Windows on Humanity

In response to:Marcus Aurelius on bearing misfortune

Fri, 15 Mar 2013 05:09:48 +0100

Marcus's writings have really helped me day to day. My husband is currently battling a serious brain tumor which is also cancerous. His words help me to remember that i cannot let myself be weighed down by depression or sadness because that does not help or change my situation. The greatest power we have is positive thinking.

In response to:Mark Twain on loyalty to petrified opinions

Mon, 07 Jan 2013 20:04:13 +0100

Rah -- Nice quote! ... "Mavericks of all kinds have always changed the course of their own lives, and sometimes the "scope" of the worlds "ordering" -- in the most amazing ways! Be your "own" "BEST PERSON"! - Patrice Marie

In response to:Bertrand Russell on democracy, trade unionism, and birth control

Thu, 06 Dec 2012 18:35:58 +0100

I totally agree with your thoughts. The article still contains multiple grammatical and spelling errors, however.

In response to:Bertrand Russell on democracy, trade unionism, and birth control

Thu, 06 Dec 2012 18:35:16 +0100

I totally agree with your thoughts. The article still contains multiple grammatical and spelling errors, however.

In response to:Steven Pinker on the worst features of human nature

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:50:22 +0100

Zahid, do you know in which countries of the world the state can execute you for simply changing religion or there is "a demand for absolute submission of all members of the society to one set of religious ideas". Surprise, surprise: they are all Islamic states.

In response to:Steven Pinker on the worst features of human nature

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:31:38 +0100

It is quite puzzling for me with my very limited knowledge to see how such comments like:
"The demand for absolute submission of all members of the society to one set of religious ideas just cannot be in place in a real democracy."
has been derived. Which Islam are we talking about. I was made aware by Stuart Croft, the writer of the book "Securitization of Islam" the other day that there are many 'Islamic scholars' who derive their understanding about Islam just by reading one quote or paragraph from the Qua-ran.
I strongly want to believe that this is NOT the case here.
Pinker on the other hand has been my fev for some time and I was even trying to get him for a seminar in my Uni to speak on a theme " Is the World Getting More Peaceful."

In response to:Steven Pinker on the worst features of human nature

Tue, 27 Nov 2012 01:16:37 +0100

It societies must pass through stages of enlightenment that take generations then we cannot help but be very pessimistic about change in the Muslim world. Both China and Russia moved from authoritarian regimes pre communism to authoritarian regimes via communism. But both 'countries' have a younger populace open to the ideas floating around the Internet, as was noted. The web phenomenon may also help shorten the historical timeline in the Middle East.

In response to:Bertrand Russell on the virtue of enduring uncertainty

Sat, 10 Nov 2012 23:34:56 +0100

Ah, Marcus would have said as much, if he would have had the time.

In response to:Seneca the Younger on fortune

Sun, 04 Nov 2012 20:27:07 +0100

...although R prescribed more than being at peace with yourself as an antidote. ;)

In response to:Seneca the Younger on fortune

Sun, 04 Nov 2012 20:24:12 +0100

This reminds me a LOT of Rousseau's famous: "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains."

In response to:Jaakko Wallenius on understanding quotes

Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:14:19 +0100

vous êtes réellement un webmaster excellente. Le rythme de chargement site web est incroyable. Il se sent type de ce que vous faites n'importe quel tour distinctif. En outre, les contenus sont chef-d'œuvre. vous avez fait une grande activité sur cette question!

In response to:Isaac Asimov on violence

Thu, 04 Oct 2012 02:13:58 +0200

Hello,
i've read the Fondation serie a while ago, but i remember very well this quote (it's a famous one anyway), i like the idea very much. When you say "War is a continuation of politics after politicians have failed in their job." not only i agree, but it reminds me : back then when i read this line, i immediatly thought of sun tzu. A strong idea about war, in the third chapter, is that if you have to fight on the battle ground, even if you win, you lose, so to speak. For him the purpose of war is meanly to fight the enemy's plan. It's still war, but a less destructive vision of it i guess. Nevertheless, wars in china have never been less dreadful than anywhere else.
oh, and i hope my english isn't too lousy, you know..the frenches and foreign languages...;)
Thanks for your blog
bye

In response to:Marcus Aurelius on the needless fear of death

Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:19:38 +0200

I don't think that ANYONE can truly be free of the fear of death, it is a natural part of human life as we tend to fear anything we don't understand - particularly when it pertains to us. That being said, turning to baseless and unfounded beliefs to help avoid fearing death and writing your entire life story based upon those beliefs in an effort to calm your fear is really a waste of life. You spend the limited time you have worrying and preparing for future time that may not exist for you at all...

