What the Hell is this??? So wierd yet I must keep watching...
8.28.2008
I think I believe in change
I believe in change. I mean…I think I believe in change. As a sentence, it looks so alone. But as I grow up and possibly decide to become a slightly better writer, that sentence could come out as "I trust my belief in the idea of customary evolution." Now, if I drop out of college, and party all of my brain cells to death like innumerable other students at my old school then it may turn out to be a prolonged, beautiful…belch.
Some people retort to my belief that "people don't change, situations do," but I don't think I believe that. As long as we have a problem with ourselves, we will try and change it. From a minor change of thought to a major change of life, we are always subconsciously correcting our problems. I didn't want to be the expelled thirty year old who ended up living with his parents for the rest of his life, because he directly insulted the principal and my friends don't always have to cater to my needs for me to be in a good mood. I just didn't know it, until today. You cannot force and detect change while it's in the process. It happens and it happens a lot.
And, I am a person who's changed a lot. From new situations and new people come new problems. With new problems, comes the need for change. A year ago, the sentence would've been ridden with spelling errors and wouldn't be my actual thoughts – it would be made hastily - to try and please the people I thought were "cool." And, now, slightly more mature and less careless, and at a crossroad of uncertainty such as one many teens are at, the sentence is simply, "I think I believe in change." This, I think I believe.
Some people retort to my belief that "people don't change, situations do," but I don't think I believe that. As long as we have a problem with ourselves, we will try and change it. From a minor change of thought to a major change of life, we are always subconsciously correcting our problems. I didn't want to be the expelled thirty year old who ended up living with his parents for the rest of his life, because he directly insulted the principal and my friends don't always have to cater to my needs for me to be in a good mood. I just didn't know it, until today. You cannot force and detect change while it's in the process. It happens and it happens a lot.
And, I am a person who's changed a lot. From new situations and new people come new problems. With new problems, comes the need for change. A year ago, the sentence would've been ridden with spelling errors and wouldn't be my actual thoughts – it would be made hastily - to try and please the people I thought were "cool." And, now, slightly more mature and less careless, and at a crossroad of uncertainty such as one many teens are at, the sentence is simply, "I think I believe in change." This, I think I believe.
8.27.2008
More proof that guys and girls think totally different when it comes to communication
Current mood: fascinated
Really interesting article about the communication between guys and girls by a linguistics expert:
"Can't We Talk?" (condensed from: You Just Don't Understand)
by Deborah Tannen
A married couple was in a car when the wife turned to her husband and asked, "Would you like to stop for a coffee?"
"No, thanks," he answered truthfully. So they didn't stop.
The result? The wife, who had indeed wanted to stop, became annoyed because she felt her preference had not been considered. The husband, seeing his wife was angry, became frustrated. Why didn't she just say what she wanted?
Unfortunately, he failed to see that his wife was asking the question not to get an instant decision, but to begin a negotiation. And the woman didn't realize that when her husband said no, he was just expressing his preference, not making a ruling. When a man and woman interpret the same interchange in such conflicting ways, it's no wonder they can find themselves leveling angry charges of selfishness and obstinacy at each other.
As a specialist in linguistics, I have studied how the conversational styles of men and women differ. We cannot lump all men or all women into fixed categories. But the seemingly senseless misunderstandings that haunt our relationships can in part be explained by the different conversational rules by which men and women play.
Whenever I write or speak about this subject, people tell me they are relieved to learn that what has caused them trouble - and what they had previously ascribed to personal failings - is, in fact, very common.
Learning about the different though equally valid conversational frequencies men and women are tuned to can help banish the blame and help us truly talk to one another. Here are some of the most common areas of conflict:
Status vs. Support.
Men grow up in a world in which a conversation is often a contest, either to achieve the upper hand or to prevent other people from pushing them around. For women, however, talking is often a way to exchange confirmation and support.
I saw this when my husband and I had jobs in different cities. People frequently made comments like, "That must be rough," and "How do you stand it?" I accepted their sympathy and sometimes even reinforced it, saying, "The worst part is having to pack and unpack al the time."
But my husband often reacted with irritation. Our situation had advantages, he would explain. As academics, we had four-day weekends together, as well as long vacations throughout the year and four months in the summer.
Everything he said was true, but I didn't understand why he chose to say it. He told me that some of the comments implied: "Yours is not a real marriage. I am superior to you because my wife and I have avoided your misfortune." Until then it had not occurred to me there might be an element of one- upmanship.
I now see that my husband was simply approaching the world as many men do: as a place where people try to achieve and maintain status. I, on the other hand, was approaching the world as many women do: as a network of connections seeking support and consensus.
Independence vs. Intimacy.
Since women often think in terms of closeness and support, they struggle to preserve intimacy. Men, concerned with status, tend to focus more on independence. These traits can lead women and men to starkly different views of the same situation.
When Josh's old high-school friend called him at work to say he'd be in town, Josh invited him to stay for the weekend. That evening he told Linda they were having a house guest.
Linda was upset. How could Josh make these plans without discussing them with her beforehand? She would never do that to him. "Why don't you tell your friend you have to check with your wife?" she asked.
Josh replied, "I can't tell my friend, 'I have to ask my wife for permission'!"
To Josh, checking with his wife would mean he was not free to act on his own. It would make him feel like a child or an underling. But Linda actually enjoys telling someone, "I have to check with Josh." It makes her feel good to show that her life is intertwined with her husband's.
Advice vs. Understanding.
Eve had a benign lump removed from her breast. When she confided to her husband, Mark, that she was distressed because the stitches changed the contour of her breast, he answered, "You can always have plastic surgery."
This comment bothered her. "I'm sorry you don't like the way it looks," she protested. "But I'm not having any more surgery!"
Mark was hurt and puzzled. "I don't care about a scar," he replied. "It doesn't bother me at all."
"Then why are you telling me to have plastic surgery?" she asked.
"Because you were upset about the way it looks."
Eve felt like a heel. Mark had been wonderfully supportive throughout her surgery. How could she snap at him now?
The problem stemmed from a difference in approach. To many men a complaint is a challenge to come up with a solution. Mark thought he was reassuring Eve by telling her there was something she could do about her scar. But often women are looking for emotional support, not solutions.
When my mother tells my father she doesn't feel well, he invariably offers to take her to the doctor. Invariably, she is disappointed with his reaction. Like many men, he is focused on what he can do, whereas she wants sympathy.
Information vs. Feelings.
A cartoon shows a husband opening a newspaper and asking his wife, "Is there anything you'd like to say to me before I start reading the paper?" We know there isn't - but that as soon as the man begins reading, his wife will think of something.
The cartoon is funny because people recognize their own experience in it. What's not funny is that many women are hurt when men don't talk to them at home, and many men are frustrated when they disappoint their partners without knowing why.
Rebecca, who is happily married, told me this is a source of dissatisfaction with her husband, Stuart. When she tells him what she is thinking, he listens silently. When she asks him what is on his mind, he says, "Nothing."
All Rebecca's life she has had practice in verbalizing her feelings with friends and relatives. But Stuart has had practice in keeping his innermost thoughts to himself. To him, like most men, talk is information. He doesn't feel that talk is required at home.
Yet many such men hold center stage in a social setting, telling jokes and stories. They use conversation to claim attention and to entertain. Women can wind up hurt that their husbands tell relative strangers things they have not told them.
To avoid this kind of misunderstanding, both men and women can make adjustments. A woman may observe a man's desire to read the paper without seeing it is a rejection. And a man can understand a woman's desire to talk without feeling it is a manipulative intrusion.
Orders vs. Proposals.
Diana often begins statements with "Let's." She might say "Let's park over there" or "Let's clean up now, before lunch."
This makes Nathan angry. He has deciphered Diana's "Let's" as a command. Like most men, he resists being told what to do. But to Diana, she is making suggestions, not demands. Like most women, she formulates her requests as proposals rather than orders. Her style of talking is a way of getting others to do what she wants - but by winning agreement first.
With certain men, like Nathan, this tactic backfires. If they perceive someone is trying to get them to do something indirectly, they feel manipulated and respond more resentfully than they would to a straightforward request.
Conflict vs. Compromise.
In trying to prevent fights, some women refuse to oppose the will of others openly. But sometimes it's far more effective for a woman to assert herself, even at the risk of conflict.
Dora was frustrated by a series of used cars she drove. It was she who commuted to work, but her husband, Hank, who chose the cars. Hank always went for cars that were "interesting" but in continual need of repair.
After Dora was nearly killed when her brakes failed, they were in the market for yet another used car. Dora wanted to buy a late-model sedan from a friend. Hank fixed his sights on a 15-year-old sports car. She tried to persuade Hank that it made more sense to buy the boring but dependable car, but he would not be swayed.
Previously she would have acceded to his wishes. This time Dora bought the boring but dependable car and steeled herself for Hanks' anger. To her amazement, he spoke not a word of remonstrance. When she later told him what she had expected, he scoffed at her fears and said she should have done what she wanted from the start if she felt that strongly about it.
As Dora discovered, a little conflict won't kill you. At the same time, men who habitually oppose others can adjust their style to opt for less confrontation.
When we don't see style differences for what they are, we sometimes draw unfair conclusions: "You're illogical," "You're self- centered," "You don't care about me." But once we grasp the two characteristic approaches, we stand a better chance of preventing disagreements from spiraling out of control.
Learning the other's ways of talking is a leap across the communication gap between men and women, and a giant step towards genuine understanding.
Really interesting article about the communication between guys and girls by a linguistics expert:
"Can't We Talk?" (condensed from: You Just Don't Understand)
by Deborah Tannen
A married couple was in a car when the wife turned to her husband and asked, "Would you like to stop for a coffee?"
"No, thanks," he answered truthfully. So they didn't stop.
The result? The wife, who had indeed wanted to stop, became annoyed because she felt her preference had not been considered. The husband, seeing his wife was angry, became frustrated. Why didn't she just say what she wanted?
Unfortunately, he failed to see that his wife was asking the question not to get an instant decision, but to begin a negotiation. And the woman didn't realize that when her husband said no, he was just expressing his preference, not making a ruling. When a man and woman interpret the same interchange in such conflicting ways, it's no wonder they can find themselves leveling angry charges of selfishness and obstinacy at each other.
As a specialist in linguistics, I have studied how the conversational styles of men and women differ. We cannot lump all men or all women into fixed categories. But the seemingly senseless misunderstandings that haunt our relationships can in part be explained by the different conversational rules by which men and women play.
Whenever I write or speak about this subject, people tell me they are relieved to learn that what has caused them trouble - and what they had previously ascribed to personal failings - is, in fact, very common.
Learning about the different though equally valid conversational frequencies men and women are tuned to can help banish the blame and help us truly talk to one another. Here are some of the most common areas of conflict:
Status vs. Support.
Men grow up in a world in which a conversation is often a contest, either to achieve the upper hand or to prevent other people from pushing them around. For women, however, talking is often a way to exchange confirmation and support.
I saw this when my husband and I had jobs in different cities. People frequently made comments like, "That must be rough," and "How do you stand it?" I accepted their sympathy and sometimes even reinforced it, saying, "The worst part is having to pack and unpack al the time."
But my husband often reacted with irritation. Our situation had advantages, he would explain. As academics, we had four-day weekends together, as well as long vacations throughout the year and four months in the summer.
Everything he said was true, but I didn't understand why he chose to say it. He told me that some of the comments implied: "Yours is not a real marriage. I am superior to you because my wife and I have avoided your misfortune." Until then it had not occurred to me there might be an element of one- upmanship.
I now see that my husband was simply approaching the world as many men do: as a place where people try to achieve and maintain status. I, on the other hand, was approaching the world as many women do: as a network of connections seeking support and consensus.
Independence vs. Intimacy.
Since women often think in terms of closeness and support, they struggle to preserve intimacy. Men, concerned with status, tend to focus more on independence. These traits can lead women and men to starkly different views of the same situation.
When Josh's old high-school friend called him at work to say he'd be in town, Josh invited him to stay for the weekend. That evening he told Linda they were having a house guest.
Linda was upset. How could Josh make these plans without discussing them with her beforehand? She would never do that to him. "Why don't you tell your friend you have to check with your wife?" she asked.
Josh replied, "I can't tell my friend, 'I have to ask my wife for permission'!"
To Josh, checking with his wife would mean he was not free to act on his own. It would make him feel like a child or an underling. But Linda actually enjoys telling someone, "I have to check with Josh." It makes her feel good to show that her life is intertwined with her husband's.
Advice vs. Understanding.
Eve had a benign lump removed from her breast. When she confided to her husband, Mark, that she was distressed because the stitches changed the contour of her breast, he answered, "You can always have plastic surgery."
This comment bothered her. "I'm sorry you don't like the way it looks," she protested. "But I'm not having any more surgery!"
Mark was hurt and puzzled. "I don't care about a scar," he replied. "It doesn't bother me at all."
"Then why are you telling me to have plastic surgery?" she asked.
"Because you were upset about the way it looks."
Eve felt like a heel. Mark had been wonderfully supportive throughout her surgery. How could she snap at him now?
The problem stemmed from a difference in approach. To many men a complaint is a challenge to come up with a solution. Mark thought he was reassuring Eve by telling her there was something she could do about her scar. But often women are looking for emotional support, not solutions.
When my mother tells my father she doesn't feel well, he invariably offers to take her to the doctor. Invariably, she is disappointed with his reaction. Like many men, he is focused on what he can do, whereas she wants sympathy.
Information vs. Feelings.
A cartoon shows a husband opening a newspaper and asking his wife, "Is there anything you'd like to say to me before I start reading the paper?" We know there isn't - but that as soon as the man begins reading, his wife will think of something.
The cartoon is funny because people recognize their own experience in it. What's not funny is that many women are hurt when men don't talk to them at home, and many men are frustrated when they disappoint their partners without knowing why.
Rebecca, who is happily married, told me this is a source of dissatisfaction with her husband, Stuart. When she tells him what she is thinking, he listens silently. When she asks him what is on his mind, he says, "Nothing."
All Rebecca's life she has had practice in verbalizing her feelings with friends and relatives. But Stuart has had practice in keeping his innermost thoughts to himself. To him, like most men, talk is information. He doesn't feel that talk is required at home.
Yet many such men hold center stage in a social setting, telling jokes and stories. They use conversation to claim attention and to entertain. Women can wind up hurt that their husbands tell relative strangers things they have not told them.
To avoid this kind of misunderstanding, both men and women can make adjustments. A woman may observe a man's desire to read the paper without seeing it is a rejection. And a man can understand a woman's desire to talk without feeling it is a manipulative intrusion.
Orders vs. Proposals.
Diana often begins statements with "Let's." She might say "Let's park over there" or "Let's clean up now, before lunch."
This makes Nathan angry. He has deciphered Diana's "Let's" as a command. Like most men, he resists being told what to do. But to Diana, she is making suggestions, not demands. Like most women, she formulates her requests as proposals rather than orders. Her style of talking is a way of getting others to do what she wants - but by winning agreement first.
With certain men, like Nathan, this tactic backfires. If they perceive someone is trying to get them to do something indirectly, they feel manipulated and respond more resentfully than they would to a straightforward request.
Conflict vs. Compromise.
In trying to prevent fights, some women refuse to oppose the will of others openly. But sometimes it's far more effective for a woman to assert herself, even at the risk of conflict.
Dora was frustrated by a series of used cars she drove. It was she who commuted to work, but her husband, Hank, who chose the cars. Hank always went for cars that were "interesting" but in continual need of repair.
After Dora was nearly killed when her brakes failed, they were in the market for yet another used car. