian communist systems,
but he did never lose his faith in democratic, western form of social democracy.
He was even stranger kind of pacifist, as he always supported wholeheartedly the fight against the Nazi
Germany. He did however never lose the will and ability to question the basic question of why aggression and
wars are openly promoted and accepted in human societies.

It is very difficult for many to understand that one can support fighting the actual forces of evil, but at the
same time question if fighting wars really is inevitable part of humanity.
I however think that one can really ask if mankind could some day evolve to a stage where state-sponsored
violence becomes a disgrace and those promoting it would be treated as common criminals in all societies, as
are those who promote slavery, that was the accepted social norm for tens of thousands of years.

To even think on these lines is of course a laughable sign of naive idealism on this day and hour, when states
are main perpetrators of violence all over the world.
Even Jesus of the Christians did not however question the morality of the system of slavery and similarly
state-sponsored violence has got into a position where nobody even questions it.
This is of course result of centuries after centuries of continuous and heavy bombardment of indoctrination for
accepting the states right to apply violence when the leaders of a state see a political need for it.

Even questioning this right means standing outside the boundaries of a socially accepted behavior at the
moment. The sad fact is that universal acceptance of state-sponsored violence will continue as long until a
large enough group of people will see that this thing needs to end.
However, also slavery did finally come to an end when groups of dedicated people took to their hearts and
minds wholeheartedly to fight for its end.

Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world. Indeed is the only thing that
ever has. - Margaret Mead

by jaskaw @ 01.02.2010 - 22:26:42

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/01/george-orwell-on-war-propaganda-7920141/
Epicurus on myths and pleasure
"It is impossible for someone to dispel his fears about the most important matters if he doesn't know
the nature of the universe but still gives some credence to myths. So without the study of nature there is
no enjoyment of pure pleasure." - Epicurus

The 12th Epicurean Principal Doctrine really does not need explaining, as it is clear as bell. Epicureans
thought that humans do really need first hand knowledge of their physical world, nature and the universe and
even extremely comforting myths just are not enough.
Epicureans thought that only when we truly understand the true character of nature and its phenomena, we can
also really enjoy them fully.

Epicureanism did later into a very religion-like movement in the open marketplace of ideas that Roman
Empire really was for hundreds of years.
That all did change with the rise to power of the new dogmatic religion called Christianity. It is surprisingly
often forgotten that Christianity did eventually mercilessly suppress and destroy all other religions and
schools of philosophy like Epicureanism and Stoicism that got in its way after it had gotten a good hold of the
power structure of the Roman Empire.

Epicureanism was in fact seen as a dangerous foe by the early Christians. I think that the big difference was
that Epicureanism was based solidly on reason and reasoning, when Christianity was anchored on strongly
emotionally laden things like fear of death and promises of eternal life that was of course based on promoting
that very fear in the first place.
Rationally minded people did very often prefer Epicureanism to the strange mysticism of East that
Christianity represented in its core, as long as they were free to choose.

Unlike most religions Epicureanism did however not have any explanation of its own for nature of our
physical universe, as Epicureans relied wholly on science to provide one.
The really grand thing is that when this explanation is tied to science, it is then allowed to develop and change
with the development and expansion of our knowledge.
This fact alone does put Epicureanism in league of its own among the wild variety of religion-like movements
that have been spotted on the planet Earth so far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Epicurus/79493658728

by jaskaw @ 02.02.2010 - 22:54:18

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/02/epicurus-on-myths-and-pleasure-7928564/
Kurt Vonnegut on noticing happiness
"I urge you to please notice when you are happy, and exclaim or murmur or think at some point, "If
this isn't nice, I don't know what is." - Kurt Vonnegut in "Knowing What's Nice", an essay from "In
These Times" (2003)

Kurt Vonnegut was surely no professional philosopher, but he was a humanist with a big heart and a keen
sense on how humans behave and misbehave.
In my mind he is here grasping one of the basic problems of modern human endeavor; when and how to
notice and decide that things really are good as they are.
We are programmed by the society to strive for better, bigger and more comfortable things, as this constant
craving for improvement basically keeps our society going.

Of course this craving for betterment has also been one of the main sources of all development in all human
societies, and it has grown tremendously in importance during the last hundred years especially in
industrialized western societies.
However, the inevitable negative side of this craving for continuous improvement is of course the sense of
deprivation and even loss if our conditions do stay unchanged, as for most of the people they will be for most
of the time.

Kurt Vonnegut is reminding us that a passing moment on a quite ordinary sunny Sunday in the swing chair
with children playing in the background could just be one of the best moments of our life.
Really noticing these fleeting moments of simple happiness could just make our life more bearable in the
world full of anxiety over status and achievement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Vonnegut
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Kurt-Vonnegut-Jr/156947517295?ref=ts

by jaskaw @ 03.02.2010 - 21:25:01

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/03/kurt-vonnegut-on-noticing-happiness-7935956/
Feedback for Post "Kurt Vonnegut on noticing happiness"

Kate [Visitor]
http://facebook.com/lastvoicemusic
03.02.2010 @ 21:37
All that we are is the result of what we have
thought. If a man speaks or acts with an evil
thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks or
acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him,
like a shadow that never leaves him.

www.lastvoices.com

Kate [Visitor]
http://facebook.com/lastvoicemusic
03.02.2010 @ 21:47
All that we are is the result of what we have
thought. If a man speaks or acts with an evil
thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks or
acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him,
like a shadow that never leaves him.

www.lastvoices.com
John Stuart Mill on exercising power over
individuals
"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized
community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not
a sufficient warrant." - John Stuart Mill

This thought by John Stuart Mill is surely one of the most quoted things he ever wrote, but at the same time
one of the most disputed of his ideas at this very moment.
Many of the ideas which John Stuart Mill was propagating in his time at the early 19th century have been
quite universally accepted in western democratic societies, as John Stuart Mill was a most of all champion of
the liberty of the individual.
Maximizing the freedom of individual was accepted as one of the goals for a good society in western part of
world a long time ago.

This freedom on the individual is still one of the core values in western democracies, but there are more and
more limitations to it. The current trend is that the health of an individual is not considered a person's private
matter anymore.
In fact it is more and more seen as a issue where society can take even strong action to protect and save a
person from his or her own lifestyle if it is seen to have any kind of health hazard.

This is of course based on a view according to which the society knows better than the individual what is best
for him or and most of all that society can decide what the goals in a individuals life must be.
Maximizing the longevity of all members of a society has been raised as even the main goal in life in many
western societies. Slowly all sectors of our society have been drawn to serve this ultimate purpose.

Of course society always restricts the rights of the individual, but the issue is where is the final line drawn.
This quote by John Stuart Mill just might be a red cloth for many people who have dedicated their lives into
making other people to live as they want and see fit.

The real issue just now is if society can intervene in person's life also when no immediate harm is done and
other people are not affected in any way.
The big question just now is if a society is really allowed to intervene in people's lives just to make sure they
do live a bit longer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
by jaskaw @ 04.02.2010 - 22:12:45

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/04/that-the-only-purpose-for-which-power-can-be-rightfully-7942823/
Feedback for Post "John Stuart Mill on exercising power
over individuals"

clay barham [Visitor]

05.02.2010 @ 21:36
Mill was OK for an elite, but looked down upon the less useful. America began in 1620 based on individual
freedom and the rule of law for all people, which at that time the law was the Geneva Bible. America grew
around individual interests, the family and even the closest community, as described by John C Calhoun cited
in The Changing Face of Democrats on Amazon and claysamerica.com. We were never based, as Obama said,
on community interests being more important than are individual interests, which reflects a Rousseau-Marx
ideal which has never worked, which also is closer to Mill than would be Jefferson and Madison. I'd suggest
staying away from Old World idealists and concentrate on our own who actually experienced what America
was like. claysamerica.com
Marcus Aurelius on crime
"Poverty is the mother of crime." - Marcus Aurelius

It is quite amazing how this very basic thing is so very easily forgotten, when the moral failure of the
individual is all too easily seen as the only real cause for crime.
However, I do think that it is possible to quite accurately statistically shown without any doubt that there is
always less crime in affluent societies that do share their wealth evenly than in less affluent societies that do
not share wealth.
There just is a striking difference in level of crime between those societies in which accumulated wealth is
shared among the whole population through taxation and social security based on it and in those which do not
not have these mechanisms for balancing the equality created by the inequivalent opportunities of economy in
a modern society.

The sociopaths and psychopaths are of course present in every society and a crime-free society is simply
impossible. But the poverty forced on individuals by economic and social circumstances is one of the main
reasons why also mentally stable people do resort to crime at times.
Of course there are also self-inflicted addictions that do make people unable to make a honest living, but in
society with social security in place even them are less often easily drawn into life in crime.

In socially more just societies people simply have less incentive to turn to crime when they can support
themselves with other means. Crime is in the end for most normal people the last resort when all other means
of support fail.
In the true spirit of Marcus Aurelius one could even say that sharing the accumulated wealth in a society more
evenly is the best method of crime prevention there is.

There will undoubtedly be crime as long as humanity exists, but evidence shows that the we can affect level
and most of all level of violence carried with it by creating societies which is seen as just by at least most of
its members.
One could also say that a crime-free society is impossible as long as there is those who have more wealth than
others and there are those who want wealth, but do not know how to obtain it with accepted means.
Sharing all wealth in a society evenly is in practice quite impossible and making all people able to obtain it is
likewise impossible.

The only thing we can really do is try to keep it to the minimum and I do think that this is much easier task in
a just than in an unjust society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius

by jaskaw @ 05.02.2010 - 20:23:33

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/05/marcus-aurelius-on-crime-7949161/
Robert G. Ingersoll on the tyrant in heaven
"We are satisfied that there can be but little liberty on earth while men worship a tyrant in heaven." -
Robert Green Ingersoll in "The Gods" (1872)

Robert G. Ingersoll's remark is still quite current today, even if during the last 150 years there has a rise in
quite a new kind of Christianity, which has been changed so much by the absorption of the secular humanistic
ideas that it is in fact a quite new kind of religion.
The current mainstream Protestant Christianity exemplified in the Protestant European state churches has
abandoned the ethos of totalitarian feudal societies that was for nearly two thousand years at the very core of
Christianity.

Christianity was originally born in a totalitarian feudal society. Christianity was during its centuries in power
fine-engineered into a tool for controlling population in totalitarian feudal societies.
Robert G. Ingersoll is in my mind referring to the fact that the basic structure of Christianity with an
omnipotent totalitarian ruler that must be obeyed without questioning him in any way is of course copied from
the power structure of totalitarian feudal societies.

However, a similar huge development as the one seen in the Protestant Christianity has not taken place in the
old-fashioned Catholic or Orthodox versions of the Christian faith and most of all it is almost totally lacking
in Islam.
Also, most of the radically fundamentalist versions of Christianity (like Pentecostalism) are in the same
category as Islam in this sense.
In the late 19th century and early part of the 20th century the main governing principles of the western
societies began to rely on the basic ideas of secular humanism and egalitarianism so heavily that in the end
even the Protestant Christianity was forced to adopt them to stay in touch with the changing society

This process of change in the Protestant Christianity was not instantaneous, but a long process, where the old
core dogmas were quietly dropped.
Many old dogmas were relegated to sidelines, when they did not fit in with the tremendous rise of scientific
knowledge and the new rise of rational argumentation as a basis for real decision-making in society.

Of course, at the same time also the Roman Catholic Church was changing, but in it the process has been left
halfway, partly because the safeguarding the power structure of the church has been seen as its most import
goal.
This state of affairs has led to a situation where the Catholic Church is already in fact quite out of touch with
the real needs of modern western societies.
More and more people are also awaking to this fact, as societies change, but the adherence to old-fashioned
dogma is keeping the Catholic Church at a status of no development. Similar fate has befallen Islam.
In fact, the difference between the core values of western democracies and even the mainstream Islamic
thinking has been growing during the last decades, as western societies have become more and more tolerant
and rationality-based, but Islam has seen no development at all in this core issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll

by jaskaw @ 07.02.2010 - 00:01:47

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/06/robert-g-ingeroll-on-tyrant-in-heaven-7959841/
Bertrand Russell on dogma and natural kindness
"Dogma demands authority, rather than intelligent thought, as the source of opinion; it requires
persecution of heretics and hostility to unbelievers; it asks of its disciples that they should inhibit
natural kindness in favor of systematic hatred." - Bertrand Russell

One of the biggest contradictions in all of the modern Abrahamic religions (that is Christianity, Islam and
Judaism) is that they profess to bring the message of kindness and goodness into the world, but in reality have
are all too often been a major cause of aggression, hatred and strife themselves.
The reason for this apparent disparity is of course the simple fact that kindness and goodness are in these
religions reserved for those who adhere to the exactly same version of the religion in question. All other
people are all too often seen as dangerous, strange and even lacking in any kind human value.

In practice, the charity these religions seem to propagate can be extended to all people only if all other people
would accept the rule of "the only true religion".
So in principle these religions are bringing the message of goodness and non-violence to the world, but these
good attributes are in reality reserved for those who agree to accept the over-lordship and the whole dogma of
the religion.

This double standard leads to a situation where followers of a religion can sincerely think that this religion is
really bringing the message of goodness and kindness to the world, even as the very same followers of that
religion are also acting extremely cruelly and unmercifully towards other people.
I'm afraid that they are simply all too often quite unable and also of course unwilling to see and understand
how people inspired by their religion really do behave outside the immediate circle of true believers to which
they themselves do belong.

This can even lead to a situation where even if non-violence is even a central dogma in thee religion, but as
propagating the religion overrides everything else, the professed dogma of non-violence can be spread with
extreme cruelty and violence, as the history of both Christianity and Islam all too amply do testify.

The grand tradition of western humanistic thinking carries with it a core a thought of universal humanity that
must be extended to every human being.
Recently especially the many more modern western Protestant versions of Christianity have accepted this very
basic humanistic concept of universal human value and dignity, but in many of the more old-fashioned
versions of Christianity and in Islam this idea of universal humanity is still sorely missing.
In fact when one scratches the surface of some the most modern versions of Christianity, the same ideas of
religiously motivated inclusion and exclusion are present even there.

Especially the missionary work is often cited as selfless good work, although if it principally aims to expand
the circle of inclusion by recruiting new people to accept the religious dogma.
It could be even claimed that most of the "selfless" good works done by all religious organizations aim to
principally propagate the religious dogma. The real aim is to simply draw people into the circle of "us" from
the circle of "them" by making them accept the religious dogma.

The work done by religious organizations could be classed as truly selfless only in those cases where the
religious message is not brought at all up at the connection of the work. However, there simply just are no
religious organizations that would not involve propagating their dogma in their works of charity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell

by jaskaw @ 07.02.2010 - 20:55:03

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/07/bertrand-russell-on-dogma-and-natural-kindness-7964897/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on dogma and natural
kindness"

Pat [Visitor]

08.02.2010 @ 23:15
Well said.....& right to the point! Love this site, & thanks so much for some great reading!!!

shahid siddiqui [Visitor]

22.03.2010 @ 05:37
Man has two aspects of his psyche. The Virtuous or sympathetic and the devilish or the selfish. All the
religions of the world stress on love, peace and harmony, unfortunately, the selfish aspect of Man's psyche
negate these good aspects of religion and contorts the true face of faith and religion by projecting extremism
and bigotry. All the great philosophers of the world like Russell advocated tolerance, moderation and
sympathy, but its a pity the material oriented world interferres and nullify all these cherished ideals and make
this world an inferno. SHAHID SIDDIQUI GOVT. MURRAY COLLEGE, SIALKOT. PAKISTAN.
Marcus Aurelius on giving wealth away
"The only wealth which you will keep forever is the wealth you have given away." - Marcus Aurelius

The idea behind this quote is, of course, quite simple. You can lose always lose your material wealth quite
instantly because of an accident of nature or because of manipulations of mischievous men.
Then you have but the memory of it left, but if you have done nothing worthwhile with that wealth, there is
not much even to remember.

However, I would go a degree deeper on the basis of this famous quote. Personally I do not see it only as a
call for individual philanthropy, but also as a call for sharing.
I do not see that problems of unequal distribution of wealth embedded in modern economic systems could be
corrected by personal acts of generosity, but only by a more systematic sharing of the accumulated wealth.

I live in Scandinavia, where we have a long practice of creating equality through taxation and supporting also
the weakest members of the society at their lowest points in life.
A fact of life is that after a certain point in rise of income, the added income is not used to satisfy real personal
needs, but it is commonly accumulated into unneeded objects of status or just safekeeping.

I think that the well-to-do people in Scandinavia have in fact lost nothing they would really need when they
have accepted the higher level of taxation, but they have gained tremendously in security and safety of the
society they do live in.

The rich people in Mexico, for example, give a tremendously smaller part of their income to the state.
However, they pay the price for that by living in a society where they are under constant threat of highly
violent crime and social unrest, which are on the other hand quite rare in Scandinavia.
Of course, there are other very important factors too, but in general one could say that sharing of the wealth
creates more stable and more safe societies.

By giving away more of their wealth, the rich people in Scandinavia are not just assuring that they can really
enjoy the fruits of their investments in peace in their own lifetimes, but that their children will be able to, as
well.
In the true spirit of Marcus Aurelius, I would say that by giving to others, they are gaining something that is
retained also after their own physical demise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius

by jaskaw @ 08.02.2010 - 21:34:58

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/08/marcus-aurelius-on-giving-and-wealth-7971298/
Sinclair Lewis on woes because of the devil
"The theory that India and Africa have woes because they are not Christianized, but that Christianized
Bangor and Des Moines have woes because the devil, a being obviously more potent than omnipotent
God, sneaks around counteracting the work of Baptist preachers." Sinclair Lewis in novel "Elmer
Gantry" (1927)

I personally do have nothing in particular against Christianity. I even value its more enlightened versions over
most of the other current religions.
Especially many of the more modern Protestant versions of Christianity have been changing with the times
and society around them to a much greater extent than for example the Catholic Church or Islam.

I have however an issue with intellectual honesty and I see especially presenting missionary work as selfless
good work as a display of intellectual dishonesty on a large scale.
In the end, the chief motivation driving these people just might be spreading the dogma of their adopted
religion and not selfless idea of easing the lot of other people.

I do fear that these 'good works' might just be a by-product of this higher end and also a mask behind which
these organizations can work undisturbed in their quest for rooting out local traditions and often the whole
local age-old way of life.
The worst part is that they all too often spread the western values, but do not provide any kind of means to
also live by them, as there is normally nothing done to boost the local economy, even if new medicines and
schooling are provided.

Of course many individuals taking part in missionary work can be motivated by quite pure and selfless
motives also.
However, the denial of the value of local customs and way of live and the wholesale importing of foreign
values and customs from a quite different society done by these eager, often ignorant and naive people is not
always a "good deed" at all, as so many of them seem to assume.

The most fundamental problem with the missionary work is that Catholic and fundamentalist Protestant
missionary effort is also one of the major causes for the current population explosion that is threatening many
developing nations at this very moment.
Spreading these religions makes population control nearly impossible in the main areas of their influence.

In fact, they are not helping at all the societies they claim to help when they spread their dogma of rejecting all
means of population control.
This is done in a situation where the population explosion is badly damaging these nations. The worst thing is
that population is spiraling out of control in a situation where the local economy does not provide the means
to support this growing population.

The situation is made only worse by the advances in health care, as they do guarantee that more and more
people are going to live to reproduce more, but the easy and readily available means to limit this population
growth are not used thanks also to the work of the missionaries.
In the end the missionaries because of the spreading of their dogmas on reproduction must be held as in part
responsible for the hunger catastrophes and deaths that await many of the developing countries in the future, if
the current trend in population growth is not stopped in time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Lewis

by jaskaw @ 09.02.2010 - 22:21:48

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/09/sinclair-lewis-on-woes-because-the-devil-7978338/
Thomas Paine on national institutions of churches
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other
than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." -
Thomas Paine in "The Age of Reason" (1793)

Many modern religions have changed immensely from the times of Thomas Paine, as the societies around
them have changed also.
In his time the common open and unashamed coalition of the ruler and local religion has in our time largely
been either broken or at least hidden from the direct view.

In Thomas Paine's time the religions of state were extremely important parts of the machinery that did keep
the totalitarian feudal societies in a state no change and did keep the absolute rulers of that day in power.
Religions were extremely important tools in keeping up the feudal rule, as they effectively denied even the
possibility of ever questioning the existing social order, as it just was according to them divinely ordained,
and thats that.

Now, in countries where there are no feudal rulers anymore, also religions do not have similar functions any
more, even if they still are markedly conservative and change-resisting forces everywhere.
In countries like Saudi-Arabia religion however still retains its role as the central support arm of the feudal
rulers and the words of Thomas Paine do still well apply.

As this example clearly shows it is wrong to speak of religions as one big unmovable lump, as all major
religions have changed and evolved tremendously through ages.
For example Islam was from its birth an aggressively expansionist and violent religion in a quite different way
than the early Christianity was.

It can be hard to remember now that Christianity made converts for the first couple of hundred years of its
existence by persuasion alone.
However, anybody reading Koran knows that Islam was spread by sword from the day one, and it has always
been the religion supporting the rulers and ruling class.

Muhammad was a absolute feudal ruler among the original little flock of believers and he and his followers
personally subdued with utmost violence neighboring tribes and later even cities like Mecca.
Christianity was on the other hand conceived as a religion of the meek and downtrodden and not as a tool of
government at all.
However, after its adherents suddenly and unexpectedly gained absolute power in Rome, it too was very soon
changed and developed into a powerful tool of government, which did not shy from use of utmost violence to
defend itself and its sponsors position of power.
The nature of Christianity as organized religion changed immensely and irreversibly. The original humble and
caring message was however also retained as a fig leaf that did hide from view the immense new power
structure of the new Catholic Church.

This former religion of peace and loving care was transformed in a few centuries to a originator of persecution
and violence that was perpetrated on a level that mankind had not witnessed before.
In the meantime Islam was leaving its expansive phase and the acts of violence committed to foster that
ideology were soon much more rarer than those done in the name of new expansionist and extremely violent
version of Christianity of that same time.
In past few decades Islamist extremists have again drawn into light the violent and bloody legacy of the early
Muslims. One must remember that these early Islamists did conquer a large portion of the Earth with violent
and aggressive wars of conquest.

Most of all, both Christianity and Islam do act even today in two quite different levels. There is the level of an
individual believer, who can still choose to believe in the original message of kindness and love.
Then there is the higher level of organized religion, where quite different and morality does apply and where
the use of even extreme violence to defend and also spread the original message of love and kindness is a
allowed and is even seen a quite moral thing to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_paine

by jaskaw @ 10.02.2010 - 21:21:43

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/10/thomas-paine-on-national-institutions-of-churches-7984259/
Epicurus on being alarmed by events in the
boundless universe
"There is no advantage to obtaining protection from other men so long as we are alarmed by events
above or below the earth or in general by whatever happens in the boundless universe." - Epicurus

This is the 13th of the 40 Epicurean Principal Doctrines that form the hard core and real basis of the whole
Epicurean philosophy.
I do think that this doctrine simply states that acquiring a good social standing and a secure position in a
society are not enough to make a person feel secure, if person allows his or her mind to be bothered too much
by things that he or she cannot change or which do no affect him or her in any way.

Above all Epicurus clearly states how the mental harmony which is the central goal in Epicureanism can be
adversely affected if one allows the superstitious or religious explanations of the world come to play in ones
mind.
Most of all I see this doctrine as a call to concentrate on the real world. I see it also as a call to avoid the
unsatisfactory metaphysical explanations for the existence and the nature of our universe that are quite
universally still offered by the religions.

Epicurus did live over 2300 years ago in the first known society where rational thought and empirical
knowledge and evidence were widely accepted as a basis of building a world view.
However, the religious ideas did still have a very strong position also in the ancient Greek societies, even if
Epicurus himself could already build his own view of the world on rational thought and empirical evidence
only.

by jaskaw @ 11.02.2010 - 23:37:10

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/11/epicurus-on-events-in-the-boundless-universe-7991631/
Mark Twain on being dead
"I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit." - Mark
Twain

One of the oddest and surprisingly also one of the most resilient human ideas mankind has harbored is that
human life would not have an clear ending in the end of physical life, even if it has a very clearly defined
moment of beginning at the moment of conception.
This odd situation has been generally explained by the fact that when we die physically, we continue to live
on in the minds of those who have known us or even come to know our ideas.

This presence in mind can very easily grow into a feeling of person being really still there or even present in
some level.
The foregone generations are either worshiped or feared in most of the older and animistic forms of
religiosity, but we know for sure that the Egyptians had developed ideas of some kind of non-physical part of
a person remaining after death already over 5 000 years ago.

These ideas were transmitted into the Judaic traditions, which contains a quite surprising amount of ideas that
are of Egyptian origin.
Jews did develop these ideas further, even if the immortal soul was not such a central tenet at all in that older
faith, as it was only in Christianity where it was developed fully.

The early developers of Christianity did turn these beliefs into one of its main marketing strategies, as they
extremely boldly promised eternal life in heaven for those (but for only those, of course!) who accepted fully
and unquestioningly their newly-fangled religion.
This new religion was a collection of most of the then current religions mixed with the some of the most
popular philosophical ideas of that time, but I do think that just this bold promise of personal immortality was
one of the major reason for its ultimate success.

Mark Twain is here pointing out to a simple fact that Christianity has never tried to answer; if we have a
eternal soul, where is it before we are born?
Modern biology of course has a ready answer for that. Our genes will go on as long as our lineage continues,
which makes our genes if not immortal, but extremely durable at least in practice.
Biology explains how the mixture of genetic information stored in genes of a mother and a father does create
a brand new person in every conception, and how every time there is new kind of person created, as even
same genes do mix differently in every conception.
A new child has the features of its predecessors, but he or she can also have new and unique ones because a
similar mixture of genes has never been in existence before.

This process produces the real, biological near-immortality. We see ourselves in our children and our
grand-children and their children as long as humanity lingers on in the face of the earth.
The memory of a person can of course last for millenniums also, if he for example happens to create important
works of art, or is an important political or military figure.
However all of us can think of our life's work leaving a smaller or bigger mark in the grand flow of the life on
earth and in that way we all are immortal.

by jaskaw @ 12.02.2010 - 21:49:27

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/12/mark-twain-on-being-dead-7997223/
Feedback for Post "Mark Twain on being dead "

Durathror [Visitor]

16.02.2010 @ 17:06
What is rationality? It is all about thinking in the box, a box so small and so narrow it only expands with
science. Science is like the primate that has discovered that fire may be transported. He is so proud of his
discovery that he forgets where the fire came from but thinks he created it himself. Knowledge breeds yet
further ignorance and arrogance. Arrogance denies truth and harvests more boxes to think in.

| Show subcomments
jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
16.02.2010 @ 19:08
Dear Durathror, what is your choice for believing in reality, as science in fact is just a explanation of our
reality? It has been said that reality is that which does not go away when you stop believing in it.
Are you thinking about accepting a explanation of the world offered by some religion over the scientific one?
You should remember that religious explanations are in theory always fixed and unmovable, when the
scientific answer develops and moves constantly towards a better understanding of our species and our
universe.
Of course the religions also experience considerable evolution over time, even if they always hate to admit it,
as they always profess to offer the original and pure truth.
The basic thing is that the scientific explanation will never be final and one cannot say where it will end, but a
religion always forms a rigid box which has very firm sides, top and bottom.
Occasionally the bottom however falls away and the religion develops into a new one with brand new final
truths and final explanations of our universe.

Durathror [Visitor]

17.02.2010 @ 11:02
Our reality? Yours may be somewhat different to mine I suspect. For me science is another sense that God has
given us. Nothing more than this. The end game will be played out when you die and the truth discovered in
all its reality once and for all, or not, as you suspect is the case.
You are simply attempting to define religion in scientific terms, which naturally makes it rather limited or
'within the box' To be frank there is little point in discussing this further (but its fun to do so).
I do not think Christianity has evolved in its essential message, at all. Its rites may change, the commandments
have not. The Anglican church struggles with aspects of political correctness and the ordination of women and
practising homosexuals for example but the essentially the same.
Islam has not changed, buddhism has not changed. (Please correct me if I am wrong).
I would never describe Christianity as box like or limited in its view of life or science. Quite the contrary, it
was once in fear of science (for obvious reasons) but it now lapse up new discoveries with great excitement
albeit with a caution that not all science is good science! To describe Human yearning for the spirit (as well as
the here and now) as narrow minded, I suggest is simply wrong. I imagine that what confuses the earth bound
here, is the limitations set by religious laws, ie the fear of offending a God. If one cannot do what one pleases,
if one is not ones own God so to speak, then this is considered being bound by chains. Freedom is what it
comes down to perhaps, if there were true freedom it would have a price. I believe that we chose that freedom,
somehow, somewhere and our life of suffering on the earth is the price we paid. Well you can keep it my
friend, i'm off to find another kind of freedom, one founded in God.

| Show subcomments
 jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
17.02.2010 @ 11:45
Dear Durathor, your reality is just the same as mine, but you seem to prefer see it through a distorting lens of a
religious ideology.
There is nothing much I can do about that, but to wish you all the best on the path you have chosen for
yourself.
It does not bother me at all that some people believe in different things than I (even if these beliefs are quite
funny and bizarre at times), but I reserve for myself the right to look at also these beliefs also critically and let
voluntary readers to read these ponderings if they want to. Have you a problem with that?
It's however rather funny how you don't admit the evolution of your pet religion, but in the next chapter tell
how it has changed in very fundamental ways because the society around it has changed.

Durathror [Visitor]

18.02.2010 @ 20:38
What fundamental changes, do please explain? The Catholic church has not changed at all, it has refined
various things that is all. If I have missed something fundamental please advise?
I do not find your beliefs peculiar, i find your views narrow and can see no possible reason why people should
be quite so vehement in their unbelief. It is not logical. How can you be so dogmatic when there are great
scientists and theologians all around you, who feel they have no choice but to reach the conclusion that there
is intelligent design, a God? Perhaps you are suffering depression and do not know it?
I certainly do not have a problem with you however, just find it amusing.

| Show subcomments
jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
18.02.2010 @ 22:16
Do you really think that the Church of 5th or 10th century is the same as the current Catholic Church? How
much have you really studied real history that has not been written by zealots of your peculiar faith?
Mostly they have of course dropped the most coarse things, as burning witches and heretics, but did you know
that funny idea of The Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in his
constitution Ineffabilis Deus as late as on 8 December 1854. So this thing has been a required belief for
Catholics for only under 150 years.
Did you know that papal infallibility was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870 as a result
of unification of Italy that robbed the Pope of his earthly kingdom.

I do marvel at you having the nerve to accuse of narrow-mindedness of people who do generally look very
openly same way on all human ideologies, as human inventions that need to be studied and analyzed as
interesting and important social phenomena, when I do have strong reasons to believe that you have chosen
one very narrow-minded and extremely closed religious ideology that you adhere to.

As for your other question, this is a small sample of philosophers, authors and scientists who have refused the
theistic explanations wholly or to a great degree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nontheists_%28philosophy%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nontheists_%28authors%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nontheists_%28science_and_technology%29

Durathror [Visitor]

19.02.2010 @ 22:02
These are deep theological questions that the church has had to tackle but so what? They are not fundamental
problems. Do scientists not also re evaluate and change their conclusions in many areas? Frankly so bloody
what!? Wikipedia? Come on, you can do better than that, surely!
I was waiting for the old chestnuts and you did not fail to please, burnings etc etc. Yes, indeed nothing is
perfect on earth, especially people. Oh, apart for Atheists of course, they are innocents, you may throw the
first stone my dear chap!

jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
20.02.2010 @ 23:23
Dear Durathon, I must say that your babbling does not really deserve an answer as there is nothing of any
substance to answer, but one thing bothers me immensely.
It is people who belittle Wikipedia, which is one of the greatest inventions of our time. It slowly collects the
essence of human knowledge for everybody to see and study.
The most fantastic thing about it is that does it not because somebody wants to earn money by selling books to
others, but because there are people who love knowledge so much that they are willing to work for free to
provide the immense gift of human knowledge to others.
That is something that I say is true work of charity. This work is done because of a true love of all humanity,
not because these people want to sell a certain kind of ideology to others.
In a recent survey Wikipedia has less errors than Encyclopedia Britannica and do you know what; these errors
are constantly corrected in real time, as in EB the same errors can linger on for decades on the shelves of a
library.
Many articles in Wikipedia are written by the best experts in their field and most important of all, the best
experts in all fields are more and more turning into it in search of knowledge and the mistakes in it are
corrected with more and more expertise, as the Wikipedia grows and matures.
However, I do happen to know that there are people who in fact hate knowledge, as selling baseless beliefs is
always harder to people who have real knowledge of the origins and development of human species, of the
workings of our little blue planet and of the true nature of our vast and endless universe.
In may may astonish people in more advanced European countries at least, but there really are people why
think that the stories in the beginning of older part of the holy book of Judaism and Christianity are truer than
the existing and firmly established scientific explanations. These people do very easily hate every source of
scientific knowledge and these people quite universally also hate Wikipedia.

Durathror [Visitor]

21.02.2010 @ 15:55
Knowledge without God is meaningless. It is the desire for lists of carefully chosen facts (of human failings or
gaps in historical certainty) that Atheists love to throw at people with faith, it is the substance of the physical
plain, the silt in the crystal clear waters of wisdom. Wiki is frequently updated by frauds and psuedo experts,
not very trustworthy.
There are those who consider science to be the new religion, they also have come no closer to disproving God,
for all their knowledge. Do you really think that the theory of evolution somehow discredits the bible? The
creation story is a story written for simple folk, its order is accurate, its detail is lacking but not important or
indeed relevant. So Darwin seems to have the details, so what? Knowledge on its own is dangerous, it can
deceive us into thinking it provides the truth.
Science has discovered much but opened up even more questions, it is proving itself utterly inadequate to final
answers, the more it gazes into its crystal testicals, why are you so sure that you know the mind of God, or
have solved the end game riddle?
Seven days to God is the same as seven days to man? Does it really matter? Is this part of the question of
Humanity, the symbolism or apparent discrepencies picked up by Pedants? The bible is not something that has
been created in a few days by a bunch of nutters, it is a voice of humanity over the great ages supported by
historial facts. It is utterly authentic, it is war, tragedy, death, revelation and a route to salvation and yes I
believe at times and throughout - the voice of God through Man. Man and God relationship is there for all to
see, not a perfect relationship but just like a parent/child struggle. The growing disrespect for God in our age,
is like a spoilt teenager, like the prodigal son.
The Bible is a series of witness statements distorted in time no doubt but carrying essential material that
points to the coming of Christ (another historical fact). It is something that serious scholars would not dream
of dismissing. It has a beginning, a middle and the most dramatic end imaginable. Why have scientists not
been able to prove Christ did not actually rise again? The silence is deafening!
Your knowlege of the beginnings are simply compartments with lists and dates, you have no more knowledge
of why the big bang and what it is expanding into, what CAUSED it, then man did in the Old Testament - of
how man developed awareness and came out of the trees or indeed why life developed in this way...
If you want to be pedantic however, there are still good theories why Darwins theory of evolution may not be
accurate afterall.

jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
21.02.2010 @ 21:13
Dear Durathon, I can just say that we have nothing to talk about here any more. If you think this way, you are
in so deep in the darkness of the pride of not knowing, but just believing what you are told by founders of
your faith, that I cannot think how can I can never reach out for you there. I fear that I can never really even
understand how a thinking person can end up in a such a state.
You are simply seemingly not living in the same reality or even on the same planet as I am. The private little
universe of your pet faith has rules of its own that need only faith to work and no evidence can ever shake
them.

Carvaka [Visitor]

21.02.2010 @ 22:35
if we have a eternal soul, where is it before we are born?

Moreover, if this eternal soul is incorporeal, by what mechanism does it imbue a corporeal being at
conception? And I think that begs the question, what the heck is it made of if it incorporeal? If it's made of
something doesn't that mean it is corporeal?

@Durathror: Jaskaw being pedantic? Hardly. I wonder why Jaskaw didn't sink his teeth into some of the
obvious logical fallacies committed by Durathon. Such as this gem that shifts the burden of proof:

"Why have scientists not been able to prove Christ did not actually rise again? The silence is
deafening!"

Why has nobody been able to prove the existence of the one and only celestial tea pot? Oh, how the silence is
deafening!

Durathror [Visitor]

27.02.2010 @ 20:25
Poor people. No, once again children, we are not talking tea pots here ok? but GOD/CHRIST/witness
statements/history; the origins of the Universe, from absolutely NOTHING...; the inability of science to
provide anything other than more questions; (just one of the many rational arguments, I am sure you have
carefully avoided thinking about them too much - that scholars seriously consider, when thinking about
intelligent design (true scholars and not the Jackasses of this world - sorry Jaskaw I mean).
Thanks Carvaka for the input, I deliberately search the sites that attract Atheists, it amuses me, they tend to be
so very full of Atheists - always a challenge (cough cough).

If we have an eternal soul where is it etc... Good question, hey you are catching on... Eternal soul, to me
suggests it will last for eternity once God has brought it into being. The rational (for Jackasses sake) for a
soul, you like ancient Greek philosophers Jackass, try this one for size (sorry but Tatian was converted - he
chose to convert by the way, believe it or not he made up his own mind!):

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0608.htm

Have a look at this link, its also very good and you might learn something.

http://y-jesus.com/jesusdoc_1.php

jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
28.02.2010 @ 18:14
Dear Durathon, the thing that bothers me most in religions is the fact that do profess to supply final answers to
questions like how our universe was born, as we really have no way of knowing it as things yet stand.
I well understand that credulous people are drawn to these authoritative sounding explanations, as they can
put their mind at ease and stop thinking about thing that are too difficult to handle for them.
This promise of a final answer is just too good thing for many and they are careful not to think how these
religions have really got their answers.
They do not want to think and accept the inevitable fact that ordinary men have written these holy books of all
religions, as they seem to provide answers to the BIG questions that bother them too much.
However sadly they are just illusions created by ancient men on the other hand just to satisfy their thirst for
explanations and on the other hand to build a base for a mind-control system they were building up also to
feed a new emerging class of priests, who did not want to toil in the fields anymore and preferred to be fed by
others believing in their stories.

Durathror [Visitor]

01.03.2010 @ 10:46
You clearly haven't thought about this or looked at the link I suggested above. These are not ramblings (well
some very possibly) but based on a historical premise, of witnesses and documentational evidence that has
provided people with hope and - yes - some very real possibilities for salvation and a God being. You cannot
just put God or Christ or the thirst for the 'other' to a few old peoples' delusions, thought about while on drugs
or suffering the effects of famine.
Yes documents and letters (say Pauls for example) were indeed written by people, Christ was a person, prince
Siddharta was a person... What were you hoping for, Aliens?

'However sadly they are just illusions created by ancient men on the other hand, just to satisfy their thirst for
explanations and on the other hand to build a base for a mind-control system...' My dear chap, you have
mentioned this before, your rather worrying assumption that everything is a plot to draw you in!
'Mind-control' Wow! Heavy stuff! Perhaps they were Aliens, I should have seen it all along! How astute of
you!
Christ, an Alien? I would like to go to His planet I must say! As for these damn useless priests (abusers all!),
they should be imprisoned for: A. allowing themselves to be brainwashed and B, for being a drain on society.
Come on!? Have you ever really thought about the hardship involved in being a good priest? The years of
study, no, not just propaganda (a word you might choose) but also versed in all the usual anti-propaganda they
have to put up from those who do not believe, they have to be wise as serpents. They bring great comfort to
people and they represent (or most try to) the apostolic traditions, going back to the first priests, the disciples.
The above site I gave you is written by scholars (probably aliens) who can answer your questions (or
brainwash you - beware!) better then I possibly could.

Hooray, Spring is here!! Joy to all those who believe and who are called to His supper. Sorry if I was too
aggressive in my blogs by the way, you are right I must tone down my lanquage at times.

jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
01.03.2010 @ 11:25
You are hitting the nail here; "Christ was a person". I do not really doubt the possibility that there could have
been a person called Jesus in the Galilee, but I have never believed for a single second that any of the
supernatural stories told about him would be true. I do not believe that he was a "son of god" or that he would
have risen from the dead.
I simply believe that these stories were made up long after his death as marketing tools for the the faith, that
did choose this Jesus-guy as its emblem.
You know, not a single one of these supernatural stories has any other evidence than these texts themselves,
even if the existence of this man called Jesus has some backing.
The fact that a person called Jesus has existed however does not mean at all that these supernatural stories
invented much later would be true at any level.

Tom Hamilton [Visitor]

02.03.2010 @ 23:04
Well here we enter the area called rational instinct, at least that is the way I feel about it.
As a person with a police background I would say that witness statements from people like Theopholus, Paul,
the apostles and countless other simple - yet also some very high brow figures, - should have had anything to
gain from making up the Christ story.
What makes you think these stories were made up later and why exactly would they have been made up?
Logically the apostles would have quietly dissapeared into the undergrowth with shame and fear, but they did
not. What happened to them, that made them fill the history books with their martyrdom and suffering, why
on earth would simple folk take on the might of Rome?
(Taken from a web site) 'A major part of the New Testament is the apostle Paul’s 13 letters to young churches
and individuals. Paul’s letters, dated between the mid 40s and the mid 60s (12 to 33 years after Christ),
constitute the earliest witnesses to Jesus’ life and teaching. Will Durant wrote of the historical importance of
Paul’s letters, “The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. … No one has
questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously
admits that these men had known Christ in the flesh.”

'But is it True?

In books, magazines, and TV documentaries, the Jesus Seminar suggests the Gospels were written as late as
a.d. 130 to 150 by unknown authors. If those later dates are correct, there would be a gap of approximately
100 years from Christ’s death (scholars put Jesus’ death between a.d. 30 and 33). And since all the
eyewitnesses would have been dead, the Gospels could only have been written by unknown, fraudulent
authors.

So, what evidence do we have concerning when the Gospel accounts of Jesus were really written? The
consensus of most scholars is that the Gospels were written by the apostles during the first century. They cite
several reasons that we will review later in this article. For now, however, note that three primary forms of
evidence appear to build a solid case for their conclusions:
* early documents from heretics such as Marcion and the school of Valentinus citing New Testament books,
themes, and passages (See “Mona Lisa’s Smirk”)
* numerous writings of early Christian sources, such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp
* discovered copies of Gospel fragments carbon-dated as early as 117 A.D.'

...and so it goes on. A very good web site. http://y-jesus.com/jesusdoc_3.php

Many cleverer folk then you have decided that there is something here that is worthy of more research. If, and
this is a perfectly logical and rational IF - the stories are true it turns your life upside down rather. Well it
would do if you had started off only believing in the here and now (I mean who is to say that ANYTHING we
read in History is true, if you go down your road my friend. I can think of areas where history has been
re-written and lied about but for more obvious reasons then anything simple fishermen would have been able
to offer you).

jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
02.03.2010 @ 23:53
Dear Tom, has it never occurred to you that every single one of the people in the area of Christian "Bible
studies" are out there to find evidence for their beliefs?
They do discards routinely those ideas that do not support their faith and do routinely exaggerate all the hints
and small clues that could be interpreted as supporting their claims.
There is incredible amount of money available for these studies that do differ from the true science in one
extremely crucial point; the result is always well known before the study begins.
There are so very good reasons to discard their testimony as immensely partial on both ideological and
financial grounds.
In fact in these "Bible studies" there is a huge library of claims that rest on other similar claims or
interpretations and one can forge immensely good looking chains of argument on thin air drawn from the
thousands of similar useless ideologically motivated "studies" of the past.

Tom Hamilton [Visitor]

04.03.2010 @ 21:02
Dear Tom, has it never occurred to you that every single one of the people in the area of Christian "Bible
studies" are out there to find evidence for their beliefs?

Nonsense! Or do you mean people like yourself perhaps?

| Show subcomments
jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
04.03.2010 @ 21:11
It has seemingly never occurred why the Christian scholars do the same studies year after year do the same
things over and over again; because they need the money, that is to be had from the very generous supporters
of these studies and also to turn away the gnawing fear that there just must may not be nothing there.
After all these generations on the work and millions of pages of learned study there is not a single piece of
hard evidence and there will of course never be, as if there is nothing in the first place, it can never be found,
even if you spend millions of man-hours searching for it.

Tom Hamilton [Visitor]

04.03.2010 @ 21:44
You might as well say every Jew is out to find evidence to justify their paranoia.

| Show subcomments
jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
04.03.2010 @ 22:09
I would not. The things that happened to Jews in WWII are well documented and there is ample evidence for
them in thousands of document, books and photos.
For the original Christian story there is one book written by people who had a new religion to sell in the hotly
contested religious marketplace of the Roman empire.
The stark truth still is that there is and has never been any other other evidence for any of the alleged
supernatural things this Jesus-fellow is claimed to have been part of.

Durathror [Visitor]

04.03.2010 @ 21:49
'may not be nothing there'. Now you are into double negatives.

I agree visitor...

Why haven't we heard of you before Jaskaw? To challenge so many scholars and historians etc, you are truly
wasted here in this sad little blog. Bye! May God in his compassion forgive you your blindness and your
ignorance and forgive me for my arrogance.

Durathror [Visitor]

06.03.2010 @ 11:01
...Oh, by the way, (I just can't keep away can I!), you will find that despite the promise of riches, most are not
wealthier in mortal terms. The vast majority of believers are the poor, both in spirit and wealth. The church
has become wealthy but because both poor and rich GIVE money, wealth detracts from the spiritual path.
Peter, for example was a fisherman, he was crucified upside down and had nothing to gain from dying. This
was not an act that was designed to feed his family.
To think of the evidence for Christ as 'one book' is I am afraid simply wrong but clearly no amount of
information, historical or otherwise will pursuade you otherwise will it?

