Religion is the process of making up a reality beyond the one that really exists. The reason why people do this is because they are profoundly dissatisfied with reality. In part, this comes from the nature of human psychology. I think we are mostly designed never to be fully satisfied. We can nonetheless have a concept of what complete and total satisfaction would be like. All concepts of the divine are the result of imagining just such a thing.
Having given up on trying to find satisfaction in the material world, religions, especially Abrahamic religions, create a world where complete and unending satisfaction are granted.
Perfection, in the sense of something wholly satisfying, is something that most human minds crave, but are rarely able to find through the senses. The divine, therefore, can only be perceived by the imagination.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Thesis
I'm going back to university this year to upgrade my current major in political science to an honours in political science which requires doing a bachelor's thesis. I had been mulling over the idea of doing something about Islamic integration in Europe, and comparing the various immigration policies to see which has been most effective at integrating Muslims into society, but I was worried that that would be too touchy a subject for a liberal arts university.
Instead I'll be doing something about China. I'm not entirely what I'll do just yet, but I'm leaning in the direction of looking at Chinese investment in Africa and what effects it has had. I've also been considering looking at more philosophical aspects of Chinese foreign policy (I'm also doing an honours in philosophy), namely how amoral China has been in its pursuit of the resources it needs.
China's growing wealth and influence gives it a lot of power, but it seems unwilling to accept any responsibilty. Take Sudan. China has so much money invested in the Sudanese oil industry that if they gave a shit about Darfur, they could stop the genocide there in a matter of days. China's internal policies are just as robotically pragmatic. Not only do they restrict the number of children a couple can have, and often resort to forced abortions if that limit is breached, they are also one of the few remaining countries to openly practice eugenics. People of lower intelligence are forcibly sterilized.
I'll have to do some more research to find out how much this topic has been examined and whether I can come up with an original idea about the subject, but I think the area has a lot of potential.
Instead I'll be doing something about China. I'm not entirely what I'll do just yet, but I'm leaning in the direction of looking at Chinese investment in Africa and what effects it has had. I've also been considering looking at more philosophical aspects of Chinese foreign policy (I'm also doing an honours in philosophy), namely how amoral China has been in its pursuit of the resources it needs.
China's growing wealth and influence gives it a lot of power, but it seems unwilling to accept any responsibilty. Take Sudan. China has so much money invested in the Sudanese oil industry that if they gave a shit about Darfur, they could stop the genocide there in a matter of days. China's internal policies are just as robotically pragmatic. Not only do they restrict the number of children a couple can have, and often resort to forced abortions if that limit is breached, they are also one of the few remaining countries to openly practice eugenics. People of lower intelligence are forcibly sterilized.
I'll have to do some more research to find out how much this topic has been examined and whether I can come up with an original idea about the subject, but I think the area has a lot of potential.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Mohler
I just saw this thing on The Colbert Report about this guy named Albert Mohler who said basically the same thing I said in an earlier post, that we may someday have the ability to technologically remove any biological predisposition to homosexuality.
Mohler took a lot of heat for advocating such a practice, but would it really be that objectionable? I am in favour of gay rights, because I don't think whom you find attractive is as important as your ability to pursue a relationship with whomever may consent to have a relationship with you. I therefore think it would be far more preferable for a parent to remove biological urges for relations with the same sex than to force them to fit into some lifestyle that is not compatible with their biology.
So I don't have a problem with parents biologically inducing heterosexuality in their children, and I don't have a problem with parent's who choose to do the opposite.
Mohler took a lot of heat for advocating such a practice, but would it really be that objectionable? I am in favour of gay rights, because I don't think whom you find attractive is as important as your ability to pursue a relationship with whomever may consent to have a relationship with you. I therefore think it would be far more preferable for a parent to remove biological urges for relations with the same sex than to force them to fit into some lifestyle that is not compatible with their biology.
So I don't have a problem with parents biologically inducing heterosexuality in their children, and I don't have a problem with parent's who choose to do the opposite.
Jeffersonian Democracy
One might be surprised by the fact that Thomas Jefferson had a hand in writing the US Constitution considering his advocacy of aristocracy and social stratification in a letter he wrote to John Adams.
The constitution does say that "all men are created equal," but does this really conflict with the idea of social stratification? Does the idea that all men are created equal mean that all men end up equal or should be treated equally? I don't think that that is what Jefferson believed. He believed that "there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents." He also said that "There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents." By this he means the traditional European concept of hereditary aristocracy.
I can't speak for everyone who had a hand in writing the constitution, but this seems to me to be evidence that Jefferson believed that equality of creation meant not that everyone should be treated equally, but rather that your status should be based rather on "virtue and talents" not the circumstances under which you were "created."
Jefferson considered the natural aristocracy, "the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society" and asks, "May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?"
Too bad that's not the kind of government the United states has now.
The constitution does say that "all men are created equal," but does this really conflict with the idea of social stratification? Does the idea that all men are created equal mean that all men end up equal or should be treated equally? I don't think that that is what Jefferson believed. He believed that "there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents." He also said that "There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents." By this he means the traditional European concept of hereditary aristocracy.
I can't speak for everyone who had a hand in writing the constitution, but this seems to me to be evidence that Jefferson believed that equality of creation meant not that everyone should be treated equally, but rather that your status should be based rather on "virtue and talents" not the circumstances under which you were "created."
Jefferson considered the natural aristocracy, "the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society" and asks, "May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?"
Too bad that's not the kind of government the United states has now.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Highly Illogical
I consider myself generally to the left on most issues, but nonetheless I have a fascination with right-wing pundits and bloggers. Their arguments are often so ridiculous, they make me feel very intelligent by comparison. One of the blogs I often read is View From the Right. It's written by a dude named Lawrence Auster, who is a blatant racist (although he bristles at any charge of racism) who fancies himself a deep thinker.
This one article he wrote, "A simple proof of the existence of God," is delightfully audacious. His main premise is that the differences in the properties of hydrogen atoms and larger atoms suggest that those properties are not inherent to matter itself, but rather imposed from some force outside of the universe. In his words, these properties "are not material. They are mental." Therefore, I guess, he means to posit that the universe is governed by some intelligence.
I take issue with this for three reasons:
First, while physics doesn't yet explain why a basic unit of matter (the hydrogen atom) does not seem to have properties that would predict the behaviour of larger atoms that are largely made up of the same components, it does not necessarily follow that physics can't ever explain it.
Second, he assumes that there are no components below the level of protons and electrons that would have properties that explain the behaviours of all atoms at once. String theory and loop gravity theory posit that these components really do exist.
Third, even if there really is some force outside of the universe, outside of matter and space-time, that imposes these properties on matter rather than those properties being inherent, it doesn't necessarily follow that that force is intelligent or eve conscious. For the properties of matter to exist outside of the universe, all that is necessary is that information be stored and retrieved from some source. This does not require any kind of intelligence.
This one article he wrote, "A simple proof of the existence of God," is delightfully audacious. His main premise is that the differences in the properties of hydrogen atoms and larger atoms suggest that those properties are not inherent to matter itself, but rather imposed from some force outside of the universe. In his words, these properties "are not material. They are mental." Therefore, I guess, he means to posit that the universe is governed by some intelligence.
I take issue with this for three reasons:
First, while physics doesn't yet explain why a basic unit of matter (the hydrogen atom) does not seem to have properties that would predict the behaviour of larger atoms that are largely made up of the same components, it does not necessarily follow that physics can't ever explain it.
Second, he assumes that there are no components below the level of protons and electrons that would have properties that explain the behaviours of all atoms at once. String theory and loop gravity theory posit that these components really do exist.
Third, even if there really is some force outside of the universe, outside of matter and space-time, that imposes these properties on matter rather than those properties being inherent, it doesn't necessarily follow that that force is intelligent or eve conscious. For the properties of matter to exist outside of the universe, all that is necessary is that information be stored and retrieved from some source. This does not require any kind of intelligence.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
China: The New America
If you thought the ruthless and paranoid activities of the US and CIA during the Cold War were bad, wait until you see what China is capable of.
Although the Americans were certainly paranoid enough to really believe that the Soviet Union was going to conquer the US by sneaking in the back door of South and Central America and inspiring places like Guatemala to nationalize public resources, it also provided them with a pretty convenient excuse to pick a fight with any leader, democratically elected or not, who stood in the way of American companies looking to make a profit off of the resources of foreign nations. This wasn't just in South America, but Iran as well. When Mossadeq nationalized the oil industry, the British and Americans took him out and replaced him with the Shah who would guarantee that American and British money, uh, I mean "security" would be guarded from socialists. Of course, if the Shah hadn't been in power, there would have been no Iranian Revolution in the late 70s. Had there been no Iranian Revolution, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would not be in power today.
But China also has economic interests in various parts of the world, and their ability to protect those interests are getting ever stronger. The Chinese, however, can't use security concerns to justify their thuggery. There is no great military adversary to China so they can't say that they have to gobble up the oil in Africa (and in so doing, fund the Sudanese genocide) in order to keep that oil from falling into "the wrong hands."
Well, they could say that, but they have even less credibility than the Americans when they used that excuse, and we all know how credible the Americans are in those matters.
Although the Americans were certainly paranoid enough to really believe that the Soviet Union was going to conquer the US by sneaking in the back door of South and Central America and inspiring places like Guatemala to nationalize public resources, it also provided them with a pretty convenient excuse to pick a fight with any leader, democratically elected or not, who stood in the way of American companies looking to make a profit off of the resources of foreign nations. This wasn't just in South America, but Iran as well. When Mossadeq nationalized the oil industry, the British and Americans took him out and replaced him with the Shah who would guarantee that American and British money, uh, I mean "security" would be guarded from socialists. Of course, if the Shah hadn't been in power, there would have been no Iranian Revolution in the late 70s. Had there been no Iranian Revolution, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would not be in power today.
But China also has economic interests in various parts of the world, and their ability to protect those interests are getting ever stronger. The Chinese, however, can't use security concerns to justify their thuggery. There is no great military adversary to China so they can't say that they have to gobble up the oil in Africa (and in so doing, fund the Sudanese genocide) in order to keep that oil from falling into "the wrong hands."
Well, they could say that, but they have even less credibility than the Americans when they used that excuse, and we all know how credible the Americans are in those matters.
Friday, March 16, 2007
What Are Rights?
I believe in natural rights, but not in nearly the same way as most people who believe in natural rights. I believe that a person's nature should determine what their rights are, but that there is very little in common among humanity as a whole, and that the idea of a universal "human right" doesn't really make much sense. Each person has a nature that determines their proclivities and the conditions under which they would be able to live the best life possible.
Most human beings, typical human beings, are very similar in nature, but there are significant portions of humanity that don't fit in. These people deserve as much autonomy and self-determination as possible.
The desires and motivations that are deepest and most important to a particular human being are not entirely determined by biology. There are some inescapable motivations that are biologically dependent, but there are also some that are completely induced by environment and some that are a mixture of the two. These motivations are no less strong and basic than the purely biological ones. As such, societies that have been inducing certain values that have become inexorable in the members of those societies should have the autonomy to accommodate their people according to their natures.
The primary criticism of any theory of natural rights is that the way that a person "is" does not imply that that is the way this person "ought" to be. I agree with this assessment, but I agree with it because what a person "ought" to do is irrelevant if their nature forces them to do something. I believe that to say someone "ought" to do something, one is implying that they "can" do it. If a person's nature forces them to behave a certain way, it makes no sense to say that they "ought" not to behave that way. They have no choice but to behave according to their nature.
The one human characteristic that is significant for all of humanity is that there are people who will have a nature that is different from any other member of humanity, therefore the only universal human right that should be taken seriously is the ability to opt out of any society that doesn't recognize one's true nature. Anyone who wants to leave a particular country should be allowed to leave that country to seek one that will better accommodate them.
Most human beings, typical human beings, are very similar in nature, but there are significant portions of humanity that don't fit in. These people deserve as much autonomy and self-determination as possible.
The desires and motivations that are deepest and most important to a particular human being are not entirely determined by biology. There are some inescapable motivations that are biologically dependent, but there are also some that are completely induced by environment and some that are a mixture of the two. These motivations are no less strong and basic than the purely biological ones. As such, societies that have been inducing certain values that have become inexorable in the members of those societies should have the autonomy to accommodate their people according to their natures.
The primary criticism of any theory of natural rights is that the way that a person "is" does not imply that that is the way this person "ought" to be. I agree with this assessment, but I agree with it because what a person "ought" to do is irrelevant if their nature forces them to do something. I believe that to say someone "ought" to do something, one is implying that they "can" do it. If a person's nature forces them to behave a certain way, it makes no sense to say that they "ought" not to behave that way. They have no choice but to behave according to their nature.
The one human characteristic that is significant for all of humanity is that there are people who will have a nature that is different from any other member of humanity, therefore the only universal human right that should be taken seriously is the ability to opt out of any society that doesn't recognize one's true nature. Anyone who wants to leave a particular country should be allowed to leave that country to seek one that will better accommodate them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)