In response to:Thomas Paine on renouncing reason

Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:57:24 +0200

Don says: "I haven't met anyone who has "renounced" the use and authority or reason." I say: Good for you, Don, if you have never met a person who believe that scriptures tell the only and final truth about everything imaginable. You haven't missed a lot though, as such persons are normally quite incapable of any kind of coherent conversation.

In response to:Thomas Paine on renouncing reason

Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:22:40 +0200

I haven't met anyone who has "renounced" the use and authority or reason.

I haven't met anyone who does not stubbornly cling to some opinions.

I don't think I've ever witnessed anyone convince anyone of anything in a debate.

What I do witness, everyday, is people who believe that their side is right and the other side is not just mistaken, but irrational, acting in bad faith, or mentally ill.

Most debate, from the perspective of both participants, is like talking to a brick wall, on both sides.

Was Paine's experience different? Did he have a circle of highly flexible rationalists who adopted the best position without prejudice? Not from my perspective. Instead, it looks like the early intellectional leaders in the United States argued endlessly about federalism, slavery, rights, and every other issue, both major and minor, without persuading one another of anything. In the end, they were practical enough to compromise in the name of necessity. In other words, they didn't insist on the intellectual purity that Paine's comment implies.

It feels good to give the finger to one's opponents, can call them idiots or dead men. Of all Paine's good ideas, his giving into this tendency is one of the least useful.

In response to:Bertrand Russell on rejecting certainty

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:02:38 +0200

Dear Ryan, it does nothing of the kind. That you cannot be FOREVER sure that some things that you believe in are ABSOLUTELY right does not at all mean that you cannot be sure ENOUGH of the correctness of certain claims and ideas to act upon these ideas in the real world.
Absolute certainty exists only in a theoretical world, but we live in real world where most things are under influence of many different and often conflicting forces and the real outcomes of events are always under a varying level of uncertainty.
We can know the general outlines of our universe and reality very clearly, but at the same time we very often cannot be absolutely certain of the outcome of an individual event.

In response to:Bertrand Russell on rejecting certainty

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 04:16:36 +0200

“Don’t be so sure—nobody can be certain of anything.” "One cannot be sure that one cannot be sure of anything. The pronouncement means that no knowledge of any kind is possible to man, i.e., that man is not conscious. Furthermore, if one tried to accept that catch phrase, one would find that its second part contradicts its first: if nobody can be certain of anything, then everybody can be certain of everything he pleases—since it cannot be refuted, and he can claim he is not certain he is certain (which is the purpose of that notion)."

In response to:Philip K. Dick on reality

Sun, 16 Sep 2012 15:23:05 +0200

Brilliant Philip K. Dick, R.I.P.

Have all his books, both in English and in Finnish. Love to reread 'Blade Runner' and 'Ubik' at least once every year...Are we approaching his visions in 2012?

In response to:Bertrand Russell on conquering fear

Sat, 08 Sep 2012 19:53:23 +0200

And how do you conquer fear? Surely wisdom is the goal and if conquering fear is the beginning, explain please how to conquer fear.

In response to:Mark Twain on being dead

Tue, 04 Sep 2012 21:52:49 +0200

Go on to your god my delusional friend. In reality you'll only find a dark hole. Live this life to the fullest and forget about your religion ball and chain.

In response to:George Orwell on money

Tue, 04 Sep 2012 00:32:36 +0200

No, he did nothing of the kind. He just saw them as equally dangerous.

In response to:George Orwell on money

Mon, 03 Sep 2012 20:33:59 +0200

Orwell liked fusing Christian radicalism with Marxist economics.

In response to:Bertrand Russell on the mistakes of Aristotle

Sun, 02 Sep 2012 18:32:57 +0200

Responding in 1964 to a correspondent's inquiry, "Do you still consider the Negroes an inferior race, as you did when you wrote Marriage and Morals?", Russell replied:

"I never held Negroes to be inherently inferior. The statement in Marriage and Morals refers to environmental conditioning. I have had it withdrawn from subsequent editions because it is clearly ambiguous." —Bertrand Russell, letter dated 17 March 1964 in Dear Bertrand Russell... a selection of his correspondence with the general public, 1950–1968. edited by Barry Feinberg and Ronald Kasrils.(London: Allen & Unwin, 1969, p. 146)

In response to:Bertrand Russell on the mistakes of Aristotle

Sun, 02 Sep 2012 18:31:25 +0200

Mark Weiss;

"It is sometimes maintained that racial mixture is biologically undesirable. There is no evidence whatever for this view. Nor is there, apparently, any reason to think that Negroes are congenitally less intelligent than white people, but as to that it will be difficult to judge until they have equal scope and equally good social conditions." —Bertrand Russell, New Hopes for a Changing World (London: Allen & Unwin, 1951, p. 108)

In response to:Bertrand Russell on the mistakes of Aristotle

Sun, 02 Sep 2012 10:47:22 +0200

Why do you refuse to believe that Bertrand Russell would not point out the failings of this Greek fellow? The quote is from ""The Impact of Science on Society" (1951). You can check it from there.

In An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish (1943) Bertrand Russell wrote this;

"If the matter is one that can be settled by observation, make the observation yourself. Aristotle could have avoided the mistake of thinking that women have fewer teeth than men, by the simple device of asking Mrs. Aristotle to keep her mouth open while he counted. He did not do so because he thought he knew. Thinking that you know when in fact you don't is a fatal mistake, to which we are all prone. I believe myself that hedgehogs eat black beetles, because I have been told that they do; but if I were writing a book on the habits of hedgehogs, I should not commit myself until I had seen one enjoying this unappetizing diet. Aristotle, however, was less cautious. Ancient and medieval authors knew all about unicorns and salamanders; not one of them thought it necessary to avoid dogmatic statements about them because he had never seen one of them."

Russell also writes about Aristotle these things;

"almost every serious intellectual advance has had to begin with an attack on some Aristotelian doctrine; in logic, this is still true at the present day" (160).

"When we come to compare Aristotle's ethical tastes with our own ... we find ... an acceptance of inequality which is repugnant to much modern sentiment. Not only is there no objection to slavery, or to the superiority of husbands and fathers over wives and children, but it is held that what is best is essentially only for the few--proud men and philosophers" (183).

"There is in Aristotle an almost complete absence of what may be called benevolence or philanthropy."

"Even at the present day, all Catholic teachers of philosophy and many others still obstinately reject the discoveries of modern logic, and adhere with a strange tenacity to a system which is as definitely antiquated as Ptolemaic astronomy. This makes it difficult to do historical justice to Aristotle. His present-day influence is so inimical to clear thinking that it is hard to remember how great an advance he made upon all his predecessors... Aristotle ... is still especially in logic, a battle-ground, and cannot be treated in a purely historical spirit" (195).

"I conclude that the Aristotelian doctrines with which we have been concerned in this chapter are wholly false, with the exception of the formal theory of the syllogism, which is unimportant. Any person in the present day who wishes to learn logic will be wasting his time if he reads Aristotle or any of his disciples" (202)

Russell, Bertrand (1967), A History of Western Philosophy, Simon & Schuster, ISBN 0671201581

In response to:Bertrand Russell on the mistakes of Aristotle

Sun, 02 Sep 2012 08:20:20 +0200

That doesn't fit in with what I believe I know from Russel. Do you have a source to confirm your claim?

In response to:Bertrand Russell on the mistakes of Aristotle

Sat, 01 Sep 2012 13:44:40 +0200

Wrongly (I believe), Russell maintained that "Negroes were inferior to whites..." (that's a paraphrase)

In response to:Karl Popper on dangers of Utopias

Sat, 01 Sep 2012 09:47:30 +0200

"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."

"ein gott ein führer"

It is more than obvious that nationalism derives from a mixture of patriotism and religious intolerance. The meaning of the patriotism was firstly introduced before the "French" revolution, as one's love for his country rather than love for a fictitious place in another, afterlife, world . This term as many other terms, had the same fate, it was distorted and abused by religious supremacy and expansionism, of the "true god", as the citizens became again the chosen people for this country.

History cries out that religion in monotheistic terms is the cause of most of the deaths, massacres and slaughters that happened till now. But the worst thing is that monotheistic religions are the only responsible for the numerous ethnocides, during an old very rich ethnosphere.

In response to:George Orwell on controlling history

Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:16:33 +0200

I still have no idea what Christian historians you're talking about. As I said, the point is that things you mention (e.g. persecution of pagans by Theodosius I) were documented by Greek church historians (such as aforementioned Socrates of Constantinople). Contrary to what you claim, they didn't deny or conceal those facts. FYI, I'm a history major at a secular university and my faculty is religiously unaffiliated.

In response to:George Orwell on controlling history

Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:26:15 +0200

Funny how you use the word "decline", as you have been fooled by Christian historians to believe that dozens of religions and philosophical schools will just disappear, when they were, in fact, actively destroyed and hunted down. Dozens of laws were enacted making all others forms of religion illegal and a lot of force was used to subdue even the last person in the Empire to accept the power of this funny new religion.