I make no apologies for taking again from the web:

Theologian R. C. Sproul puts it this way:

“The claim of resurrection is vital to Christianity. If Christ has been raised from the dead by God, then He has
the credentials and certification that no other religious leader possesses. Buddha is dead. Mohammad is dead.
Moses is dead. Confucius is dead. But, according to…Christianity, Christ is alive.”2

Many skeptics have attempted to disprove the resurrection. Josh McDowell was one such skeptic who spent
more than seven hundred hours researching the evidence for the resurrection. McDowell stated this regarding
the importance of the resurrection:

“I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most wicked, vicious,
heartless hoaxes ever foisted upon the minds of men, OR it is the most fantastic fact of history.”3

But not everyone is willing to fairly examine the evidence. Bertrand Russell admits his take on Jesus was “not
concerned” with historical facts.4 Historian Joseph Campbell, without citing evidence, calmly told his PBS
television audience that the resurrection of Jesus is not a factual event.5 Other scholars, such as John Dominic
Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, agree with him.6 None of these skeptics present any evidence for their views.

....

Durathror [Visitor]

06.03.2010 @ 11:02
True skeptics, as opposed to cynics, are interested in evidence. In a Skeptic magazine editorial entitled “What
Is a Skeptic?” the following definition is given: “Skepticism is … the application of reason to any and all
ideas—no sacred cows allowed. In other words … skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the
possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we
mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.”7

Unlike Russell and Crossan, many true skeptics have investigated the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. In this
article we will hear from some of them and see how they analyzed the evidence for what is perhaps the most
important question in the history of the human race: Did Jesus really rise from the dead?
Self-Prophecy

In advance of his death, Jesus told his disciples that he would be betrayed, arrested, and crucified and that he
would come back to life three days later. That’s a strange plan! What was behind it? Jesus was no entertainer
willing to perform for others on demand; instead, he promised that his death and resurrection would prove to
people (if their minds and hearts were open) that he was indeed the Messiah.

Bible scholar Wilbur Smith remarked about Jesus:

“When he said that He himself would rise again from the dead, the third day after He was crucified, He said
something that only a fool would dare say, if He expected longer the devotion of any disciples—unless He
was sure He was going to rise. No founder of any world religion known to men ever dared say a thing like
that.8

In other words, since Jesus had clearly told his disciples that he would rise again after his death, failure to
keep that promise would expose him as a fraud. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. How did Jesus die
before he (if he did) rose again?

A Horrific Death and Then. . . ?

Durathror [Visitor]

06.03.2010 @ 11:02
You know what Jesus' last hours of earthly life were like if you watched the movie by road warrior/brave
heart Mel Gibson. If you missed parts of The Passion of the Christ because you were shielding your eyes (it
would have been easier to simply shoot the movie with a red filter on the camera), just flip to the back pages
of any Gospel in your New Testament to find out what you missed.

As Jesus predicted, he was betrayed by one of his own disciples, Judas Iscariot, and was arrested. In a mock
trial under the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, he was convicted of treason and condemned to die on a
wooden cross. Prior to being nailed to the cross, Jesus was brutally beaten with a Roman cat-o’-nine-tails, a
whip with bits of bone and metal that would rip flesh. He was punched repeatedly, kicked, and spit upon.

Then, using mallets, the Roman executioners pounded the heavy wrought-iron nails into Jesus' wrists and feet.
Finally they dropped the cross in a hole in the ground between two other crosses bearing convicted thieves.
Jesus hung there for approximately six hours. Then, at 3:00 in the afternoon—that is, at exactly the same time
the Passover lamb was being sacrificed as a sin offering (a little symbolism there, you think?)—Jesus cried
out, “It is finished” (in Aramaic), and died. Suddenly the sky went dark and an earthquake shook the land.9

Pilate wanted verification that Jesus was dead before allowing his crucified body to be buried. So a Roman
guard thrust a spear into Jesus' side. The mixture of blood and water that flowed out was a clear indication that
Jesus was dead. Jesus' body was then taken down from the cross and buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb.
Roman guards next sealed the tomb, and secured it with a 24-hour watch.

Durathror [Visitor]

06.03.2010 @ 11:03
Meanwhile, Jesus' disciples were in shock. Dr. J. P. Moreland explains how devastated and confused they
were after Jesus’ death on the cross. “They no longer had confidence that Jesus had been sent by God. They
also had been taught that God would not let his Messiah suffer death. So they dispersed. The Jesus movement
was all but stopped in its tracks.”10

All hope was vanquished. Rome and the Jewish leaders had prevailed—or so it seemed.

Something Happened

But it wasn't the end. The Jesus movement did not disappear (obviously), and in fact Christianity exists today
as the world's largest religion. Therefore, we’ve got to know what happened after Jesus’ body was taken down
from the cross and laid in the tomb.

In a New York Times article, Peter Steinfels cites the startling events that occurred three days after Jesus'
death: “Shortly after Jesus was executed, his followers were suddenly galvanized from a baffled and cowering
group into people whose message about a living Jesus and a coming kingdom, preached at the risk of their
lives, eventually changed an empire. Something happened. … But exactly what?”11 That's the question we
have to answer with an investigation into the facts.

There are only five plausible explanations for Jesus' alleged resurrection, as portrayed in the New Testament:

1. Jesus didn't really die on the cross.

2. The “resurrection” was a conspiracy.
3. The disciples were hallucinating.
4. The account is legendary.
5. It really happened.

Let's work our way through these options and see which one best fits the facts.

Was Jesus Dead?

Durathror [Visitor]

06.03.2010 @ 11:03
“Marley was deader than a doornail, of that there was no doubt.” So begins Charles Dickens’s A Christmas
Carol, the author not wanting anyone to be mistaken as to the supernatural character of what is soon to take
place. In the same way, before we take on the role of CSI and piece together evidence for a resurrection, we
must first establish that there was, in fact, a corpse. After all, occasionally the newspapers will report on some
“corpse” in a morgue who was found stirring and recovered. Could something like that have happened with
Jesus?
Some have proposed that Jesus lived through the crucifixion and was revived by the cool, damp air in the
tomb–“Whoa, how long was I out for?” But that theory doesn’t seem to square with the medical evidence. An
article in the Journal of the American Medical Association explains why this so-called “swoon theory” is
untenable: “Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicated that Jesus was dead. … The
spear, thrust between His right ribs, probably perforated not only the right lung, but also the pericardium and
heart and thereby ensured His death.”12 But skepticism of this verdict may be in order, as this case has been
cold for 2,000 years. At the very least, we need a second opinion.

One place to find that is in the reports of non-Christian historians from around the time when Jesus lived.
Three of these historians mentioned the death of Jesus.

* Lucian (c.120–after 180 A.D. referred to Jesus as a crucified sophist (philosopher).13

* Josephus (c.37–c.100 A.D.) wrote, “At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of
amazing deeds. When Pilate condemned him to the cross, the leading men among us, having accused him,
those who loved him did not cease to do so.”14
* Tacitus (c. 56–c.120 A.D.) wrote, “Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme
penalty … at the hands of our procurator, Pontius Pilate.”15

This is a bit like going into the archives and finding that on one spring day in the first century, The Jerusalem
Post ran a front-page story saying that Jesus was crucified and dead. Not bad detective work, and fairly
conclusive.

In fact, there is no historical account from Christians, Romans, or Jews that disputes either Jesus’ death or his
burial. Even Crossan, a skeptic of the resurrection, agrees that Jesus really lived and died. “That he was
crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”16 In light of such evidence, we seem to be on good
grounds for dismissing the first of our five options. Jesus was clearly dead, “of that there was no doubt.”

The Matter of An Empty Tomb

No serious historian really doubts Jesus was dead when he was taken down from the cross. However, many
have questioned how Jesus’ body disappeared from the tomb. English journalist, Dr. Frank Morison. initially
thought the resurrection was either a myth or a hoax, and he began research to write a book refuting it.17 The
book became famous but for reasons other than its original intent, as we’ll see.

Morison began by attempting to solve the case of the empty tomb. The tomb belonged to a member of the
Sanhedrin Council, Joseph of Arimathea. In Israel at that time, to be on the council was to be a rock star.
Everyone knew who was on the council. Joseph must have been a real person. Otherwise, the Jewish leaders
would have exposed the story as a fraud in their attempt to disprove the resurrection. Also, Joseph’s tomb
would have been at a well-known location and easily identifiable, so any thoughts of Jesus being “lost in the
graveyard” would need to be dismissed.

Morison wondered why Jesus’ enemies would have allowed the “empty tomb myth” to persist if it wasn’t
true. The discovery of Jesus’ body would have instantly killed the entire plot.

And what is known historically of Jesus’ enemies is that they accused Jesus’ disciples of stealing the body, an
accusation clearly predicated on a shared belief that the tomb was empty.

Durathror [Visitor]

06.03.2010 @ 11:04
Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, similarly stated, “If all the
evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable … to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus
was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been
discovered … that would disprove this statement.”18

The Jewish leaders were stunned, and accused the disciples of stealing Jesus’ body. But the Romans had
assigned a 24-hour watch at the tomb with a trained guard unit (from 4 to 12 soldiers). Morison asked, “How
could these professionals have let Jesus’ body be vandalized?” It would have been impossible for anyone to
have slipped by the Roman guards and to have moved a two-ton stone. Yet the stone was moved away and the
body of Jesus was missing.

If Jesus’ body was anywhere to be found, his enemies would have quickly exposed the resurrection as a fraud.
Tom Anderson, former president of the California Trial Lawyers Association, summarizes the strength of this
argument:

"With an event so well publicized, don’t you think that it’s reasonable that one historian, one eye witness, one
antagonist would record for all time that he had seen Christ’s body? … The silence of history is deafening
when it comes to the testimony against the resurrection."19

So, with no body of evidence, and with a known tomb clearly empty, Morison accepted the evidence as solid
that Jesus’ body had somehow disappeared from the tomb.

Grave Robbing?

As Morison continued his investigation, he began to examine the motives of Jesus’ followers. Maybe the
supposed resurrection was actually a stolen body. But if so, how does one account for all the reported
appearances of a resurrected Jesus? Historian Paul Johnson, in History of the Jews, wrote, “What mattered
was not the circumstances of his death but the fact that he was widely and obstinately believed, by an
expanding circle of people, to have risen again.”20

The tomb was indeed empty. But it wasn’t the mere absence of a body that could have galvanized Jesus’
followers (especially if they had been the ones who had stolen it). Something extraordinary must have
happened, for the followers of Jesus ceased mourning, ceased hiding, and began fearlessly proclaiming that
they had seen Jesus alive.

Each eyewitness account reports that Jesus suddenly appeared bodily to his followers, the women first.
Morison wondered why conspirators would make women central to its plot. In the first century, women had
virtually no rights, personhood, or status. If the plot was to succeed, Morison reasoned, the conspirators would
have portrayed men, not women, as the first to see Jesus alive. And yet we hear that women touched him,
spoke with him, and were the first to find the empty tomb.

Later, according to the eyewitness accounts, all the disciples saw Jesus on more than ten separate occasions.
They wrote that he showed them his hands and feet and told them to touch him. And he reportedly ate with
them and later appeared alive to more than 500 followers on one occasion.

Legal scholar John Warwick Montgomery stated, “In 56 A.D. [the Apostle Paul wrote that over 500 people
had seen the risen Jesus and that most of them were still alive (1 Corinthians 15:6ff.). It passes the bounds of
credibility that the early Christians could have manufactured such a tale and then preached it among those
who might easily have refuted it simply by producing the body of Jesus.”21

Durathror [Visitor]

06.03.2010 @ 11:05
Bible scholars Geisler and Turek agree. “If the Resurrection had not occurred, why would the Apostle Paul
give such a list of supposed eyewitnesses? He would immediately lose all credibility with his Corinthian
readers by lying so blatantly.”22
Peter told a crowd in Caesarea why he and the other disciples were so convinced Jesus was alive.

We apostles are witnesses of all he did throughout Israel and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by
crucifying him, but God raised him to life three days later….We were those who ate and drank with him after
he rose from the dead.
(Acts 10:39-41)

British Bible scholar Michael Green remarked, “The appearances of Jesus are as well authenticated as
anything in antiquity. … There can be no rational doubt that they occurred.”

Consistent to the End

As if the eyewitness reports were not enough to challenge Morison’s skepticism, he was also baffled by the
disciples’ behavior. A fact of history that has stumped historians, psychologists, and skeptics alike is that
these 11 former cowards were suddenly willing to suffer humiliation, torture, and death. All but one of Jesus’
disciples were slain as martyrs. Would they have done so much for a lie, knowing they had taken the body?

The Islamic martyrs on September 11 proved that some will die for a false cause they believe in. Yet to be a
willing martyr for a known lie is insanity. As Paul Little wrote, “Men will die for what they believe to be true,
though it may actually be false. They do not, however, die for what they know is a lie.”24 Jesus’ disciples
behaved in a manner consistent with a genuine belief that their leader was alive.

No one has adequately explained why the disciples would have been willing to die for a known lie. But even
if they all conspired to lie about Jesus’ resurrection, how could they have kept the conspiracy going for
decades without at least one of them selling out for money or position? Moreland wrote, “Those who lie for
personal gain do not stick together very long, especially when hardship decreases the benefits.”25

Former “hatchet man” of the Nixon administration, Chuck Colson, implicated in the Watergate scandal,
pointed out the difficulty of several people maintaining a lie for an extended period of time.

"I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had
seen Jesus raised from the dead, and then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every
one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren’t true.
Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world—and they couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks.
You’re telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible."26

Something happened that changed everything for these men and women. Morison acknowledged, “Whoever
comes to this problem has sooner or later to confront a fact that cannot be explained away. … This fact is that
… a profound conviction came to the little group of people—a change that attests to the fact that Jesus had
risen from the grave.”

Were the Disciples Hallucinating?

People still think they see a fat, gray-haired Elvis darting into Dunkin Donuts. And then there are those who
believe they spent last night with aliens in the mother ship being subjected to unspeakable testing. Sometimes
certain people can “see” things they want to, things that aren’t really there. And that’s why some have claimed
that the disciples were so distraught over the crucifixion that their desire to see Jesus alive caused mass
hallucination. Plausible?

Psychologist Gary Collins, former president of the American Association of Christian Counselors, was asked
about the possibility that hallucinations were behind the disciples’ radically changed behavior. Collins
remarked, “Hallucinations are individual occurrences. By their very nature, only one person can see a given
hallucination at a time. They certainly aren’t something which can be seen by a group of people.”28
Hallucination is not even a remote possibility, according to psychologist Thomas J. Thorburn. “It is absolutely
inconceivable that … five hundred persons, of average soundness of mind … should experience all kinds of
sensuous impressions—visual, auditory, tactual—and that all these … experiences should rest entirely upon
… hallucination.”29

Furthermore, in the psychology of hallucinations, the person would need to be in a frame of mind where they
so wished to see that person that their mind contrives it. Two major leaders of the early church, James and
Paul, both encountered a resurrected Jesus, neither expecting, or hoping for the pleasure. The Apostle Paul, in
fact led the earliest persecutions of Christians, and his conversion remains inexplicable except for his own
testimony that Jesus appeared to him, resurrected.
From Lie to Legend

Some unconvinced skeptics attribute the resurrection story to a legend that began with one or more persons
lying or thinking they saw the resurrected Jesus. Over time, the legend would have grown and been
embellished as it was passed around. In this theory, Jesus’ resurrection is on a par with King Arthur’s round
table, little Georgie Washington’s inability to tell a lie, and the promise that Social Security will be solvent
when we need it.

But there are three major problems with that theory.

1. Legends rarely develop while multiple eyewitnesses are alive to refute them. One historian of ancient Rome
and Greece, A. N. Sherwin-White, argued that the resurrection news spread too soon and too quickly for it to
have been a legend. 30
2. Legends develop by oral tradition and don’t come with contemporary historical documents that can be
verified. Yet the Gospels were written within three decades of the resurrection.31
3. The legend theory doesn’t adequately explain either the fact of the empty tomb or the historically verified
conviction of the apostles that Jesus was alive.32

Why Did Christianity Win?

Morison was bewildered by the fact that “a tiny insignificant movement was able to prevail over the cunning
grip of the Jewish establishment, as well as the might of Rome.” Why did it win, in the face of all those odds
against it?

He wrote, “Within twenty years, the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish church. … In
less than fifty years it had begun to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire. When we have said everything
that can be said … we stand confronted with the greatest mystery of all. Why did it win?”33

By all rights, Christianity should have died out at the cross when the disciples fled for their lives. But the
apostles went on to establish a growing Christian movement.

J. N. D. Anderson wrote, “Think of the psychological absurdity of picturing a little band of defeated cowards
cowering in an upper room one day and a few days later transformed into a company that no persecution
could silence—and then attempting to attribute this dramatic change to nothing more convincing than a
miserable fabrication. … That simply wouldn’t make sense.”34

Many scholars believe (in the words of an ancient commentator) that “the blood of the martyrs was the seed of
the church.” Historian Will Durant observed, “Caesar and Christ had met in the arena and Christ had won.”35
A Surprise Conclusion

With myth, hallucination, and a flawed autopsy ruled out, with incontrovertible evidence for an empty tomb,
with a substantial body of eyewitnesses to his reappearance, and with the inexplicable transformation and
impact upon the world of those who claimed to have seen him, Morison became convinced that his
preconceived bias against Jesus Christ’s resurrection had been wrong. He began writing a different
book—entitled Who Moved the Stone?—to detail his new conclusions. Morison simply followed the trail of
evidence, clue by clue, until the truth of the case seemed clear to him. His surprise was that the evidence led to
a belief in the resurrection.

In his first chapter, “The Book That Refused to Be Written,” this former skeptic explained how the evidence
convinced him that Jesus’ resurrection was an actual historical event. “It was as though a man set out to cross
a forest by a familiar and well-beaten track and came out suddenly where he did not expect to come out.”36

Morison is not alone. Countless other skeptics have examined the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, and
accepted it as the most astounding fact in all of human history. But the resurrection of Jesus Christ raises the
question: What does the fact that Jesus defeated death have to do with my life? The answer to that question is
what New Testament Christianity is all about.

jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
07.03.2010 @ 22:09
Phoof; you must have had a hard time cutting and pasting all this stuff, dear Durathon; a original idea of your
own would of course be welcome also now and then, but then in the world of Christian dogma original ideas
are definitely frowned upon...
All these fine gentlemen you cite however face the same dilemma; they want to have evidence for their faith,
as they want to be reasonable men and believe in real things and not in some made up myths.
The basic fact is however still the same; there is nothing else than the stories in the Bible to back the claims of
the Christians, and there has never been nothing else. These gentlemen try different approaches to cover for
this gaping hole, but the end result remains the same.
You are quite welcome to believe in these naive illusions, but what I don't like is misquoting and
misunderstanding people like Bertrand Russell, who did not accept the Christian myths for a single second
during his entire adult life. He was btw. one of the finest minds I know of and I think you should read this fine
essay by him: "Why I Am Not A Christian" by Bertrand Russell
in http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

Durathror [Visitor]

10.03.2010 @ 18:28
Original ideas? Where were yours? These gentleman, do you actually know anything about them? Seems to
me they were looking for evidence and found it.
You simply ignore it.
What is your dogma then, if I may ask?

You keep mentioning B.Russell! Is he your bible by any chance? And what are the myths you are talking
about? WAKE UP! SMELL THE GRASS! ITS UNDER YOU NOSE! I have read quite enough of BR and
others of his ilk to know how shallow and how short their chosen path actually is. They have chosen a path
and thats fine. Your conclusions however on what I have so carefully cut and pasted for you, are frankly the
clearest indication yet that if a feast were placed before you, you would still convince yourself you were
eating pig swill!

| Show subcomments
jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
10.03.2010 @ 21:25
There is only a small problem with all your "evidence". It is evidence of deep faith and of wanting to be
certain only. Life is too short to take these things one by one, but they all share the same bias; they all are
based on wishful thinking that glues over the glaring omissions.
The thing that Christianity was born after the death of the originator of the cult is not a proof of his
resurrection in any way, but it tells how good story was created to explain away the demise of the original
cult-figure.
This story was a work of literary and psychological genius, to have this effect, even if most of it was borrowed
from the mythology of other then current religions.
A classical example of self-deception going on here is the Josephus thing; if one reads the passage of Josephus
with open mind, one sees immediately that he is just telling what has been told to him by some wild-eyed
followers of this Jesus-guy.
He clearly has never seen or met him and does not have anything other than hearsay to tell; this kind of
evidence would be thrown out of any court anywhere in the world.

Durathror [Visitor]

13.03.2010 @ 13:15
'It is evidence of deep faith and of wanting to be certain only.'

Faith and evidence are not related things. The evidence is found, by those, like yourself, enquiring minds (not
really like yourself, as you do not have an enquiring mind), who never had any faith in the first place. You
cannot dismiss everyone with evidence, following lengthy enq's, as fools. This is precisely what you are
doing.

'Life is too short to take these things one by one, but they all share the same bias; they all are based on wishful
thinking that glues over the glaring omissions.' Indeed life is short, but thousands of years have not prevented
the voice of Him from shouting like thunder (sorry to be emotive, I know its not your thing). There are indeed
omissions I grant you, just as there are within science and say, Darwins theory of evolution or AGW (Anthro.
warming etc); the origins of the universe etc.

'The thing that Christianity was born after the death of the originator of the cult is not a proof of his
resurrection in any way, but it tells how good story was created to explain away the demise of the original
cult-figure.'

This clumsy paragraph of yours shows me that you have only skimmed the 'evidence' and using the very
wishful thinking you assume in all those 'cult' members you ridicule, you dismiss it all out of hand, almost in
panic. To think of Christianity as a cult is simply frantic and bitter criticism illustrating (once again) complete
ignorance and shallowness. A cult is usually a small religious group, imposing excessive control over its
members. I do not see any of this control at all. It is primarily a gentle religion and renowned for its liberal
attitudes and infact rather undisciplined exponents. The feast days and joy the forgiveness and the
inclusiveness etc, belie what you claim to be a sort of dangerous cult! Yeah, sure we have had exceptions like
Waco in the USA and evil individuals dressed up as priests etc. This (if you believe in evil) is what one
expects from the human dark side now and again. This is not a religion of totalitarianism or hate.

'This story was a work of literary and psychological genius' 'Back to the grind stone...' I mutter to myself...
Who wrote this story (gospels) and why? I would like an answer please? (Feel free to make up any reason you
like, it does not have to be based on any historical evidence or thoughtful, even logical assumptions based on
the existing facts, or by any respected figures within the historical and theological realms...).

'borrowed from the other mythology of other then current religions'

Firstly you are possibly refering to the Old Testament and the religion of the Jews. What do you mean
'borrowed'? What was borrowed exactly and what other religions are you refering to here? Can you be more
specific please?
There are many witnesses some of whom have not met Christ (like Paul), there are outsiders of historical
importance who speak of Christ and his followers.
You have to look at the whole picture, not just pick up on individual, choice morsels that suit you! The subject
is huge and deserves thorough investigation.

'wild-eyed followers of this Jesus-guy.' Your pathetic assumptions are frankly not worth this! If you took the
trouble to take the most basic texts and letters of say St Paul or actually read the gospels carefully, you will
see that these people are anything BUT wild eyed or mad. This remark, more than any other, marks you out as
rather wild eyed yourself.

No, this matter of the Jesus 'thing' would not be thrown out of any court, again, more nonsense! You really
must stop assuming you are the only psuedo intellectual who sees 'the' truth, or is somehow capable of rational
thought processes! It has stood the test of many experts and lawyers, believe me, many actual lawyers
strangely enough... (But they are all fools of course, you are the only person who does not need a crutch in
life, wow! what a guy! A pity your picture does not do your powerful aura justice)

Got to go... son needs the computer for work....

Robin [Visitor]

30.03.2010 @ 14:42
I find both of your comments very interesting and both have valid points. Your are very passionate about your
convictions and your backgrounds and knowledge far exceed mine.... but I have a simple observation: many
of religions' "rules" are good-hearted, and many make no sense. Many humans do as they were raised, so if
born a Christian, remain a Christian, born a Muslim, remain a Muslim, etc. We need to be open-minded.
There is a similarity between religious people and atheist people: both are quite sure they "know" there IS
something after death or there is NOT. We all have egos - these sometimes interfere with our ability to
carefully consider all viewpoints. Let's all worship the golden rule, keep an open mind and open heart, do our
best to not live in fear and do good while we are here. PEACE
Marcus Aurelius on change
"Observe constantly that all things take place by change, and accustom thyself to consider that the
nature of the Universe loves nothing so much as to change the things which are, and to make new things
like them. " - Marcus Aurelius

The main point of this quote for me at least is to remind how extremely important thing change is, even if we
tend to see things as they are just at the moment. It still is a very important thing to utter aloud in a world
where all too many people believe that permanence and resisting change is the natural order of things.

I must add that some religious people have always seen that Marcus Aurelius is speaking here of Universe as
some kind of divine force, but I strongly disagree. Men did just express things like this in this way in Marcus
Aurelius' times. I see that the expression "Nature of the Universe" just means that our universe just has certain
universal qualities that find their expression in different events of our physical world.

I of course understand why many theists have mistakenly inserted automatically "God" into the place of
"Universe" in this quote for nearly two thousand years. I see, however, that this quote says nothing of the
ultimate causes why things work the way they do work and is just referring on how the basic structure of the
Universe appears to humans.

I do believe that good old Marcus did not think that "nature" would have a "will" or "mind" of its own, but he
is in a poetic way just referring to how the mechanism of our universe does work.

One should remember that Marcus Aurelius was a always rationalist first and foremost even if his ideas on the
deep nature of our Universe can also be interpreted as Deism or pantheism.
However, deism or pantheism have never really had anything to do with any of the existing religions, as it is
just a idea of original cause and order of things.
In Deism there is no concept of any kind of personal god, eternal life or eternal punishment and there are in
fact no gods interfering in human affairs at all.
Deism or pantheism is in reality not a religion as we normally do understand a religion, as it has no holy
books, no rituals and no priests.
It is just a feeling that one needs to have a answer to a very basic question; why does this Universe of ours
exist and how has it home to into being?

Of course the other viable option is to say that we have a lot of good and even satisfactory scientific answers
to these questions, but we do not have final answers and maybe never will.
Just perhaps we just should learn to live with the idea that there can be questions that we do not have definite
and final answers, even if we have good and even excellent ideas of why things are as they are and these
answers are getting better every day.
However, I do think we should not fall into false hubris of claiming to have all the answers we need, as the
religions are so eager to proclaim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius

by jaskaw @ 13.02.2010 - 13:10:51

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/13/marcus-aurelius-on-change-7999969/
Marcus Aurelius on rejecting the sense of injury
"Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears." - Marcus Aurelius

There are of course also mental injuries that are so deep that you just cannot make them disappear from your
mind whatever you do. I do still claim that Marcus Aurelius was right in stating that the less you dwell in your
own mental injuries, the better you will inevitably feel in the long run.
He is of course not speaking of the physical injuries, but the mental injuries are very often far more serious
that physical ones, the more so as they often much more difficult to heal.

Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic and central to the Stoic way of life was to accept with dignity also the bad cards
the life sometimes deals and make the best out of also bad situations, the more so as you never know when the
tide will turn.

However, the problem with all philosophy is very often that it is spoken in absolutes, as is the case here;
Marcus Aurelius is not saying that you 'probably' or 'possibly' can do this, but states his idea as a fact of life.
The problem here is that even this idea is in the real world applicable only just in certain situations. On the
other hand this principle is a goal that one can always strive for, as striving for this goal can help even if it
never really reached.
A fact of life is that people often take a stand on this idea on similar absolute level as the original idea is
presented.

However, I do think that you can vastly improve your life without really getting to the goals you set up, but
just by trying to go in the general direction of a greater goal. This process of improvement is the main thing in
my mind, not attaining any kind of fixed goals.
One can of course not say that all mental injuries will just disappear, if you just forget them. However, I do
not think that Marcus Aurelius is even claiming that, but that he us just setting here a goal on which one can
aim for.

I know that that this may sound like a religious concept for some, but I do think that it is a form of very pure
form of philosophy, where one tries to find ideas that can help a people in their daily lives. The line between
philosophy and religion is of course very thin and has been often crossed both ways.
Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic and Stoicism is normally classed as philosophy, but one can well take it as a
religion also, even if it lacks infallible holy books, priests, superstitious beliefs or formal organizational
structure that we lately have come to see the things that do characterize a religion.

Similarly also Epicureanism can well be used to replace religions, even if there is nothing supernatural in it, as
the whole thing is based on human reasoning on how to achieve a best possible life by aiming to have a
rational control over ones needs and wants.
Christians hated and despised Epicurans as they used reason to combat their superstitions and myths.
Epicureans were largely atheists or at least agnostics, but Stoics did have a pantheistic ideas of a universal
spirit, that can well be interpreted also as a the Universe and Nature only.

The thing is about a rational advice that is based on rational thoughts on how at least trying to control ones
negative emotions can increase human happiness.
The whole things has nothing whatsoever to do with any kinds 'gods' or even supernatural entities of any kind.
Marcus Aurelius just draws a logical conclusion on the premises of the very human and rational Stoc thinking.
Stoics can of course well be accused of a irrational belief in human rationality and the ability of humans to
rationally handle also their emotions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

by jaskaw @ 14.02.2010 - 17:22:10

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/14/marcus-aurelius-on-rejecting-the-sense-of-injury-8006696/
Thomas Paine on securing liberty
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he
violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Paine in
"Dissertation on First Principles of Government (1791)

The most difficult task facing any democracy is how to respond to those who do threaten the existence of
democracy. We have in good memory the sorry example of Germany in the 30's, where the enemies of
freedom did take over a major industrial nation largely by just using the tools provided by the democratic
system itself, even if they did eventually break this system in a very early stage of their march into power.
Thomas Paine or course did not have that precedent before him, but I still think that he was right. I do think
that democracy must be protected by the means that are provided by the democratic process itself.
Otherwise we might still end up in a totalitarian system, as protecting democracy with undemocratic means
will always undermine it and slowly eat democracy away.

The very basic question that we must always answer when considering eroding the freedoms and rights of
citizens in a democratic country is why should anybody defend a democracy that is not a democracy
anymore?
I think that that we simply must take the risk of losing some battles to win the war. A fact of life is that the
enemies of democracy love nothing more than a situation where their actions will erode democracy from the
inside.
The enemies of liberty will clap their hands when there is nothing real left to differentiate democracies and
totalitarian systems.

by jaskaw @ 21.02.2010 - 21:49:08

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/21/thomas-paine-on-securing-liberty-8050111/
Bertrand Russell on science and philosophy
"In science men change their opinions when new knowledge becomes available; but philosophy in the
minds of many is assimilated rather to theology than to science." - Bertrand Russell in the preface to
"The Bertrand Russell Dictionary of Mind, Matter and Morals" (1952) edited by Lester E. Denonn.

Bertrand Russell had a great insight into both science and philosophy, as he was a very famous name in both
fields already during his long and extremely productive career.
Here he is pointing out a fundamental difference between those two disciplines.
Science is always in search for a better answer and there is and there never will be any kind of final scientific
truth of anything.

There are excellent and extremely stable scientific facts and findings, but a very basic concept in modern
science is that even the most established facts and findings must be replaced with new ones, if our knowledge
is somehow increased so that these fact and findings do become obsolete.

One can however in normally easily point out which scientific hypotheses or theory is the accepted scientific
'truth' at any given moment. It is always the idea which is accepted by the majority of the best possible experts
of any given field, even if also it will change if new and better 'truth' is found out to exist.
On the other hand in philosophy there has never been and will never be such consensus of opinion.
Philosophy outside the field of formal logic is not dealing in hard facts, but it is about ideas and even more
about human comprehension of those ideas.

So there can never be a 'true' philosophy in a way as there is a scientific 'truth'.

In general accepting one philosophical idea does not prevent accepting also other even very different
philosophical ideas, even more as these ideas can just be different manifestations of the same original ideas.
Of course also in the field of philosophy there are people who think that they have found some kind of final
truth, but these people are often mixing the fixed religious and theological ideas with philosophy. The stark
fact is that in the end only religions can promise final and unmovable truths outside the field of mathematics.

Science will never claim to have found out the final and unmovable truth on anything. If it does that, it is not
science any more and becomes more like a religion with their fixed final truths.
In the end the hard core of science is not about facts at all, but about the scientific method. This constant
search for new truths has already produced the results that have transformed our world beyond recognition in
a few hundred years that the modern scientific search for new truths has been going on.

by jaskaw @ 22.02.2010 - 21:28:19

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/22/bertrand-russell-on-science-and-philosophy-8056288/
Bertrand Russell on good life
"The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge." - Bertrand Russell in "What I
Believe" (1925)

A very familiar claim made by religious people is that their religion is their main or even the only real source
of love and caring for them or for the society at large.
Religious people seem to be afraid of losing the feelings of love and affection that they have come to associate
with their particular brand of religion, the more so as they are constantly and systematically led to believe that
the love and passion they feel towards other people are there only because of their religion.

On the other hand the reality just might be that strong religious attachment in a modern society just often
happens to interest people who are loving and caring persons to start with.
It just might be that the real source of their caring and loving feelings just could be within themselves; they
just could project their true personality through the religious framework.

Bertrand Russell was a non-believer all his life, but he was a extremely passionate person who had reserves of
love for the whole of the humanity.
He did work all his life for the causes he saw as vehicles for forwarding the good of whole humanity and not
just the good of his fellow believers or forward the cause of his own nationality.

However, he was not guided in his love of humanity by ancient religious dogmas, but by the knowledge he
had acquired on the evolution, history and current state of the society he did live in.
He did also change many of his opinions several times during his lifetime, when he saw that he had been
acting under insufficient or wrong information earlier.
However, the passion and love for humanity and most of all knowledge did guide his life to the very last days.

by jaskaw @ 25.02.2010 - 23:31:15

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/25/bertrand-russell-on-good-life-8075401/
Mark Twain on loyalty to petrified opinions
"Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world and never
will." - Mark Twain in a paper delivered in Hartford (l884). This quote is engraved on Twain's bust in
the National Hall of Fame.

Mark Twain was as free a soul as one really could be in the United Stated in the late 1800's. Only very late in
his life he did very cautiously publicly air his very strong opinions about the established order of the society,
but especially his very strong negative opinions about the organized religions.
However, he was always aware of the dangers that the opinions of that nature did pose in a profession of
writer, who is largely depending on the good will of the buying public.

As also his family wanted to keep this side of him secret after his death, most of his critical ponderings have
seen light of the day only during the later part of the 20th century.
Some are even seeing the light of the day at these very days, as Mark Twain did stipulate in his will that most
sensitive of his writings could be published only 100 years after his death. The process of publishing his final
autobiography is still going on and only the first part of it has seen the light thus far.

As it stands, Mark Twain was a progressive and a pragmatist, who believed that the world would be a better
place is reason would be allowed to guide human life.

In my mind in this quote Mark Twain reminds strong and unchanging traditions, ideas and ideologies (for
example religions) are forces that do all too often work against any kind of change in a society.
They are conservative forces that did for example also help to preserve the worst parts of the medieval feudal
societies also in a time when it was time for it to give way to more modern forms of government, when the
economic and social progress of the societies did already demand change.

by jaskaw @ 28.02.2010 - 22:32:17

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/02/28/mark-twain-on-loyalty-to-petrified-opinions-8091822/
Feedback for Post "Mark Twain on loyalty to petrified
opinions"

NS [Visitor]

29.11.2010 @ 16:39
Nice quote!!!!
Bertrand Russell on authority in science
"The most essential characteristic of scientific technique is that it proceeds from experiment, not from
tradition. The experimental habit of mind is a difficult one for most people to maintain; indeed, the
science of one generation has already become the tradition of the next." - Bertrand Russell in "The
Scientific Outlook" (1931)

In my mind the thing Bertrand Russell is here calling the scientific technique is of course now better known as
the 'scientific method', that is the groundwork on which all real modern science is based on.
It guarantees that the wrong guesses and wrong interpretations that are inevitable also in scientific work will
be eliminated given due time, when all findings must be analyzed and valued by the best experts on a given
field before they are generally accepted.

However the danger of relying on force of authority is present also in science, when scientist start taking the
work of previous scientists as something that one does not dare to touch or a scientific finding achieves a
status where nobody questions its validity anymore.
This kind of development can seriously hamper the true advancement of scientific knowledge. Happily these
bottlenecks are mostly just temporary things, as the very basic premise of science does not lay in force of
authority, but in fact in questioning it.

One can be quite certain that as long as the scientific method is truly honored in science, bad science will be
eventually discarded, even if can take time.
Only if true scientific method is rejected, there is a real danger of science becoming like a religion with Final
Truths of its own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

by jaskaw @ 07.03.2010 - 22:58:43

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/03/07/the-most-essential-characteristic-of-scientific-technique-is-that-it-8135027/
Bertrand Russell on being cocksure
"The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the
intelligent are full of doubt. Even those of the intelligent who believe that they have a nostrum are too
individualistic to combine with other intelligent men from whom they differ on minor points. This was
not always the case. "- Bertrand Russell in "The Triumph of Stupidity" (1933) in "Mortals and Others:
Bertrand Russell's American Essays", 1931-1935

One of real downsides of understanding that there just might be no real absolute and final truths is
understanding the relativity and fleeting nature of all knowledge.
I do think that one can achieve tremendous insight on the basic nature of our world and universe when one
does understand that in practice all things can be seen at least from two sides.

I do think that one has achieved a lot when one understands that even all most solid looking things can change
given enough time and most of all our perception of them can change even fundamentally.
However, you very easily end up as seemingly feeble and undecided compared to people who do not see
things in this enlightened way and who believe in the existence of final and unmovable truths.

It is a undeniable fact of life that a person who believes in very simple and unmoving truths can act in a much
more straightforward way than a person who does see the complexity behind it all.
What more people believing in simple and straightforward explanations can find it much easier to convince
other people of their views, as people in general just love to have simple and easy to adopt truths.

The validity and real truth-value of these 'truths' is very often a secondary importance, as many people will
always choose soothing and empowering lies over troubling and ambiguous truths without giving another
thought.
I do think that the greatest challenge for all scientists and rational thinkers is to present difficult and
many-sided issues in a way that do on the other hand retain the real ambiguity of our universe and still show a
firm and easy to follow line of thought.
That is a challenge not many have risen to accept, but I must say that I think that Bertrand Russell definitely is
one of them.

by jaskaw @ 10.03.2010 - 23:34:31

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/03/10/bertrand-russell-on-8154169/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on being cocksure"

Richard Prins [Visitor]

http://richardprins.com
30.11.2010 @ 21:54
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who
know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. ~ Charles
Darwin, The Descent of Man

The second part of Russell's quote seems to attest to what is known as "the herding of cats".

PS: There's an error in the "intelligence" tag.

George Orwell on highly civilized human beings
trying to kill him
"As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me. They do not feel any
enmity against me as an individual, nor I against them. They are only doing their duty , as the saying
goes. Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted law-abiding men who would never dream of
committing murder in private life." - George Orwell in "The Lion and the Unicorn" (1941), Part I:
"England Your England"

One of the most difficult issues facing any thinking person is what to think of the system of controlled state
violence that is normally called war.
In his or her heart every human being instinctively knows that war must be wrong, as arbitrarily killing other
people is wrong in all cultures on the earth. On the other hand defending oneself, one's family and birthplace
must be allowed, as the ruffians would take over the world otherwise.

Many intelligent and wise people go round the issue completely if they live in peaceful times. George Orwell
however was living through one of the worst nightmares humanity has had to face thus far and he could not
afford such luxury.
George Orwell did have clear pacifist tendencies, but he was also a staunch supporter of liberty, democracy
and social justice and he was ready to defend these ideals when they were attacked.
He did not hesitate one second to join fight the rising forces of Fascism and Nazism. He did in fact volunteer
to fight in the Spanish civil war where he was badly wounded and he did support the British war-effort against
the Nazis whole-heartedly.

The first big question this quote does rise in my mind is about the absolute authority of the state. This
authority can be used to to make quite peaceful, law-abiding and friendly fathers, uncles and sons to attack
other peaceful, law-abiding and friendly fathers, uncles and sons, if just the leaders of a country do so wish.
The second question raised by this quote is about the need to dehumanize the enemy, which is a very
important part of every war. As George Orwell reminds of the basic absurdity of situation, he reminds also
that those men high above in their airplanes are still human beings, even if they are ordered by the authority of
the state to do things they would never even dream of doing otherwise.

His basic pacifism and strong humanism shines wonderfully through in this magnificent quote, as it takes a
real courage to remind in a situation like this that one's enemies are still human beings, even if the machinery
of state in their home country has been taken over by one of the meanest, hardest and inhuman ideologies that
has ever existed on the face of the earth.

by jaskaw @ 16.03.2010 - 23:08:07

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/03/16/george-orwell-on-higly-civilized-human-beings-trying-to-kill-him-8189746/
Feedback for Post "George Orwell on highly civilized
human beings trying to kill him"

Trimegistus [Visitor]

17.03.2010 @ 00:14
But what about the complementary case of highly UN-civilized human beings trying to kill you? How can one
possibly "dehumanize" someone willing to hijack a planeload of passengers in order to destroy a building full
of office workers? Or plant a bomb in a Baghdad marketplace simply to sow misery and chaos? It's all very
well to muse abou thow "the state" makes men into killers, but what about men who kill perfectly viciously
without any flag or uniform?

Seems like sometimes, some fellows just need killing.

| Show subcomments
lancedboyle [Member]
02.07.2010 @ 08:41

Trimegistus
They do have a flag and a uniform very similar to that of other zealots, that being religion.

xavier [Visitor]

17.03.2010 @ 02:35
Trimegistus:

Your points are valid from a logical and certainly an emotional perspective, but I challenge you to dig a little
deeper. Orwell had a lot to say about the perversity and oppression of religion as well as statist oppression; it
just wasn't part of this particular anecdote. Religion has inspired some pretty dreadful behavior, from the
Crusades to the Inquisition to suicide bombing and other 'terrorist' acts. But Orwell's point about the human
being in the airplane still applies, because the individual blowing himself up on a bus is quite obviously
assured of the righteousness of his act -- assured enough, even, to destroy himself in the process. Our Western
definition of 'civilized' may be put to strain in declaring that such a person committed their act out of a deep
sense of conviction, and it may be a conviction to principles we would consider barbaric, but it is still a
conviction nonetheless. The terrorist, like the Nazi bombardier, surely loves his family and his culture -- and
is, like the Nazi, entwined in an apparatus that deceives him into believing that what he is doing is absolutely
right.

In addition, there are causative issues at play here, whether we're talking about Nazi Germany (a result of the
country's brutal economic punishment at Versailles) or Muslim terrorists (who can point to a litany of hostile
acts by Western governments as their cause). I am justifying neither of these sets of villains nor their actions; I
am merely saying that they did not appear in a vacuum. Instead, they constitute the inevitable blowback from
very UNcivilized behavior on the part of the countries that subsequently ended up being victimized by them.
This is an important factor to remember, if we are ever to rid ourselves of the monsters we continue to blindly
create.

In summary: a man wrapped in explosives detonates and kills himself and several innocent people on a bus or
a plane or in a shopping mall. He is convinced that in doing so, he has killed some of the 'infidels' -- enemies
of his culture and his god -- and earned his place in an eternity of peace and perfection. He is convinced of
this because of religious leaders who have perverted and abused his faith for their own agendas, AND because
he has seen with his own eyes the violent actions of the 'infidels' who have abused and destroyed his culture
and ancestral lands. He kills civilians partly because his religion tells him that unbelievers are not quite human
-- and partly because he has seen innocents in his own country, perhaps family members, torn to pieces by
'civilized' armies with weaponry he cannot hope to match.

If we are to end this madness, we must first understand where it comes from. Or else we will simply create
more of it, until the whole world is consumed and destroyed by it.

jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
17.03.2010 @ 10:11
Bravo xavier! I must say that I have not encountered for a long time a text I can so wholeheartedly underwrite
as your comment. A standing ovation!
I must add that the dehumanizing process is going on all the time everywhere there is a violent conflict.
As a atheist I myself must be very careful not to fall into the trap of forgetting the basic common humanity of
all human beings when looking at the awful things that are done because of religious fanaticism.
If one however sees religious fanaticism as a contagious disease, one can however see also these fanatics as
humans with a curable ailment.
Admittedly fanaticism is one of the hardest things to cure in humans, but on the other hand also AIDS was
seen as incurable not so long ago.

| Show subcomments
Luis Blanco [Visitor]

03.05.2010 @ 14:16
I absolutely agree. Congratulations for keeping a rational and human point of view!

andy [Visitor]
http://www.siliconrockstar.com
28.03.2010 @ 20:46
'Seems like sometimes, some fellows just need killing.'

I laughed pretty hard at that one (gah, I'm going to hell).

I would rephrase it as:

'Seems like sometimes, some fellows are just trying to die.'

Also, bravo Xavier. Violence is a vicious cycle, and to think it can be stopped by perpetuating the cycle is
very naive.
Bertrand Russell on advances in civilization
"Every advance in civilization has been denounced as unnatural while it was recent." - Bertrand
Russell in "Unpopular Essays" (1950)

This quote is easy to dismiss as a lighthearted joke, but I do not think that Bertrand Russell wrote it
lightheartedly at all. In fact in my mind this short sentence contains an immense truth, that has plagued
mankind as long as there has been progress; which does of course include the whole history of mankind.

Even the utter unfairness of the medieval feudal society was sanctified as the god-given natural state of man.
It was widely seen as the 'natural state o man' until this inefficient, unjust and cruel model for running a
society was finally broken after the great French and American revolutions.
Slavery was also seen as god-given and highly natural part of life in the Christian lands also for nearly two
millennium, before the rise of humanistic thought made also many of the Christians to accept the basic
equality of all humans and turned them against this evil institution.
Eventually even Islamic world was forced by the pressure coming from the more advanced parts of the world
to give up the inhuman institution of slavery, which is however still clearly sanctioned by that religion.

In more recent times we have of course seen all kinds of technological innovation stamped as unnatural.
The conservative mindset just has always hard time adjusting to any kind of change. The fact is that during the
last decades many kinds of technical innovations have changed our lives in a faster pace than never before in
the history of the human race.
So also the conservatives have been declaring things 'unnatural'right and left, before even they have
eventually been forced to accept most of the new innovations because of all of the benefits they have brought
with them.

by jaskaw @ 21.03.2010 - 22:46:46

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/03/21/bertrand-russell-on-advances-in-civilization-8219073/
George Orwell on the futility of revenge
"The whole idea of revenge and punishment is a childish day-dream. Properly speaking, there is no
such thing as revenge. Revenge is an act which you want to commit when you are powerless and
because you are powerless: as soon as the sense of impotence is removed, the desire evaporates also. "
George Orwell in "Revenge is Sour", Tribune (1945-11-09)

I have already noticed that this quote is extremely hard for many people to swallow. The idea of revenge is
extremely strongly embedded in many people's minds, even if in real world getting your revenge will just all
too often mean lowering yourself to the level of the original wrongdoer.
In my mind this is a very Epicurean, but also Stoic idea, where a person is expected to overcome his or her
original feelings of hurt when the original hurtful situation is over and think rationally on the consequences of
one's actions in the new situation, at least when emotions start cooling over.

A rational person should be able understand that his or her response to the original wrongdoing can all too
easily constitute just a continuation of injustice in a new level, if the action is not aimed at correcting the
consequences of the wrongdoings that have been done and most of all preventing them from happening again,
but simply aims at revenge.
Of course no person in this world can be or is wholly rational, as raw emotions do play havoc on the minds of
every human being walking the surface of this earth.
However, I do claim that understanding the core message of this quote can help in understanding the forces at
play in handling situations where people feel that they have been treated unjustly.

I think that George Orwell was here speaking about the revenge against the German nation that had just lost a
world war after it had caused the worst human made catastrophe in the history of the world.
They had killed, tortured and mistreated other humans on a unforeseeable scale, but still George Orwell was
writing these terse sentences on the futility of revenge. One must really ask why he did this?

I think that George Orwell saw that punishing nations is as act of justice just like punishing a whole family
including the uncles and aunts just because their nephew has gone awry.
I think that he saw that punishing those who are responsible for dragging a nation into mud would be the first
objective. However, the main thing should be preventing these awful things from happening ever again.
George Orwell also very well knew the lessons that were learned from the injustice that was levied on
Germany on the end of the First World War. The peace treaty of Versailles was a form of revenge dictated by
the vengeful French.
Many people warned outright that it already contained the seeds of the new war, as the vengeful injustice
levied on Germany made them just thirst for a chance to correct that injustice.

For me at least the treaty of Versailles is a classical example of letting emotions like revenge dictate real
world policies.
Nations will not go away, but they will still be there even after your sweet revenge is meted out, as well as
your mean co-worker will be there even if you beat him or her in a spiraling race of meanness that the idea of
revenge so easily unleashes.

by jaskaw @ 28.03.2010 - 20:25:35

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/03/28/george-orwell-on-revenge-8264915/
Feedback for Post "George Orwell on the futility of revenge"

andy [Visitor]
http://www.siliconrockstar.com
28.03.2010 @ 20:39
I fully agree with this assessment. Revenge is a selfish emotion that has it's source in feeling powerless. I have
experienced this firsthand after my lover was murdered. I have never wanted revenge so bad, I wanted to take
from them what they took from me, I wanted her killer to hurt like I had hurt. But when the problem is
suffering, when your adversary is violence, how can you expect to solve that problem by creating more
suffering and violence?
Thomas Paine on owning earth
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is
individual property." - Thomas Paine in "Agrarian Justice" (1795 - 1796)

I do think that Thomas Paine reminds us here that we all in fact are just borrowing something that in the end
really can never be wholly owned, when we claim to own land or water.
I believe that when we understand that we must in the end return that borrowed property in good condition to
its rightful owners, as any lender of borrowed things must do.
With these true owners I mean of course the coming generations, the humanity as a whole and the Earth as a
extremely interdependent ecosystem.

I do think that we can never own a piece of land in a similar fashion that we can claim to own a television set
and do whatever we like to it.
We can improve and use to our advantage the parts of earth we claim as legally our own, but I do think we
should always remember that we are not the final owners of it in a way we can be the final owners of a car or
a boat.

I am not talking about abolishing legal ownership of land at all here, but about the deeper mental relationship
with land and the whole earth that I do think should exist in human minds.
Of course in the end human ownership of anything is always just an imagined relationship and a social
contract, and it ends when this relationship is not imagined and the social contract is not seen to exist any
more.

It is also all too easy to forget that the private ownership of land is also a very late human invention. Humans
just did not need this concept at all before the advent of agriculture and settled way of life. Most of the
nomadic people and remaining hunter-gatherers do still live quite happily without knowing anything about it.
This novelty has served humanity well after its invention, but I do think that it benefits the whole of humanity
only when humans do take real and full responsibility for the lands they claim to have legal ownership of.

A nation is similar imagined convention that lasts as long as people keep imagining its existence. A nation
disappears the moment people lose faith in its existence, as private ownership of land would disappear, if
humans would lose confidence in its existence.
I must again take the pains to emphasize that saying all this does not mean at all that I would be against the
private ownership of land or against the existence of separate nations.

I just think that it is good at some point to realize that we humans are very good at making up things. Very
soon they seem so real to us that that we can t often even see their true nature as human inventions anymore.
This does not at all mean that these social conventions would not serve good and important purposes, but
realizing that we have ourselves invented them makes much easier to also look at also these things critically.

In the end the only thing I try to say here is that in my mind at least owning anything transient that is made by
humans themselves is a quite different thing than claiming to own something that has been there before the
dawn of humanity and that ultimately exists even after humanity has disappeared altogether.

by jaskaw @ 02.04.2010 - 21:28:04

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/04/02/thomas-paine-on-owning-earth-8297291/
Feedback for Post "Thomas Paine on owning earth"

Adelaide Dupont [Visitor]

http://duponthumanite.livejournal.com
03.04.2010 @ 04:29
Your last paragraph was especially good.

People are good at making up boundaries like nations.

Paine has a point about the improvements making the land valuable, rather than the land itself.

These days we tend to value unspoiled land.

Thanks for the clarification to say you would not be against.

Penny C [Visitor]

22.05.2010 @ 20:27
I wish though that we did not give the ground beneath our feet so much value that common people cannot own
their own space. I live in a State that needs people to keep it running. Yet, our grandparents,
great-grandparents, have priced its' value way beyond their grandchildrens reach. We see fewer and fewer
young people stay. Business' have been slowly leaving this area. Still, most of these people find that real
estate speculation is wonderful. How can it be wonderful to price your grandchildren out of a good home?
How can they condemn both parents to have to work slavishly while their children go un- or under
supervised? They are too busy spending their profits.

I see so many of the elderly question the values of their youth. Than I look around me and sigh. As they sip
their margaritas or down their fancy coffee's how can they ignore the fact that so many of our youth will not
know the comfort or tranquility that owning and keeping a stable place to raise a family in will bring? How is
it that so many of us have forgotten where we came from and how we got so far? I just don't understand it and
it makes me sad. Often.
Bill Bryson on the unity of life
"Every living thing is an elaboration of a single original plan. As humans we are mere increments -
each of us a musty archive of adjustments, adaptations, modifications and providential tinkerings
stretching back to 3,8 billion years. Remarkably we are even quite closely related to fruit and
vegetables. About half the chemical functions that take place in a banana are fundamentally the same
as the chemical functions that place in you. It cannot be said too often: all life is one. That is, and I
suspect will ever prove to be, the most profound true statement there is." - Bill Bryson in "A Short
History of Nearly Everything" (2003)

I do think that well-known science writer Bill Bryson brings forward a very central theme, that is in my mind
however not commonly brought up when discussing evolution.
This discussion is all too often centralized on the subject of interrelations between hominids and primates, but
the real big picture is all too often forgotten.

However, the stark fact is that even the lowest forms of bacteria and humans have common ancestors in the
early misty days of life on Earth, as all life on Earth has risen from the same original source.
Their evolutionary paths have just taken them to be strikingly different creatures, but when you start analyzing
the very basic chemical processes that keep the living organisms ticking, the common origin becomes clearly
visible time after time.

The sad fact is that the human mind is built in such a way that the striking fact of having a common ancestry
with bacteria is just all too difficult to grasp for many.
Even those who accept evolution as a very basic scientific fact, do not necessarily want to elaborate just on
this issue in public, as if people have difficulties understanding that there is no real evolutionary difference
between different groups of human, so accepting bacteria as your relatives would just could be a bit too much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Bryson

by jaskaw @ 04.04.2010 - 22:41:40

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/04/04/bill-bryson-on-the-unity-of-life-8307984/
Feedback for Post "Bill Bryson on the unity of life"

jerseyguy [Visitor]

12.04.2010 @ 15:07
Humans have a compelling need to divide not just humanity, but all life forms, into “us” and “them”.
Paradoxically, religion claims to be a force for unity, but by promoting the ideas of “good” and “evil”, it (a)
reinforces this need, and (b) it undermines the use of critical thinking for evaluating behavior, thereby
becoming yet another a force for division.
Bertrand Russell on relying upon authority
"As soon as we abandon our own reason, and are content to rely upon authority, there is no end to our
troubles." - Bertrand Russell in "On Outline of Intellectual Rubbish".

Bertrand Russell would be a fool if he would have claimed that one should abandon all authority, even if on
the surface of it this quote seems to imply it.
No, for one I do think that the important part is the part about abandoning one's own reason, as only this
would lead to relying solely on the force of authority.

Just this kind of blind relying on authority alone did in fact cause the situation where generation after
generation of quite sensible men and women did believe that women do have less teeth than men. The reason
for this was that none other than Aristotle had made such a erroneous claim.
This idiocy persisted for centuries, even if anybody could have counted those teeth and would have seen that
that great man was wrong in this matter.

Of course we inevitably accept a mass of things on face value on the basis of the perceived authority of the
informant. I do not think that this fact can much be even altered, as a life without trusted sources with
authority is just impossible.
I however do think that Bertrand Russell is here saying that after we receive new information we should
however always use our own reason to analyze it. Are the received facts still current? Why is this person
saying these things?
The most important question of them all is: can this person have a some kind of hidden agenda that he tries to
bolster by using just these facts but not some others?

The danger of overlooking hidden agendas always arises when we start accepting things on face value, as
these hidden agendas really are present everywhere.
The thing is made all more difficult by the fact that the source of new information is not often even him- or
herself conscious of the mental process that does lead to the picking and choosing of one's data to suit one's
hidden objectives, as one just might not be aware of their influence.
I do think that for example many Christian scientist or historians do really think that they act quite objectively,
even when they systematically reject the explanations and data that could be harmful for the interests of their
ideology, as I fear that they are often doing all this picking and choosing quite unconsciously.

I think that Bertrand Russell is here just saying that one should never completely surrender one's critical
faculties, even if the source of information should appear to be even extremely reliable.
The danger is of course greatest when we are in the same mind as the source of the information; we all just
humans and we are prone to let our critical faculties drop when we receive information that we want to be
true. This if of course human and inevitable, but being aware of the trap may just help sometimes.
by jaskaw @ 24.04.2010 - 19:50:26

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/04/24/bertrand-russell-on-relying-upon-authority-8444683/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on relying upon
authority"

Douglas [Visitor]

10.05.2010 @ 07:33
I sincerely hope you aren't finished with this wonderful blog.
Robert G. Ingersoll on ignorance
"Only the very ignorant are perfectly satisfied that they know. To the common man the great problems
are easy. He has no trouble in accounting for the universe. He can tell you the origin and destiny of man
and the why and wherefore of things." - Robert Green Ingersoll in "Liberty In Literature" (1890)

A sad fact of life is that the more you accumulate knowledge, the more acutely aware you became of limits of
your true knowledge.
As Robert G. Ingersoll points out, only a person with a limited view of all of the possible knowledge that is
already available can have a misconception of having found some final and unmovable answers to the big
questions in universe.

The situation is made even more complicated by the fact that the more you acquire knowledge, the more you
usually do become aware of the fleeting nature of most of it.
A cold fact of life just is that outside the realms of mathematics and natural sciences there are very few truly
immutable facts.

The true scientific method is based on the very basic idea that there are no scientific ideas or findings that
cannot be reviewed and analyzed again if refining our knowledge requires it, even if those fact have been long
established. This needs to be done even if chancing some very basic findings or ideas would require to rethink
big chunks of science.
Absolute certainties are of course often very comforting and reassuring. This may even be the main reason
why people choose to believe in their existence, even if their reason says that absolute certainty is just on
illusion. Even more the illusion of absolute certainty is often manufactured for just the exact purpose of
creating these feelings of comfort and assurance.

In the words of great mind Bertrand Russell: "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything."

by jaskaw @ 19.05.2010 - 21:13:30

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/05/19/robert-g-ingersoll-on-ignorance-8627481/
George Orwell on atrocities
"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever
bothering to examine the evidence." - George Orwell in Looking Back on the Spanish War (1943)

I do fear that there is a very common way of reasoning in which it is quite okay to do bad things, if the people
on the other side are doing bad things too. I see this as the other side of thing Orwell brings up here.
For me the current example of this thinking in action is of course the Middle East. I do personally detest the
religious fanaticism that is so apparent at the moment in many parts of the Muslim world and in Hamas of
Palestine in particular, but I detest as much also the religious fanaticism that makes many Israelis deny the
Palestinians their basic humanity and human rights.

This Jewish version of religious fanaticism makes all too many in Israel just now think that they have some
kind of "divine" mandate to take over Palestinian lands in the West Bank and for example build new
settlements on land taken from other people.
This Jewish fanaticism is as big an obstacle to peace as is the Islamic fanaticism at the moment.

I fear that all too many people end up thinking that they must take a definite stand in a issue like Israel vs.
Palestinians and when they have chosen "their" side they will never, ever see something wrong in the doings
of their favorites.
I however think that it is possible here in more far-away lands at least to see the situation neutrally and also
support all initiatives that seem to further peace and seem to diminish violence.

I know remaining neutral is extremely hard when there are two extremely strong streams of propaganda
pounding the other side and extolling the virtues of one's own side.
I however think it is possible to take the side of humanity and aim into trying to diminish the effects of the
nationalistic fervor that just feeds and inflames the ongoing conflict in Palestine.

I think that nternational politics is not a spectator sports, where to fully enjoy the spectacle you must choose
your side to support. I really think that it is possible to see at the same time the atrocities and unjust deeds
committed by the Israelis and see the atrocities and unjust deeds committed by the Palestinians and also
similarly always condemn both of them when they do bad things, as both sides have done.

It is extremely surprising how rarely one meets people who would not have chosen to believe only the horror
stories of the other side and who would not dismiss all similar stories told by the other side.
It is really funny how people telling stories supporting ones side seem so honest and trustworthy, but quite
similar people in similar situations telling very similar stories from the other side of the front line seem so
prone to be just lying and deceiving listeners.
I of course know that there is no easy solution to the problems of the Palestine, as both sides must make great
sacrifices if a real state of peace is to be achieved and they are at the moment just not willing to do that.
The state of Israel is now a historical fact and there will never be a lasting peaceful solution that can ignore
that fact.
Even if the methods by which state was originally built were very violent and unjust at times, the existence of
this state with its several million inhabitants is a unavoidable historical fact.

On the other hand the existence of the landless Palestinian population is a similar unavoidable historical fact
and no such real peace solution is ever possible that they would not approve of.
There just must be a compromise, if a lasting peace is to be achieved. The other side just can't win in any final
sense, as any kind of military solution and submission of the other side will always only prolong the suffering,
as the fighting will always just turn to another level.

by jaskaw @ 08.06.2010 - 16:59:04

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/06/08/george-orwell-on-atrocities-8760045/
Bertrand Russell on skepticism and dogma
"Neither acquiescence in skepticism nor acquiescence in dogma is what education should produce.
What it should produce is a belief that knowledge is attainable in a measure, though with difficulty;
that much of what passes for knowledge at any given time is likely to be more or less mistaken, but that
the mistakes can be rectified by care and industry. In acting upon our beliefs, we should be very
cautious where a small error would mean disaster; nevertheless it is upon our beliefs that we must act.
This state of mind is rather difficult: it requires a high degree of intellectual culture without emotional
atrophy. But though difficult, it is not impossible; it is in fact the scientific temper. Knowledge, like
other good things, is difficult, but not impossible; the dogmatist forgets the difficulty, the skeptic denies
the possibility. Both are mistaken, and their errors, when widespread, produce social disaster."

- Bertrand Russell in "On Education, Especially in Early Childhood" (1926)

I do think that a very central problem with theistic beliefs is they they do give their followers a free pass from
personal responsibility: 'It is just too bad if you don t like our commands, but there is nothing we can do,
sorry, as they are divine commands and we mere humans cannot change them'.
This situation leaves one without direct personal responsibility of even very bad things that are done in the
name of a religion, at least when the bad deeds are purportedly based on claims of some sort of supernatural
origin of the dogma.

However, I do think that the very same thing can also happen with ideologies that are not based on
supernatural claims as soon as they are taken to be the unmovable, ultimate truth of something.
The very basic problem with for example communism was and still is that the hard-core communists do treat
the basic ideas of their faith as something that cannot be altered or even criticized at all.
The end result is however the same as with theistic beliefs; the follower has no personal responsibility, when
he is just doing what the unalterable dogma requires.

The basic problem is of course the belief in the existence of any absolute unmovable truth, be it of divine
or human origin.
People accepting the existence of unmovable truths are just not seeing world and universe as the continually
developing and changing process it really is and of which we can always receive new and often also much
improved information.

This does not however mean at all that one should reject all ideologies as equally dangerous, as the crucial
thing is the level of final commitment to an idea.
I do personally think that humans must have higher goals and ideologies do offer just the kinds of higher goals
in life that humans do need to really prosper.
However, I do think that one should just be prepared to face the possibility that even the ideology that one
supports has it wrong in some issues, even if it still could be the best possible solution overall.
If a person rejects supernatural origins for theistic ideologies and the absolute truths presented by
'superhuman' thinkers it does not necessarily mean that he or she could not support and also further an
ideology.
A person rejecting supernatural and also superhuman explanations can still be a good humanist, a keen
democratic socialist or a very active Epicurean.

However, I do think that a lot is achieved if a person realizes that any of these ideologies does not contain the
final and unmovable truth. I do also think that much is gained if a person can see that even they are just things
that good, honestly thinking people in certain kinds of societies have thought out as best possible solutions for
issues they have seen to be in need of rectifying.

by jaskaw @ 14.07.2010 - 15:46:07

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/07/14/bertrand-russell-on-skepticism-and-dogma-8973412/
Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on skepticism and
dogma"

Hector [Visitor]

14.07.2010 @ 16:22
Like reading your blog post, when a new one is up, i rush an see the entire post...really enjoy it

keep up the good work

Prakhar Manas [Visitor]

http://alienhomesick.blogspot.com
14.07.2010 @ 19:50
A big russell fan....
and I can see you preserved his thoughts very nicely in the post.
Visit my blog for similar posts

culandun [Visitor]

14.07.2010 @ 20:00
Where we do not have the intellectual capacity, or the education, or sometimes neither; to understand the
world and times in which we live, then dogma based on faith becomes the method by which we come to terms
with the inexplicable in terms of our relationship with our own nature, that of other species and the universe in
general.
Thus we promote to high status within our communities those who should help us to come to understand.
However, there are many more leaders of faith who confirm dogma, than there are leaders of education that
encourage intellectual growth.

kaz smith [Visitor]

29.07.2010 @ 18:40
Bertrand Russell was a legend.....even managed to meet him once briefly Alas I can not remember I was only
6

Ally [Visitor]

10.12.2010 @ 18:48
I love your Blog!
Often it is just what I need when my day and the rampant 'idiocracy' is getting me annoyed, I read your blog
and my mood is improved!
cheers, man!

| Show subcomments
jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
10.12.2010 @ 19:37
Thanks, Ally!
Seneca on crimes committed by nations
"We are mad, not only individually, but nationally. We check manslaughter and isolated murders; but
what of war and the much-vaunted crime of slaughtering whole peoples? There are no limits to our
greed, none to our cruelty.
And as long as such crimes are committed by stealth and by individuals, they are less harmful and less
portentous; but cruelties are practised in accordance with acts of senate and popular assembly, and the
public is bidden to do that which is forbidden to the individual.
Deeds that would be punished by loss of life when committed in secret, are praised by us because
uniformed generals have carried them out.
Man, naturally the gentlest class of being, is not ashamed to revel in the blood of others, to wage war,
and to entrust the waging of war to his sons, when even dumb beasts and wild beasts keep the peace
with one another.
Against this overmastering and widespread madness philosophy has become a matter of greater effort,
and has taken on strength in proportion to the strength which is gained by the opposition forces."

- Seneca the Younger (c. 3 BC 65 AD)

I do think that we need just now a whole new kind of peace movement. The old peace movement was
discredited when it did became a ideological tool and all too often a de facto defender of a very possible
aggressor in the 1970 s a and the 80 s.
This peace movement lost its credibility when the nuclear weapons and building of armaments of another
party were presented as a threat to humanity and the quite similar doings of the other party were just presented
as necessary tools for self-defence.
International peace movement has not yet sadly recovered from this incredible loss of credibility, even if the
need to speak for peace has not diminished at all.

International peace movement was at its all time height at the 1920 s after a the most unnecessary and cruel
war that humanity had ever witnessed.
It was a war that killed millions of people in useless, endless and meaningless slaughter. After this experience
it was very easy to agree that something simply must be done to prevent it from happening again.
Unfortunately for peace movement the unjust and unnecessary First World War was followed by just and
necessary Second World War. The need for pacifism was a hard sell after the Nazis had tried to take over the
world with brute force.

The problem is that absolutism does not work even in matters concerning peace, as it does not really work
anywhere else, either.
If one takes a stand that condemns all use of violence in all situations, one is inevitably put into a very
difficult position, as there will be the need to defend oneself against aggression as long as there are aggressors
and sadly it is still difficult to imagine a world without them.
However, I do think that one can well be peace-activist even if one accepts this inevitable fact of life. The core
problem that remains here is of course to define aggression; is one also for example allowed to make
pre-emptive attack on a enemy that is seen as a possible source of aggression?

I do think that a lot could be achieved if there would exist a truly international and ideologically truly
independent peace-movement which would concentrate wholly on trying to diminish the social and ethical
acceptance of aggression in all societies of the world.
The main thing would be try to affect the current zeitgeist or the spirit of the time so that clear moral and
ethical lines are drawn that ultimately could prohibit policy makers even of considering starting any kind of
aggression on their own without a public outcry.
(More on the importance of zeitgeist here:
http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2010/07/12/why-christians-did-finally-turn-against-slavery-8961607 )

The practical goal of this new truly international peace movement needs not to be a perfect world where there
are no arms and wars at all, as this is not possible as far as we know in practical terms.
Even thought the armless world can of course be the ultimate goal. We must just remember that it is one of the
hardest goals mankind can set to itself in the current state of the world.

To achieve it the current practices but most of all current thinking of the mankind need to change in an quite
extraordinary manner.
It is not wholly impossible of course, as the practices of mankind have changed in extraordinary manner
before. Currently it is just very hard to see what would initiate such changes, as there must be enough people
who would clearly benefit from initiating these changes for them to be initiated at all.

Accepting this fact of life does not however mean that we should surrender at all. I think that we can achieve a
lot by just even trying to chance the over-all acceptance and perception of violence and aggression. Ultimately
we should change the prevailing zeitgeist of our times in this matter.
The results of this kind of work are of course very hard to discern. One needs perhaps decades of dedicated
hard work by a large group of humans to to achieve real changes in the zeitgeist.

However, I do think that this kind of changes can be initiated by endless stream of on-line debates, discussions
on all kinds of forums, blog writings, e-books, YouTube-videos, podcast-talks and appearances by those who
have really set their goals to achieve a change the acceptance of aggression as a tool of national policy.

Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world. Indeed is the only thing that
ever has. - Margaret Mead

Lucius Annaeus Seneca (often known simply as Seneca, or Seneca the Younger) (c. 3 BC 65 AD) was a
Roman Stoic philosopher, statesman, dramatist, and in one work humorist, of the Silver Age of Latin
literature. His father was Seneca the Elder.

by jaskaw @ 15.07.2010 - 10:07:45

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/07/15/seneca-on-crimes-committed-by-nations-8977377/
Feedback for Post "Seneca on crimes committed by nations
"

jose joseph [Visitor]

http://http/:thelittlebook.blogs.fi
15.07.2010 @ 13:17
there are two poles in every being.good and bad.which is more prominent prevails if not directed. it must be
directed from the womb itself.now everybody is after money,power and enjoyment at the cost of their fellow
brothers. when vast majority are selfish out come will be horrible.parents must teach their children to be good
and love their fellow beings.for that they themselves should be good.that is lacking.everybody preaches for
others, not for themselves to practice.of course there are basic factors in every being,food, sleep,fear and
sex.inhibitions only create chaos.train them in such a way that they won't hinder other peoples freedom.accept
them as reality and not sin.religious fanatics first name everybody else as sinners.then they make own fellow
beings to lick their feet for emancipation.they are most dangerous terrorists here.they perpetrate
violence,hatred and terror for their own ends.they are whitewashed tombs.so educate the society to prevent
them from selfishness.these cheats like,religious people,political leaders won't allow it to happen.if the whole
world is good there is no need for them and no way for their enjoyment and exploitation.they spread hatred
and speak publicly love,goodness peace and brotherhood.they don't think or rather understand that life is too
short and have to vacate the place soon.so why we should spread hatred,evils,terrorism for ones own
happiness at the cost of ones fellow brothers.do to others what you expect others to do to you.this is not for
preaching. but to practice. everybody preaches it for others,not to practice for themselves.
Marcus Aurelius on revoking pain
"If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but rather to your
estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment" - Marcus Aurelius

This extremely simple and extremely straightforward sentence is so easy to understand, but it contains things
that are among the most difficult of things in the world to make really happen in real life.
A unbelievable amount of young lives could and would be saved, however, if people really just could for
example carry out the simple act of correct estimation of the outside mental causes of their distress.

Alas, it is not that easy at all, but I think that this sentence should be uttered in every school of the world to
every young person entering adulthood. This should be done in the hope (all too often in vain hope, of course)
that they would understand that they really can became the masters of their own minds and even masters of
their own destiny.
Of course if this is extremely difficult to believe at times when the world around us is so full of uncertainty
and unknown dangers.

I must stress that Marcus is not at all saying that it would be easy. In my mind he is just saying that it is
possible to alter the way how your mind reacts to outside influences, if you put enough real conscious effort
into it.
I however do not think that he was in fact talking about physical stimuli or things like wanting something, but
much more of about how we react to emotions and ideas of others, which is of course even more important to
a social animal like human.

However, I think that this maxim can be seen the other way round also. When people say things like that
posing in the nude degrades a person, I think that they just cannot fathom at all that THEY are the people
doing this degrading and this idea simply does not exist without also them thinking as they think.
A seemingly quite impossible thing to understand for many people is that if they would not continue their
degrading of some forms of human activity, persons engaged in that activity would not quite probably not feel
themselves degraded anymore.
In the end this degrading exists only in the minds of people who feel that they just must be offended by such
things.
If they would not feel the need for the offense anymore, they quite likely would not feel the need to believe
also in a inherent degrading effect of some things that other people do and the real causes for that original
degradation would slowly vanish.

On the background there is the basic inability to see that prevailing opinions in society are formed by us and
nobody else. We all are the people who make the zeitgeist or the spirit of the time what it currently is.
The common idea of what is seen as acceptable or non-acceptable behavior in a society is created with every
single daily action we ourselves do.
If we just state that there are things that just are so because somebody other somewhere out there thinks so,
and they will always be so, we will never see any true change in society.

by jaskaw @ 20.07.2010 - 01:40:08

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/07/19/marcus-aurelius-on-pain-9003861/
Karl Popper on correcting errors in science
"The history of science, like the history of all human ideas, is a history of irresponsible dreams, of
obstinacy, and of error. But science is one of the very few human activities perhaps the only one in
which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected. This is why we can say
that, in science, we often learn from our mistakes, and why we can speak clearly and sensibly about
making progress there." - Karl Popper in "Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific
Knowledge" (1963)

There are people who are fond of saying things like "Faith is the basis for belief in the scientific method also".
I must differ and I must differ strongly.
The first thing is that the basis for modern scientific method is that others must be able to verify and even
reproduce independently at will every hypothesis, theory and finding that is included in the scientific
curriculum. There is no faith involved in this process.

The second and crucial thing is that there are no absolute truths in science that would require faith these things
to be accepted as some kind of final word on anything.
The theory of gravity or the theory of structure of carbon must and will be altered if new information on their
nature is received through new findings.
Of course these new findings must first be reproduced so many times that the need for alteration of the
original theory is seen as inevitable by the majority of the experts of the given field.

No single scientist creates scientific 'truth', even if a single scientist can initiate a change in scientific
paradigm's. The final outcome is however always based on the consensus of the best current minds in any
given field in the world-wide and ultimately fully open scientific community.
Any person from anywhere in the world can become part of that universal community by simply acquiring
suitable education and knowledge on any given field of science, but also by showing in practice that he or she
really masters that field of expertise.

The basis of modern science is the scientific method, but it really and fundamentally is a method only. It is not
an article of faith at all, but even it can be altered or given up altogether if a better method for acquiring
trustworthy knowledge of our reality is someday thought out.
The blunt truth is that the modern scientific method has simply been found in practice to produce the best
results in the field of scientific inquiry. It is a practical proposition, not a ideology.

New competing scientific 'truths' do emerge all the time, but only after enough experts of a given field are
convinced by the new evidence they became part of the current version of the scientific truth .
So, the scientific method it is just a practical solution to the very practical problem. It is currently seen as the
best method for finding out as reliably as possible as much as possible about the physical reality that
surrounds us.

Only religions do offer absolute answers and absolute truths. Science can never do that. Even if you do not
need to have faith in science, but of course you need to have a certain level of trust.
Science is in that respect no different from any other field of life, as you need to evaluate and create a level of
trust for every single source of information you encounter during your whole life.

Trust is of course the very basic building block of human life. On the basic level life is very hard if we do not
trust ourselves. We must also for example trust our society to be based on justice to be able to live peacefully
without fear of injustice.
Without some level of trust life would simply not just be bearable. If we do not trust our employers to pay
your wages in the end of the month, if we do not trust the garbage man to take the garbage as he promised or
we cannot trust the bus to appear at all in the morning, life will be very, very hard. A failed state is simply a
state without trust.

The level of trust you put to science can of course also vary according to the specific issue at hand. Scientist
do of course also speculate and make too strong hypothesis out of too weak evidence.
The great thing about scientific method however is that these inevitable failures and mishaps are normally
weeded out in the long run.

On the other hand the absolute truths of religions do not normally change at all, even if our knowledge of
the world changes even immensely. At end religious faith is believing in claims that are not backed up by
reliable real world evidence.
Religious faith is in fact a quite different animal than everyday trust, even if some dictionaries do mistakenly
define these words as synonyms.
These dictionaries do forget that in the field of religions word 'faith' has a completely different meaning that it
does have elsewhere.

So, you can trust science to provide the best knowledge that is available to humanity at the moment as you can
trust your television to show news, your mobile phone to bring the voice of your loved ones and your
refrigerator to keep its cool, even if you do not have any kind of 'faith' in them.
You do need only trust to believe in the existence of real world things, but you need the religious kind of faith
to believe in things whose very existence is impossible to show or verify.

"The more we learn about the world, and the deeper our learning, the more conscious, specific, and
articulate will be our knowledge of what we do not know, our knowledge of our ignorance. For this,
indeed, is the main source of our ignorance the fact that our knowledge can be only finite, while our
ignorance must necessarily be infinite." - Karl Popper in "Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of
Scientific Knowledge" (1963)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Karl-Popper/131272180219102

by jaskaw @ 28.07.2010 - 21:49:26

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/07/28/karl-popper-on-correcting-errors-in-science-9062951/
Richard Feynman on explaining mysteries
"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not
understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're
taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So
therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for
understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why
you only live to a certain length of time life and death stuff like that. God is always associated with
those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be
like God because they have been figured out." - Richard Feynman. As quoted in Superstrings : A
Theory of Everything (1988) Edited by Paul C. W. Davies and Julian R. Brown

It is odd to see that there are still people who really and quite honestly do think that science cannot provide
good answers on the extremely thorny issue of the origins of our universe, but religions can.
I have been left wondering how many quite rational and sane people do think that the explanation given by
their pet religion would somehow be even exponentially more valid than the explanations given by current
science.

It is amazing that there really are quite sane people who do think that quite uneducated small-time farmers,
herders and tradesmen living in s far-away corner of the Middle East thousands of years ago would have
found better answers just by analyzing their own mind than the veritable army of modern scientists working
day and night with the best modern scientific tools to find out real facts concerning this issue.
This veritable army of the best minds of our time can of course also lean on hundreds of years of scientific
work done on this issue by the best minds in the past few centuries.

The cold fact of course is that a thing like the birth of our universe is impossible to study directly, as things
that have happened 13,7 billion years ago simply cannot ever be studies directly.
It is simply impossible to get an final and unmoving theory of a thing like this. The answer provided by
science will always be only the best possible one based on the fact that are really known.
The quantity and quality of these facts and answers does however improve with time, when new ways to study
these phenomena are created and the answer given by science will get better and better.
However, any kind of final and absolute truth will be quite impossible to provide even in this matter, even if
religions in their megalomania do stubbornly claim so.
As a species we must just might need to humble ourselves to accept the reality that a final and absolute truth
will never be available even in this issue, but there will be the very good or even extremely good theories on
offer and their quality will improve even greatly with time.

It is a rather amazing to think that the answer to this question which is still provided by Christianity, Judaism
and Islam is the same as the answer created by some priests that served herders and small-time farmers
5000-6000 years ago in the Middle East.
There is of course this whole theory of a 'god' that has not changed a lot during these past millennium, and of
course it cannot much change, as the original fantastic claim was that these claims came straight from this
'god' himself and this once so talkative fellow has just had nothing new to say for a couple of millennium.

"Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really
there, but just to comprehend those things which are there." - Richard Feynman in "The Character of
Physical Law" (1965)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
Richard Feynman received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965 jointly with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro
Tomonaga.

by jaskaw @ 03.08.2010 - 00:00:17

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/08/02/richard-feynman-on-explaining-mysteries-9094055/
Feedback for Post "Richard Feynman on explaining
mysteries"

Kalidas [Visitor]

03.08.2010 @ 04:46
"One scientist explains something to some extent, and then another rascal comes along and explains it again,
but differently, with different words. And all the time the phenomenon has remained the same. What
advancement has been made? They have simply produced volumes of books. Now there is a petrol problem.
Scientists have created it. If the petrol supply dwindles away, what will these rascal scientists do? They are
powerless to do anything about it." _Srila Prabhupada

| Show subcomments
jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
03.08.2010 @ 10:50
Dear Kalidas, this Srila Prabhubada is being just plain old silly. Only in religions can there be unmovable
truths, as only in things you imagine by yourself can there a single unmovable 'truth', as only when this 'truth'
was simply invented can it remain constant through millennium. In real world phenomena there is always
many sides and and your view changes when you change perspective.
Expecting single unified truth from science is simply madness and just shows how little people understand
how science really works.
Science is always tentative and personal and current 'scientific truth' emerges from a variety of ideas.
Moreover just this presenting new ideas instead just accepting and refining the old ones (as in religions) has
made scientific progress possible in the first place.
Only because of this rejecting ready-made unmovable truths has brought us vaccines, mobile phones, cars and
the green revolution in agriculture.

Timo Karjalainen [Visitor]

18.08.2010 @ 10:30
Dear Kalidas and Jaskaw,

I think you are both right.

As Kalidas write there are unmovable truths, at least from the point of view of social lives and social sciences.
I do not know much about black holes and other mystical "places" of the universe where time stops etc.
However I know that a man and a women cannot live in black holes becauce of many reasons, eg. living (by
definition) demands some absolute unmovable things, eg. an absolute time and a living place and many other
unmovable things from practical point of view, I mean absolute as things of their selves ( Das ding an Sich as
Kant wrote).

However, absolute unmovable things are nothing in the deepest meaning of "nothing" without moving parts
connected to absolute things. They give life or dynamics into things. This is why Jaskaw is also right.

In othe words, it is good and truhtlike to accept ying-yang insight or Nils Bohr's insigt to things. There are
always as if two main elements in a thing. One main element is absolute unmovable and the other elements
are moving. This might look controversial. If it is so, then we have to accept the fact that the reality is
controversial as eg. Hegel thought. One must be blind, dumb and live in a barrel (of oil) if one disagree with
this idea.
Rex Bennett [Visitor]
http://www.myspace.com/rbennet9
29.09.2010 @ 08:49
Science now knows how the Universe came to be, and also how and why the Universe evolved. I wrote a blog
(MySpace) that explains the latest knowledge available in quantum physics and cosmology. Remember that
nothing in science is "absolute." Minor changes are made all the time as the knowledge base increases. But the
foundations are there. The blog is called "Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?" Later, I will write
a blog on the evolution of the Universe, but I am still struggling with some things in complexity science. In
order to explain it clearly for a layperson, I must understand the subject well. But I'll get around to it soon.
Here is the direct link to the blog:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=85621264&blogId=521785378
Sometimes my direct links fail to work. In that event go to www.myspace.com/rbennet9 scroll halfway down
the page and you'll see a list of latest blogs. Select from there.
Karl Popper on Utopia
"The belief in a political Utopia is especially dangerous. This is possibly connected with the fact that the
search for a better world, like the investigation of our environment, is (if I am correct) one of the oldest
and most important of all the instincts." - Karl Popper in "In Search of a Better World" (1994)

The big downside of practically all religions is that by their very nature they do exclude other beliefs and
ideas and they do actively build boundaries between people even where there would be none naturally. The
main problem is that religions do quite universally set definite limits for allowed thinking. I do think that these
often quite arbitrary limits do also lead to limiting the use of the true mental capabilities of many people.

However, I do think that if one really opens his or her mind and starts looking at all of the ideas presented in
philosophy and in all of the human religions without limiting oneself to one particular religion, one can very
easily gather a very strong personal basis for ethics and morality.
The beautiful thing in a ethics like this is that it does not shut away those people that have different ideas, as
religions really habitually do if they are swallowed whole, as this creating of group-thinking is is one of the
basic functions of religions.

I must hasten to add that I do oppose strongly also the ideas that made Stalin or Pol Pot do their evil things, as
I oppose any other ideas that do promote the dangerous 'us ' and 'them' -thinking also.
It is all too easy to forger that the worst offender in this area are not religions, but nationalism and
nationalistic ideas.
Nationalism has killed more people than religions or communism put together, even if many of the evil things
done in the name of communism had in fact nationalistic motives. They were just hidden from view, as
communism in theory did oppose nationalism.

However, I must point out that I do not oppose having ideologies and even having universal and
transcendental goals in life. Still I do think that a too strong belief in any kind of Utopia is all too often a thing
that does make people kill other people and most of all the people who believe in different kind of Utopia.

I do personally believe in things like freedom, equality and social justice, but I do believe that these goals are
best reached by constant compromise and by letting all ideas to search for followers in a society, as long as
they do not lead into trying to force other people to abide by them by use of violence.
However, I do believe that ideas that repress other ideas and deny other ideas the right to even exist must by
opposed vehemently everywhere they do occur, no matter what disguise they take. This opposition needs of
course not be violent.
At the moment religious ideologies are the biggest threat in this sense, but that does not mean that we should
not fight things like extremist nationalism and communism too with all the peaceful means we have at our
disposal.

The need to fight extremist nationalism, extremist communism and extremist religions does of course apply
normally just to the more extreme versions of all of them, as the milder versions of any of them can be even
quite benign forces at times. The thin line is crossed after they start to force others to abide to them with
violence.
However, experience shows that one can really live in a free society and be a good nationalist or religionist or
even a good communist while abiding to the general rules of a open society of respecting other ideas and
ideologies.

I do think that in the end the love of absolute truths is the real enemy on mankind and not the ideologies
themselves, as most of them can be tamed, if just the absurd longing for absolute truths could be forgotten.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Karl-Popper/131272180219102

by jaskaw @ 04.08.2010 - 13:24:33

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/08/04/karl-popper-on-utopias-9109431/
Feedback for Post "Karl Popper on Utopia"

Penny C [Visitor]

22.08.2010 @ 00:56
Very interesting. I often think that being an American first, was the unifying force that made our Country so
successful? It was when certain producers gained a large amount of wealth and then decided that in order to
keep this substantial amount of profit, they needed to remain the employer of low wage earners, that is now
bringing our Country down. Since here in America, we have seen so much success in business we wanted to
believe that all Americans felt that everyone should share in this success. Unfortunately, many of us have
found this is quite the opposite. These profiteers have used all sorts of belief systems to justify their greed and
build large fences in order to protect themselves from the growing amount of discontented American workers.
History repeating. If you are fortunate, you will be able to hold on long enough to enjoy your vast wealth.
When you die, you won't care what it is you have left behind because it really doesn't matter much to you
anyways.

Our Country must be a fascinating study of human behavior. Now our media has taken all that we have been
taught was an anti-human mindset and used it for it's business model. All the while, using the mass media to
misinform Americans and leading them to believe it is the "others" who are displacing them and robbing them
of much of their promised, future success. All of this was predicted. Too many people like to cling to the
Bible and forsake all others because they just don't want to make the effort and that book alone is so
complicated, contradictory, that they are often discouraged from any other challenge to read and learn more.
Our making an advance education out of the reach of so many, adds to the desire of many organizations who
depend on the ignorance and literary laziness of most people.

We have seen so many families just fighting to remain together. While those that could benefit the most from
a good, international education, discouraged or honestly left behind. These poor people have no other choice
but to turn to crime to survive. Or, out of vengeance for our Countries lack of honest concern for the welfare
of our children they make others the source of their vengeance. We promise people so much and deliver so
very little.

More and more, what I see, are attacks being made by many groups, against a good solid education. They say
their motives are good and righteous while disregarding those who have been warped by their insincere logic
or their terrible need for survival at any cost. This seems to me to be the greatest problem as you pointed out,
with Nationalism. Though many people do not see this also happening in many religions. Please, I need to
state that there are some religions that are growing. Instead of using their books as inscrutable reference guilds
they use them sparingly and bring in modern, scientific, philosophy also. Using their books merely as a
starting point and ignoring the rantings of a madmen like John who, at the end of his life, was haunted by
delusional fantasies about death and destruction of, "biblical proportions". This is one of the many stumbling
blocks in religions based purely on the teaching of the Bible. To believe that all wisdom and knowledge
stopped after the death of the disciples is purely an unacceptable conclusion. It has lead many to do very bad
things in our societies and has been the author or tool maniacal leaders all have in common in their quests for
ultimate power.
Mark Twain on traditions
Often, the less there is to justify a traditional custom, the harder it is to get rid of it.
Mark Twain

There are so many kinds of traditions that speaking of them as one lump is similar madness as speaking of
religions as a single featureless lump would be.
Traditions can tell what what to eat or how to dress or when to have a feast. They do often bring a very
comforting sense of continuity and trust to human life.
On the other hand there are for example traditions which tell that people who live according to different kinds
of traditions are to be feared and hated do not in the end benefit humanity at all.

A very important part of western humanistic tradition is a basic respect for all of the different human
traditions there are.
In the great modern humanistic tradition there is a deeply embedded desire to ensure that everybody is
allowed to follow also their own traditions, even if they would be silly or nonsensical, and only the clearly
harmful and dangerous one s are normally forbidden.

Any quest for uniformity in traditions is strictly frowned upon in the traditional humanistic thinking, as
forceful tampering with other people s traditions very easily leads into taking away of some of the very basic
human rights.
I do deeply respect this basic humanistic way of thinking, as in the end only this kind of thing can ensure the
preservation of real open societies, where all people are not forced into living according to a single universal
model.

The difficulty arises when a tradition can be objectively seen as causing direct and clearly discernible harm
also for those who practice it themselves, even it is not in violation with current laws as such.
Many people have taken the stand that we cannot even openly criticize other peoples traditions, as they are
their own private business and they also normally do bear the consequences themselves that come with
following them.
I do however think that the freedom of speech is a far more important value in a open society than the not
being offended by criticism of even one s dearest traditions. I simply do think that there must be a possibility
to openly analyze and also value also different traditions.

I do think one must be able to speak freely about even of the fact that following a certain kind of tradition can
put people in a direct disadvantage in a society.
I do think that there must even ultimately exist the right to try to make followers of different traditions
themselves to see the disadvantages that following them may cause.
However, I do definitely think that nobody is never allowed to force people to renounce their traditions at any
level in a open society, if they are within the limits of what current law in a society allows, of course.

We have already seen that discussing openly the objective merits of all human traditions is way too much for
many, who just all too easily declare that they are offended, if their traditions are questioned in any way.
This is of course normally just a defensive strategy that is aimed to curbing any criticism of traditions, as they
do in the end provide a safe power base for so many people in a society.

All people have of course the right to be offended, but their taking of offense should be their own private issue
and it s existence should not prevent speaking openly about even this kind of thing in a open society.
I do personally also take offense if my central and important ideas like equality, humanism or freedom of
speech are criticized, but I do not think that I should try to prevent discussion on the true merits of these ideas.
I do think that I must (even if grudgingly) admit that people who oppose these things have the right so speak
up, even if I strongly oppose their ideas.

In the end our our society is ideally based on a rational decision-making process. Decisions are optimally
reached after discussions and making of compromises between people who have different goals and visions of
how a our society should be built.
I do think that the very basic fundamentals of open society are endangered, if there are important issues
affecting the whole society that one is not able to even discuss or debate any more.

‎"Customs do not concern themselves with right or wrong or reason. But they have to be obeyed; one
reasons all around them until he is tired, but he must not transgress them, it is sternly forbidden." -
Mark Twain in "The Gorky Incident" (1906)

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
George Orwell in preface to "Animal Farm" (1945)

by jaskaw @ 08.09.2010 - 21:24:53

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/09/08/mark-twain-on-traditions-9344516/
Bertrand Russell on enduring uncertainty
"The demand for certainty is one which is natural to man, but is nevertheless an intellectual vice. So
long as men are not trained to withhold judgment in the absence of evidence, they will be led astray by
cocksure prophets, and it is likely that their leaders will be either ignorant fanatics or dishonest
charlatans. To endure uncertainty is difficult, but so are most of the other virtues." - Bertrand Russell
in "Unpopular Essays" (1950)

I would like to add to these wonderful words that I do think that intellectual laziness is the real mother of
absolutist thinking.
It just is so much easier to say for example that "this man is bad" than to say that "this man has these and these
bad qualities which outweigh his these and these good qualities in my mind", even if in real world there are
very few people without any kind of bad or redeeming qualities.

I do think that the quite automatic simplification of issues that happens in human mind is a result of evolution,
as very often in the nature and most of all in social situations a person making fastest decisions stays on the
top.
The fastest way for example to classify humans is to class them in two basic categories of 'good' and 'bad' and
simply putting people to these classes according to certain easy criteria.

The exact criteria for classifying people of course do vary even wildly in different societies in different times
and even in different situations in the same society.
Basically it is of course always a question of easily separating those people who are useful to the actor and his
or her goals from the people who are not useful. As this way to think is so natural to us, unlearning it is often
extremely difficult.

This very natural tendency however tends to loose the gray areas and eventually does not also allow for
change in people.
The simpler the criterion's used to classify people are, the more unjust they will cause, when people who do
not really fit into them are forced into these classes.

I do think Bertrand Russell is reminding here that very many things that we see as valuable goals in life do
need constant work to be reached.
Enduring the situation where there are no definite answers to all questions is a very basic requirement for a
person with a scientific world view and achieving it needs constant work.
In the end science is not at all about giving definite and final answers, but about a continuous and unending
search for better and better answers.
by jaskaw @ 10.09.2010 - 17:35:24

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/09/10/bertrand-russell-on-enduring-uncertainty-9355581/
Aldous Huxley on improving the universe
"There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self."
Aldous_Huxley in "Time Must Have a Stop" (1944)

I'm not going to explain the meaning of this fine quote by Aldous Huxley at greater depth this time, as I used
him only as a tool to get to the point of this posting, which is improvement.
Joking is not one of my strong sides, but I could even say that as Aldous Huxley was living in the time before
computers he simply did not know that besides improving oneself, one can also improve one's own blogs.

This all was simply preface to a little announcement. The regular subscribers of this blog have certainly
noticed that there have been a scarcity of new installments in this blog. This has been just because I have been
so busy improving the old ones, which is of course against the basic rules of blogging.
However, as this blog is not any kind of daily journal as blogs should be, but a handy repository for great
ideas I have stumbled upon and also of the thoughts they have provoked, I do not care of about these rules.

I started this work a couple of weeks ago with the complete rewrite of the very first installment in this blog at:
Epicurus on deathat http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/epicurus-on-death-7480720/
After this I have been going through the following installments on one a day basis, as I do think that a good
overhaul and a good re-thinking benefits most of the thoughts these wonderful quotes have provoked.

So, by now I have completely reworked these pieces:

Marcus Aurelius on misfortune

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/marcus-aurelius-on-misfortune-7480732/
Marcus Aurelius on fearing the future
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/marcus-aurelius-on-future-7480741/
Epicurus on the roads end http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/epicurus-on-the-roads-end-7480793/
Marcus Aurelius on feelings of injury
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/marcus-aurelius-on-feelings-of-injury-7480805/
Epicurus on pleasure http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/epicurus-on-pleasure-7480956/
Epicurus on overindulgence http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/epicurus-on-overindulgence-7481220/
Bertrand Russell on goals in life
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/29/bertrand-russell-on-goals-in-life-7482354/
Epicurus on anger http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/30/epicurus-on-anger-7484059/
Marcus Aurelius on harmony and universe
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/30/marcus-aurelius-on-universe-7486124/
Marcus Aurelius on the privilege of being alive
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/11/30/marcus-aurelius-on-the-privilege-of-being-alive-7486419/
Marcus Aurelius on being human
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/marcus-aurelius-on-being-human-7491078/
Marcus Aurelius on fountain of good
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/marcus-aurelius-on-fountain-of-good-7493386/
Bertrand Russell on dogma and evidence
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/bertrand-russell-on-dogma-and-evidence-7493422/
Oscar Wilde on pure and simple truth
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/oscar-wilde-on-truth-7493601/
Robert G. Ingersoll on intellectual honesty
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/robert-g-ingersoll-on-intellectual-honesty-7495958/
Bertrand Russell on values and science
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/bertrand-russell-on-values-and-science-7497094/
Hippocrates on opinions and facts
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/hippocrates-on-opinions-and-facts-7500556/
Bertrand Russell on mistakes of Aristotle
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/03/bertrand-russell-on-aristotle-7503438/
Marcus Aurelius on living among lying men
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/03/marcus-aurelius-on-living-among-lying-men-7504684/
Bertrand Russell on interdependence of humankind
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/03/bertrand-russell-on-interdependency-of-humankind-7506326/
Bertrand Russell on preoccupation with possessions
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/04/bertrand-russell-on-possessions-7511555/

This work goes on and my ultimate goal is to go through all the 115 quotes and the ideas they have provoked.

by jaskaw @ 05.10.2010 - 21:48:18

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/10/05/aldous-huxley-on-improving-universe-9529319/
Epicurus on accumulation of pleasures
"If every pleasure had been capable of accumulation, not only over time but also over the entire body
or at least over the principal parts of our nature, then pleasures would never differ from one another."
- Epicurus (Principal Doctrines, 9)

We have many kinds of needs and desires that we can and will overdo given half a chance, but as Bertrand
Russell famously said "To endure uncertainty is difficult, but so are most of the other virtues."
The important part here in my mind is that virtue is a virtue just because it is somehow difficult to achieve.
So, in the end a virtue is mostly a thing that is achieved only by going against some of the very basic human
needs and desires.

If we doe't ever slow down we will want more of all of the good things until our head will explode. This
danger was already plainly visible for many thinkers many thousands of years ago. Some wise people soon
saw soon that there is not many good things we could not want and also to have too much.

Epicurus saw that one should combat this danger of overindulgence with self-discipline and power of
reasoning to limit these endless and in the end quite insatiable needs.
He knew that true tranquility and peace of mind are not attained by having more, bigger and better pleasures,
but on the contrast by limiting them and getting pleasure from smaller and ever more modest things.

by jaskaw @ 07.10.2010 - 23:30:40

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/10/07/epicurus-on-accumulation-of-pleasures-9551164/
Feedback for Post "Epicurus on accumulation of pleasures"

Peter Brooks [Visitor]

08.10.2010 @ 12:45
I can't agree that a virtue is only a virtue because it is difficult. Yes, being difficult is usually a sine qua non -
though you can still be virtuous by chance. Vices can be difficult too - look at the huge effort
Methamphetamine addicts go through to get their drug supplies, and the suffering their action causes them.

Virtue must also have a good objective, ideally a selfless one.

Iris Murdoch on making things holy

"I daresay anything can be made holy by being sincerely worshipped." - Iris Murdoch
in " The Message to the Planet" (1989)

I do think that humans have always had a quite universal (even if quite irrational at the same
time) tendency to see things that are claimed to be of divine origin as more trustworthy than
those that are of certified human origin.
There is of course a good reason for that, as we know deep inside that no real human we
know of can have supernatural powers and know all the answers. So, we have good reason to
suspect that all things that humans do put in paper are suspect to all of the common human
failings also.

Any text that is produced by mere humans cannot therefore be a source of final and universal
truths, but as it stands, many of us do crave to have absolute certainties in this world ours that
is so full of uncertainty.
Therefore, there really exists a easy and ready market of people who desperately crave things
that are of supernatural and not of human origin, as even the wisest, kindest and deepest
human thoughts are not enough for them. They just want more and there are people who are
willing to give them just that.

The normal human limitations seem magically to disappear, when the claim is made that a
text is not of human origin, but it was somehow magically produced with the aid of a deity.
If you look around, you soon notice that nearly all of the modern religions have some kind of
divinely inspired texts as their founding document, as this just making this very simple and
easy to make claim can remove a lot of doubt, fear and uncertainty out of the minds of the
believers.

What is even more important, when people do believe that a text is not produced by a fallible
human mind, they soon also start seeing in it qualities that they would not see in it otherwise.
It has been well established that the expectations that we do have carry a tremendous
 importance in the impact of multitude of things do have on us.

A world-class violinist playing in the street corner will never receive a similar applause and
ovation as the very same man can receive when playing quite similarly in Carnegie Hall.
We just come to a concert with high expectations and the concert will fulfill them. In fact the
true quality of the violinist is in fact really of secondary importance, as the most important
thing is that our expectations are fulfilled, the more as most of the listeners have in real life no
ability to tell a average violinist from a brilliant one.

If we are lead to believe that a text is written by a higher being, we very easily see it in a quite
different way than if it the same text would be presented us as a normal human document.
This process is even quite inevitable if we believe in the supernatural claims made of the
document.
However, a person that does not have these expectations can see the text in strikingly
different way, when he looks at it as normal human document, without the heightened
expectations. Such a person can really often just wonder how believers can see the things they
do in these texts.

It is amazing how a simple literary trick will still in modern world help in that some people
really accept texts as divinely inspired . The trick is so easy that I feel a little embarrassed
to bring it up, but over and over again I have noticed that it really does have on impact on
some people, even if in only in the people who really want to believe.
The literary device is to write the text as if the writer would have had a direct connection to
the God-character mentioned in the text and is just putting down words that are dictated to
him by this deity.
In this form of writing there are direct quotations of the words of this God. This is of
course a quite ordinary literary device, but its amazing efficiency is well demonstrated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_Murdoch

by jaskaw @ 15.11.2010 - 22:15:48

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/11/15/iris-murdoch-on-making-things-holy-9980633/
Adam Smith on government and defending the rich
Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the
defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at
all. - Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776)

Economic inequality had undoubtedly been one of the most important forces driving our societies forward, but
so has also the violence between groups of humans been a force that has for its part shaped the world to be
such as it now is.
Still, we do not generally think that violence would be a good and recommendable thing, but we have no such
scruples about endorsing economic inequality.

It is fascinating how in the time of Adam Smith one could still openly talk about the evil side of things like
ownership, but one does very rarely hear similar talk anymore from modern economists.
Of course one of the reasons for this is the ideologies of socialism and communism that did eventually quite
mix up our relationship to the ideas of ownership.
After the rise of the communism, the very idea of doubting the importance and value of economic inequality
did soon become nearly impossible in very many circles, as you could be put in the same bag with the
socialists, communists and other even more subversive forces. Not many were simply willing to take that risk.

However, in fact there are many possible middle roads between the glorifying and admiration of economical
inequality and the complete abolishing of private property and most of them have never been even tried
anywhere.
However, some ideas aiming at greater economic equality have been under the stress test of reality for best
part of a century now. In my mind the modern Scandinavian societies are a prime example of how the basic
economic inequality of a well-working modern western economy can be balanced by active actions of the
society.

In my mind a basic fact is that economic inequality is mostly a inherited thin. The simple accident of birth
does largely decide if you end up in the most affluent part or in the very lowest part of the society.
In the classes between there is much more traffic up and down, but rising or diving to the absolute ends is
much more rare.

The division of starting positions in a society always happens quite arbitrarily and it is mostly based on the
historical accumulation of wealth in a few hands.
The Scandinavian model has shown clearly that a degree of economic leveling of a society can be done
through taxation without provoking social unrest among the rich, if only the rich also agree that it is in their
own best interests to create a safer and stabler society.
In the end it can be done by just giving away just a small part of their inherited privileges and it can be a small
price for overall peace and stability in the society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

by jaskaw @ 22.11.2010 - 23:36:10

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/11/22/adam-smith-on-government-and-defending-the-rich-10032824/
A.C. Grayling on kindness, compassion, affection
and mutuality
Our newspapers are full of conflict and war and murder, but in every city, all around the world, every
day of the week there are millions of acts of kindness, compassion, affection, mutuality. And this shows
that, as social animals, we ve got a great deal of responsiveness toward one an other. We have to work
quite hard to put people into an out-group so that we can hate them and demonise them and bomb
them. I think that s true of humanity in general. - A. C. Grayling

I do think that we have a grand supply of pessimists and pessimism is a thing that does all too often grow
quite unsupported. I do think that true optimists and true optimism are in so short supply at the moment that
every single specimen of that rare species do need my full support.
Giving all power to pessimists will never make world a better place, as I do think that the changes for the
better are normally initiated by optimists over the strong opposition of the pessimists.

Pessimists are the ones who enact harsher laws, or who make preventive arrests and most of all who fear
freedom. A pessimist always fears that freedom will lead to bad things, even if they really do not know what
will happen, as a pessimist just knows that only bad things are to be expected from humans.
Groundless optimism is of course also a grave danger, but on the other hand there is strong evidence that
people tend to behave as they are expected to behave.

If we build systems on the expectation that people can behave morally and sensibly, it just might be that moral
and sensible behavior materializes in a different degree than in a system that is based fully on a assumption
that people just are immoral and stupid and nothing else is to be expected from them.
There many kinds of dividers that divide humanity to different quite permanent groups. A very basic divider is
the division between progressives and conservatives that is present in every single human community.
Basically a conservative likes things to be just as they are, but a progressive wants to explore new things.

I do think that every society does need these both forces and striking the right balance between them is the
crucial question that in the end does largely decide how the society will fare in the long run. A too
conservative society will strangle itself, but a too progressive society may fall when too big changes are tried
out too fast.
I see that that there is big overlap between progressives and optimist and conservatives and pessimists, but it
is of course not so simple.

There are a lot of progressive pessimists and conservative optimists too, but I do think at a certain higher level
one can draw parallels.
I do also think that a society ruled by optimists alone would not never work. I think that we sorely need
pessimists too to slow down things and to make it harder to make changes, as when making changes is slower
and harder this process will only refine and make better the ideas that are driven through.

A optimist with unlimited power is as dangerous as a pessimist with unlimited power. I do think that a good
society is born out of mixture of different ideas and most of all out of endless compromises.
I do also think that there is a good reason why there is both optimists and pessimist in every society. I do think
that in the evolution of human species those groups of humans that have had both have fared better than
groups of pure optimists or groups of pure pessimists.
I do think that this is the reason we always always have pessimists and optimist all over the world in all
societies. Striking the right balance is the key here, I think.

However, I do also think that pessimists do wield all too great power in our societies just at this very moment.
If I would be so inclined I would like to raise the banner of Optimism and raise my voice into calling:
Optimists of the World, Unite .

Addendum: On a second thought, as I do also think that all forms of extremism are dangerous, I would like to
change the call above to more appropriate form: "Moderate Optimists of the World, Unite".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.C._Grayling
The source for the original quote is
http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/2010/02/21/how-to-be-good-without-bothering-god/

by jaskaw @ 01.12.2010 - 11:51:07

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/12/01/a-c-grayling-on-kindness-compassion-affection-and-mutuality-10091968/
Marcus Aurelius on finding refuge from trouble
‎‎"Men seek retreats for themselves, houses in the country, sea-shores, and mountains; and thou too
art wont to desire such things very much. But this is altogether a mark of the most common sort of
men, for it is in thy power whenever thou shalt choose to retire into thyself. For nowhere either with
more quiet or more freedom from trouble does a man retire than into his own soul." - Marcus Aurelius
in 'Meditations'

Many people seem to have difficulty in understanding the huge difference that really does exist between
especially the Christian religion and philosophy.
I do think that Christianity is also a bastard son of Greek philosophy as well as it is an wayward daughter of
Judaism, as basically the creators of the Christianity did often make quite similar observations on humanity
and society as the older and more established philosophers had done.
The creators of Christianity also do offer different ideas to remedy some of the very basic human failings and
societal ills, the habit of which I do think the creators of modern Christianity also learned from the older
Greek schools of philosophy.

Platonism, Aristotelianism, Socratic method, Epicureanism and Stoicism are all older than Christianity and
they were undoubtedly known by fame at least to the first creators of the Christianity.
I do also think they also tried to reconcile some of their selected ideas with the old-fashioned Jewish traditions
harking back to the time of the herders and small-time farmers.
In the end they did create a brand new synchronistic new religion in the process, which was finally completed
when also many ideas from the different mystery cults of the time were also thrown in for a good measure.

However, the real difference between real philosophy and Christianity is that in Christianity these ideas are by
habit claimed to be absolute truths and they are quite universally claimed even to be of non-human origin.
Notably even the possibility to discuss the validity of the individual claims in Christianity is normally denied
by the followers of that faith. On the other hand philosophy is normally open to debate and discussion even on
its core ideas.

In contrast in philosophy ideas like this one by Marcus Aurelius are just human ideas whose validity can be
discussed. One is also free to choose if one thinks if some parts of it are true or not and believe in validity of
some parts, but reject others, which is officially out of question in Christianity.
Marcus Aurelius was a follower of the Stoic tradition and he did build his world view based on a few central
observations that form the basis for the Stoic philosophy.
However, I do think that many of these ideas are still valid strategies in enhancing the human existence in
complex human societies, even if they are not god-given or any kind of absolute truths.

There is much I do not like in Stoic thinking also, but I do think that the controlling of one's emotions that is
the central message in Stoic thinking is still a valid idea for at least those people who are inclined not to have
strong emotions in the first place.
However, I do not think that Stoicism is a thing that would fit all people, as I do not think like Christians that
one ideology should fit all. People who feel at home in continual storm of emotion feel undoubtedly much
more at home for example just in Christianity, I'm sure.

On the other hand some people also do seem to forget that philosophy is not science in a way physics or
geography is. Philosophy just does not produce verifiable hypothesis, theories or paradigms.
Philosophy is collection of human ideas and ideals that in the end have just the value the reader or listener
gives to them at that particular moment. There is no right or wrong philosophy in a sense there are right or
wrong hypothesis or theories in science.

Of course there are ideas in philosophy that some people see as patently false and on the other hand
philosophical ideas that are quite universally accepted.
This neglect or approval does of course make philosophical ideas more right or wrong in our own eyes.
That fact does not mean that even those ideas that we reject outright could not contain a grain of truths also,
that we might be able to discern at a different setting and at a different point of our own intellectual
development.

by jaskaw @ 13.12.2010 - 22:55:55

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/12/13/marcus-aurelius-on-finding-freedom-from-trouble-10178453/
A. C. Grayling on whipping up lurid anxieties
‎"The media no longer hesitate to whip up lurid anxieties in order to increase sales, in the process
undermining social confidence and multiplying fears." A.C. Grayling in "Life, Sex and Ideas: The
Good Life without God".

I do think that one of the real big question we all should present to ourselves once in while on many issues is
that if some things itself have really changed, or has just our perception of them changed by the one-sided
information we might have been receiving.

Is our society for example more violent that our society 30 years ago or is violence just more much more
prominently displayed in the media? In for example the United States the rate of serious crime per inhabitant
is in fact smaller now than in 1980 (see http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm ) and development
has been similar also elsewhere.
However, I do really fear that our perception of the general level of security in our societies has changed for
the worse simply because the media has seen that big money is to be made from crime.

In my youth there was scarcely a mention of crime in the main evening news, when now crime is often the
main subject. It is not crime as a social phenomena that is brought up, but the individual crimes that in the end
mostly have real importance only to s small group of people.

I do think that if every single case of industrial accidents would be presented in similar gory detail and every
person related in some way about the case would be interviewed and the legal proceedings surrounding the
case would be followed with great intensity, very soon industrial accidents would soon be seen as a major
social problem and a cause for real concern in the whole of the society.

The sad fact is that this not the case. Industrial accident concerning unknown individuals are mostly just
passingly mentioned in the media, even if a crime with even lesser consequences involving the same person
would make big headlines.
The sad fact also is that the immense amount of air time and newspaper coverage of the crimes does not
prevent crime, but in fact it can cause crime to become a normal part of daily life and it can also create very
negative role models, when the more evil person is the easier it is for him or her to media exposure. The later
problem is intensified by the culture where media attention can really become the most important there is in
life.

However, I do think that this overflowing coverage of crime does in fact deteriorate the quality life of for
many people, as their perception of the world is twisted and quite unnecessary fears are created in their minds.
The sad part is that this fear-mongering is made not because of real concern for humans affected by crime, but
on the contrary to earn the biggest possible amount of money on their expense.
Reporting on crime plays on the darkest side of human nature; fear, hate and anxiety. Feeding maximally on
those emotions in purpose can have only a negative impact in the long run.

I m not suggesting keeping quiet about crime at all. I am only asking if it really is necessary to spread the
most disgusting details of human life in all of its gory details in the front page over the whole page or to dwell
in every single sordid detail of mind-boggling acts of cruelty in television news. These things could be
reported in a much more subtle way without really affecting the need to know about also of these things.
However, this socially responsible reporting would not bring money in the way fear-mongering and
gut-splashing sensationalism does bring in. When we are offered the possibility to dwell in the worst
humanity has on offer, the sad fact is that there are a lot of people who will like nothing else more.

I do fear that there is a streak of cruelty and inhumanity in all of us that does feed on these displays of cruelty.
Witnessing the worst things that humanity can produce can also of course produce a situation where we see
ourselves as better persons compared to the lowlife on whose wrong-doings media is having a feast on.
However, I do think that in many other things too we refrain with great difficulty in following our lowest
impulses to achieve and uphold a greater common good. I do also think that the protection of the innocent
should necessitate the keeping in check also this despicable impulse of reveling in the worst things humans
are capable of.
The more so as the splashing out of the gory details will never prevent new crimes, but can act as impulses for
copy-cats. I do think that the same lowest of human impulses did draw tens of thousands of ordinary nice
people to Colosseum to wittiness the slaughter that was done for their amusement only.

I know that there is awfully little one can really do about this. However, one can leave the most horrid
fear-mongering tabloids to their sellers or change channel when the slaughter starts.
In the end it is the consumer that decides what sells and when violence does not sell anymore, it will not be on
sale anymore.
I know very well this is just a pipe-dream for now, but I can do it today and tomorrow and day after tomorrow
without any real cost to myself. if enough people would do likewise, the slaughter in the front page will
eventually cease in the long run and these horrid items will drop to page two or three or even lower given due
time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._C._Grayling

by jaskaw @ 14.12.2010 - 22:25:51

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/12/14/a-c-grayling-on-whipping-up-lurid-anxieties-10185055/
Voltaire on dangerous opinions
‎"Opinions have caused more ills than the plague or earthquakes on this little globe of ours." - Voltaire
in a letter to Élie Bertrand (1759)

I really do also think that the very strongly held opinions of Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, Genghis Khan, Mao
Tse-Tung, Benito Mussolini, Slobodan Milosevic, Ivan the Terrible, Maximilien Robespierre, Augusto
Pinochet, Pol Pot, Thutmose III, Darius I, Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar, Attila the
Hun, Charlemagne and their colleagues have caused combined more deaths than any plague ever has caused.

In the end generally only the extremely strongly held opinions of their mission and their destiny did drive
these very dangerous men forward in their paths on the expense of humanity.
One idea that was common to all of these men was the idea that their own nation had a special place and value
in the world. Most of most of them thought that they and their own nations were destined to rule over other
nations because of their special and even supernatural qualities.

Nationalism is one of the most widespread ideas in the world. This is of course because it is one of the most
natural ideologies there is on offer. People living in a same geographical area have a very natural tendency to
form unions and do together things they could not individually do.
This bonding becomes even more stronger when people speak the same language, as it is extremely natural to
bond with the people whose speech you do understand without difficulty.

I would even claim that a modern complex society is in fact impossible to build without a working state and a
really working state needs to be stitched together with some kind of nationalistic idea.

However, I do think that it is a quite different thing to say that a country is the best place in the world for me
than to say that a county is the best country in the world.
The country where I was raised and whose traditions, history and language I do share with the other
inhabitants of this country is undoubtedly the best place in the world for me.
However, that does not mean at all that this country would be the best country in the world for people who do
not share these common traditions, history and language.

I do think that nationalism that is based on the appraisal of the great qualities of a given geographical area is a
much less harmful thing than the kind of nationalism that it based on a idea of a nation formed by similar
people.
The first kind love of fatherland is inclusive, as in the end it makes it possible to include in a nation all
different kinds of people that do choose to live in a given area.
However, the kind of nationalism that is based on a idea of a uniform body of people is much more dangerous
animal, as it tends to become exclusive as people are all too often accepted or rejected based only on the
accident of birth in this kind of exclusive nationalism.

Even if moderate nationalism is a necessary basis of a modern state, in its more extreme forms it is one of the
greatest problems that a modern state needs to face.
To exist a state must feed and build the idea of a nation, but problems do all too often start when these ideas
are taken too far, as problems do occur when any idea is taken too far.
Problem do appear when the love of ones home country becomes hatred of other countries and most of all
when the nationalistic ideas are used to justify oppression of other nations and oppression of members of other
nationalities who happen to live inside the political borders of a nation state because of different kinds of
accidents of history.

The core problem is that a idea of nation can all too easily be transformed into something that is cannot be
analyzed and evaluated rationally at all. When idea of a nation becomes a sacred object of veneration the most
irrational and mindless acts of violence are all too often allowed if they just do further the interests this idea of
nation.
A basically beneficial idea can then become a cancer that consumes whole nations in mindless and useless
wars.

"Voltaire - the best one-liners" in Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Voltaire-the-best-one-liners/165736696801820

by jaskaw @ 18.12.2010 - 12:31:25

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/12/18/voltaire-on-dangerous-opinions-10211088/
Feedback for Post "Voltaire on dangerous opinions"

liberal [Visitor]

18.12.2010 @ 12:58
Nationalism, socialism, Christianity and islam seem to be the most dangerous ideologies. Most of todays
terrorist organizations are socialist, like almost all in Europe. Some are islamist or a mixture of islam and arab
socialism. Christian terrorist groups are nowadays rare in the Western world - some abort clinic bombings etc.
of course - but in Africa they are more frequent.

Most in your list were socialist including Robespierre and to some extent Mussolini, the former chief editor of
the socialist party newspaper Avanti, some nationalist-socialist or nationalist-socialist-conservative, some
nationalist-conservative. Napoleon was a nationalist, although not very conservative, even semi-progressive.

(Classical) liberals, like Voltaire, have usually been non-interventionists (doves). Thomas Jefferson was a
slight exception, as he agitated the French into their revolution (1789) and then armed Haitian slaves for the
only succesful slave revolution in the world (1804). But of course, the point of liberalism is that you should
not force your opinions onto others.

jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
18.12.2010 @ 13:11
Liberal said: "Most in your list were socialist" Were Hitler, Hirohito, Genghis Khan, Benito Mussolini,
Slobodan Milosevic, Ivan the Terrible, Augusto Pinochet, Thutmose III, Darius I, Alexander the Great,
Napoleon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar, Attila the Hun and Charlemagne really socialists?

Mussolini may have been a socialist in his innocent youth, but he was definitely not a socialist anymore when
he was the dictator of Italy.

liberal [Visitor]

18.12.2010 @ 14:55
I meant: in the era of socialism.

For Robespierre, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot etc. this is clear.

Mussolini was a socialist, who later became a non-marxist anti-capitalist. Hitler was a national socialist
anti-capitalist, anti-marxist. Mussolini socialized more industry than any other non-communist in the Europe,
and also Hitler's program was very socialist as well as his practical policies. Both created enormous welfare
states and highly regulated the economy, prices etc. Without this, they might have won the war.

See also:
Stanley G. Payne. Fascism: Comparison and Definition. University of Wisconsin Press.
and
http://web.archive.org/web/20070611193716/http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Purge15.html

| Show subcomments
jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
18.12.2010 @ 15:27
Hitler and Mussolini lost the Second World War because they did build a welfare state? Hmmmm, a brand
new idea...Let me think about it.... Hmmmm, No.
Do you really think that Germany would have beaten the united power of Soviet Union, the British Empire
and United States if they would not have had a pension system and sick-pay?
I do not think so, as they just tried to do something that simply beyond their military means and after their
enemies got their whole power organized and going they did not stand a chance and their loss was just a
question of time.

liberal [Visitor]

18.12.2010 @ 16:05
I don't believe that the welfare state was such a big issue to the economy. Wage and price control and central
planning are usually much more harmful.

When Goebbels started to control the economy, since September 1936:

"Wages and prices were controlled--under penalty of being sent to the concentration camp. Dividends were
restricted to six percent on book capital. And strategic goals to be reached at all costs (much like Soviet
planning) were declared"

"the German economy during World War II was not as strong, and hence could not give as much support to
the military, as it might have."

Professor DeLong, who is considered moderate, middle-way,

http://web.archive.org/web/20070611193716/http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Purge15.html

With a better economy they might have succeeded better in Russia. Might - I did not say that they would and I
don't know the probabilities. If so, the U.S. and Britain might then have made a peace.

| Show subcomments
jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
18.12.2010 @ 17:16
I must point out that as I a journalist writing about economy as my day job, I find your ideas hard to stomach.
On the other hand I have studied political history also in university level and have studied history as my main
form of amusement for nearly 40 years now and I do find your ideas of Germany as a centrally planned
economy at least odd, to say the least.
The major failing of the German war machine was the evident lack of real planning until the year 1942, when
finally some efforts were made to centrally really plan even the most crucial war production.
Until that point the different arms of the German armed forces had had business with the private firms
supplying the goods without real planning or even without knowing what others were doing. Also all the big
arms manufacturers were privately owned firms to the bitter end.
Germany used massive amounts of forced labor; there were millions of unpaid prisoners and scantily paid
"gastarbeiter" in Germany at the end of the war. The price of work is in fact not a issue at all in a war
economy anywhere. Economy was strictly regulated in Great Britain and United States also during war-time
as they are necessarily a important part of war economy, when the state becomes by necessity the only real
customer for very many firms.
In the end German economy and population was just too small to build a army strong enough to beat and
conquer the whole world.

liberal [Visitor]

18.12.2010 @ 18:58
Also the Mongolian population was too small. I don't believe that Germany would have conquered the whole
world in any case.

Yet I do believe in the analysis of many professors, at least part of them middle-way people, than in some
courses in the Helsinki University during Finnlandisierung. See, e.g., the above references.

National socialist Germany and Italy were not Soviet Unions, although many say that their planned economies
were much similar to that of S.U. However, they were much more socialist and planned economies than any
EU country and more socialist and planned economies than the goal of any party in the Finnish parlament.

| Show subcomments
jaskaw pro
http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
18.12.2010 @ 20:42
You are comparing apples and oranges here. The Mongol experience was in a world that was totally different.
The Mongols also had the luxury of choosing their victims and attacking them one at the time on their own
chosen schedule.
They did also recruit the Turkish and other tribes when they expanded and finally their force did include all
the nations of the steppes and also a strong contingent of Chinese and other mercenaries building for example
their siege engines.
There is in fact no similarities in the rise of the Mongol empire and the rise of the Third Reich, when the Third
Reich was in fact with the whole world at the same time.
I must say that these professors you refer were speaking through their hat, as the planned economy in
Germany or Italy had nothing in common with the real planned economy in Russia. In fact it was just
'planned' as the plans of planning the economy never really did come to fruition, as these courtries were pure
capitalist societies to the end.
The labor movement was crushed mercilessly in both countries as was btw, also the atheist and humanist
movements.

liberal [Visitor]

18.12.2010 @ 21:17
The labor movement was also crushed in Cuba, China, Soviet Union and other communist countries. Most
socialists want to suppress the civil society under the state, Marxist socialists, national socialists and others.
Both Germany and Italy were very anti-capitalist, anti-free market countries with heavy regulation of the
economy, as I described above and as the references describe.

rbennet9 pro
19.12.2010 @ 08:42

Voltaire was the one person that no country wanted to claim while he was alive, but who every country
wanted to claim after his death...so much so that his bones are buried in two different countries and fought
over.
Bertrand Russell on indifference to happiness
"The nations which at present increase rapidly should be encouraged to adopt the methods by which, in
the West, the increase of population has been checked. Educational propaganda, with government help,
could achieve this result in a generation. There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a
policy: one is religion, the other is nationalism. I think it is the duty of all who are capable of facing
facts to realize, and to proclaim, that opposition to the spread of birth con−trol, if successful, must
inflict upon mankind the most ap−palling depth of misery and degradation, and that within another
fifty years or so.
I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing.
There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I
remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological
war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every
generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing
in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of national−ists. The state of
affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to
happiness, especially other people's."

Bertrand Russell in "The Impact of Science on Society" (1951) in Ch.. 7 : Can a Scientific Society Be Stable?
(first delivered as a lecture 29 November 1949)

I see regularly the last paragraph from the above quote used alone as a way to prove how awful person
Bertrand Russell really was, as read separately it may sound if he was personally advocating Black Death as a
means for controlling population.
In fact he was really using a satirical weapon here and we all know how dangerous that can be, as irony is so
easily lost in the instant translation that happens in a humans brain when he or she reads something.

In real world Bertrand Russell was referring the last paragraph to those who oppose population control on
religious and ideological basis.
He was referring to those who see death because of war and pestilence as natural phenomena and 'acts of god',
but who abhor from using condom as unnatural meddling with the 'gods plans'.

They are of course the same people who see preventing pregnancies a great sin, but who have no trouble at all
in accepting the fact that children are being born to utmost, horrible poverty where only slow death on the
effects of undernourishment waits them.
This incredibly saddening situation is possible only when upholding a dogma is more important than
happiness of the real-world humans or to say in other words "Really high-minded people are indifferent to
happiness, especially other people's."

Lets also not forget that this quote was not about having high-minded ideas as such, but about the type of
people who are willing to sacrifice the real-world happiness of their neighbors because they believe in a set
rigid and dogmatic high-minded ideas.
The Jesuits or the Comrades of the Central Committee did believe in a very similar ideas according to which
striving for a really high-minded goal can justify the causing of any kind of human suffering.

I see that the basic message of Bertrand Russell is still quite valid. We desperately need to curtail the growth
of the human population in this little blue dot of a planet. Year after year millions after millions are doomed to
desperate lives in utmost poverty and suffering if nothing is done.
The saddest part is that we have all the tools that we need to do it, we just have dogmatic people opposing
using these tools because of their ancient religious belief or because of their sad nationalistic ambitions of
growing their nations bigger and bigger.

The problem has been made more severe during the last decades, as those people who oppose using the
modern medicine to control population growth have eagerly accepted its use in all other areas.
Thanks to modern medicine more and more people survive to the age where they can reproduce. However,
when nothing is done to cure the basic inequality of the economic structures present, the net result just is more
and more of the desperate poverty.
In the end we will have more and more people with nothing to expect from the future but suffering and slow
and agonizing death from malnutrition, but sadly this does not interest those who are protecting their own
bronze age dogmas.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bertrand-Russell/86711477873

by jaskaw @ 28.12.2010 - 20:57:09

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/12/28/bertrand-russell-on-indifference-to-happiness-10268523/
Erich Fromm on greed as a bottomless pit
"Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without
ever reaching satisfaction." - Erich Fromm in "Escape from Freedom" (1941)

I must admit upfront that this quote by Erich Fromm did strike me as a extremely Epicurean thing to say the
very moment when I did first lay my eyes on it.
Of course there are people who do believe that ideas are not important, but the important thing is who utters
these ideas.
There are people who think that only a true Epicurean can express an real Epicurean idea and as far as I know
Erich Fromm was not an Epicurean, even if he undoubtedly had a good working knowledge of Epicurean
philosophy.

I think that the best ideas of Epicureanism are not tied to this system of philosophy alone at all, but are are in
fact quite universal, as is of course the case with all of the best ideas in philosophy.
In my mind the best philosophical ideas are such that one needs not to even know who has uttered them to
appreciate these ideas. However, I know that there are a lot of people who can never take seriously any idea
coming from a source they do not appreciate as a person or with whose political views they disagree.

I think that all of the central ideas of Epicurus can be found in the thinking of very many other people also
though ages.
I think that Epicurus did not find out any kind of new and unique truths, but he did just formulate and collect
some ideas into a coherent whole. These ideas where about very universal human ideas and models of
behavior.

Epicureanism is for me just one possible road to happiness and I do not think that it is suited to everyone at
all, far from it, even if I do see myself more and more as an Epicureanist these days.
I think that people who share a certain frame of mind and a certain kind of life experience can greatly benefit
from acquainting themselves with these ideas. I think that they will at least not lose anything in the process.

But back to the quote; of the 40 Epicurean Principal Doctrines at least the following ones can be seen as
speaking against allowing greed to get hold of a persons mind as Erich Fromm also suggests in his quote:
"7. Some men want fame and status, thinking that they would thus make themselves secure against other men.
If the life of such men really were secure, they have attained a natural good; if, however, it is insecure, they
have not attained the end which by nature's own prompting they originally sought.
14. Protection from other men, secured to some extent by the power to expel and by material prosperity, in its
purest form comes from a quiet life withdrawn from the multitude.
15. The wealth required by nature is limited and is easy to procure; but the wealth required by vain ideals
extends to infinity.
21. He who understands the limits of life knows that it is easy to obtain that which removes the pain of want
and makes the whole of life complete and perfect. Thus he has no longer any need of things which involve
struggle.
26. All desires that do not lead to pain when they remain unsatisfied are unnecessary, but the desire is easily
got rid of, when the thing desired is difficult to obtain or the desires seem likely to produce harm.
29. Of our desires some are natural and necessary, others are natural but not necessary; and others are neither
natural nor necessary, but are due to groundless opinion.
30. Those natural desires which entail no pain when unsatisfied, though pursued with an intense effort, are
also due to groundless opinion; and it is not because of their own nature they are not got rid of but because of
man's groundless opinions."

Personal greed is of course a central driving force in modern capitalism, but I do think that a capitalism where
greed is tamed to a degree is also quite possible.
I also think that this kind of new and tamed version capitalism would be a great step forward for the mankind
and our little planet as a whole.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Epicurus/79493658728
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm
http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/2010/12/18/greed-is-a-bottomless-pit-or-the-very-best-bits-from-erich-fromm-10214687/

by jaskaw @ 29.12.2010 - 22:35:08

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/12/29/erich-fromm-on-greed-as-a-bottomless-pit-10273901/
Kurt Vonnegut on death as entertainment
One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have
died in vain. You will have entertained us.

Kurt Vonnegut in "Cold Turkey, In These Times" (2004)

I sometimes sincerely wonder why people have been conditioned to believe that they must know of all of the
bad things that happen in all corners of the world every day.
Most people seem really to believe that they are not good citizens if they do not know about all of the
murders, major car-accidents, thunderstorms, earthquakes or floods that have happened during the last 24
hours, even if they know or remember next to nothing of similar happenings that occurred two months or a
year ago .
All too often they do not know even where in the map do reside these places are whose dramatic events they
are told about and in real world terms they would care even less, if asked.

These pieces of news tell of natural disasters mostly just tell about the fact that the more there are people on
this little planet, the more likely it is that the forces of nature will affect some of them.
A piece of news concerning a natural disaster does not improve our knowledge of the real processes that do
govern human life or human societies.
I would even claim that making them the most important issues that people do need to know is like saying that
you need not to know why you most go daily to your workplace, but you need to know how a old man
accidentally slipped and fell in the pavement on the other side of the town this morning.

These pieces of news may be quite dramatic and most of all very entertaining of course, but knowing about
them will not increase your real knowledge of the world at all and it will not help you live your life better.
In fact knowing of all of this trivial information will just make you more acutely aware how life is based on
chance. I will claim that increasing this knowledge will never make you a happier person, on the contrary.

But then, who benefits from all of this spreading and breeding of the feeling of insecurity that following
modern media entails?
Of course the news medias themselves are a major and very central beneficiary, as the horror-stories in the
news are the easiest and cheapest to produce, as you simply tell in a over-dramatic and overstated way what
has happened to create the desired effect.

Making people believe that they must know of all of these horrid little accidents is of course a very central
part of their marketing strategy.
They are in a very enviable position in this respect, as media has all of its pages and all of its news minutes
available to itself to indoctrinate its clients into believing that the stuff they are receiving from them is the
really important bits of the reality around them that they can ever hope for.

The other factor is that this spreading of insecurity does paradoxically play into the hands of those holding
power in a society, as the more there seems to be insecurity in the world, the more important upholding the
existing bastions of security seem to be.
It just must be made clear that there are no structural or society-level problems behind the wanton acts of
violence that the media is so eagerly reporting, as it is always suggested in the background that a failing of a
individual to live up to expectations is the reason why these things do happen.

I would even suggest this kind of reporting seems to build up the system that regulates the lives of individuals
more and more. The more the individuals are shown to fail, it even just might be that the less and less reasons
there are to be looking at the basic structures of the society.

"They lied about it! The enemy boils the ocean, cooks the sixth fleet and every man, woman and child within
fifty miles of a shoreline - you could expect some coverage. What did they report? Minor soil erosion in the
Florida Keys. They boiled the ocean, woman!"

- Arthur M. Jolly in the play After It's All Over, Original Works Press (2009)

"Journalism largely consists in saying "Lord Jones Dead" to people who never knew Lord Jones was alive."

- G. K. Chesterton, attributed

by jaskaw @ 31.12.2010 - 12:29:49

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/12/31/kurt-vonnegut-on-death-as-entertainment-10281752/
Feedback for Post "Kurt Vonnegut on death as
entertainment"

tbrucia [Visitor]

31.12.2010 @ 17:47
Vonnegut's Corollary: "If you die horribly and don't make the news, you will have died in vain -- failing to
fulfill your ultimate purpose: to entertain viewers." Jumpers don't take chances with error-prone technology;
they 'go direct'.
Author's friends

rbennet945.blogs.fi
rbennet9.blogs.fi
rbennet9-Christmas.blogs.fi

rbennet9

atheistbruce.blogs.fi

atheistbruce

GratisCogito54.blogs.fi

GratisCogito

This user has currently no blogs.

GingerCampbell

AtheistAmerican.blogs.fi

AtheistAmerican

marjaliisa.blogs.fi
marjaliisa

grahnlaw.blogs.fi

Grahnlaw
About the author
jaskaw (Jaakko Wallenius), male, 52 years old, Lohja, , speaks Finnish (FI)

(English version at bottom) Uusi ja yllättävä tieto on aina ollut minulle ylivoimaisesti parasta viihdettä.
Rakkaus historiaan syttyi jo kansankouluaikana, mutta viime vuosina melkoisesti aikaa on vienyt myös
tietotekniikkaan syventyminen. Opiskelin aikoinaan historiaa, sosiologiaa ja valtio-oppia, mutta lyhyeksi
jäänyt poliittinen ura vei miehen pian mukanaan. Jo yli 20 vuotta sitten alkoi nykyinen taloustoimittajan ura.
Asun pienessä omakotitalossa pienessä kaupungissa vaimon, kahden koiran, kahden lapsen ja viime laskun
mukaan 14 kalan kanssa. Korjailen toimittajan päätyöni ohella sivutoimisena yrittäjänä hyvien
kaupunkilaisten tietokoneita. New information has always been the best form of entertainment for me. My
everlasting love for history started at the elementary school at tender age of nine, when I did read the 600
pages of The Pocket World History, admittedly skipping the dull parts about culture... I have studied history,
political history, political science and journalism in universities of Turku and Tampere, but have never
graduated from neither. A brief but tempestuous political career blew the man prematurely to to wide world
from the comforting womb of university. A more steady career in journalism followed and I have been a
professional writer and journalist for the past 20 years. At present I live in a small town in a small house with
a wife, two not so small teenagers, two middle-sized dogs and 14 fish of various sizes. By day I work as a
journalist writing about local economy in our local newspaper. Its a job i have held for the past 20 years. In
the evenings and week-ends I repair the computers of the good citizens of our little town as a private
entrepreneur.

bittitohtori.blogs.fi
uskoitseesi.blogs.fi
hsvahti.blogs.fi
beinghuman.blogs.fi
Interests: computers, historia, history, pohdiskelu, thinking, tietokoneet,
Own atheistnews.blogs.fi
ateismi, atheism, computers, lohja, pohdiskelu, thinking,
blogs: thelittlebook.blogs.fi User tags:
tietokoneet,
ikkunat.blogs.fi
dayofreason.blogs.fi
jaavatty.blogs.fi

Zip:
Street:
Email: jaakko.wallenius@gmail.com
URL: http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi
Pageviews
This page shows the pageviews of your blog.

Pageviews total: 55419

Monthly history

Month Total Pageviews Total Visitors

December 2010 5904 3458
November 2010 7256 4269
October 2010 9311 4383
September 2010 4184 2106
August 2010 1910 1061
July 2010 3172 1762
June 2010 3830 1924
May 2010 3178 1038
April 2010 2168 992
March 2010 3914 1959
February 2010 4444 2870
January 2010 6148 3367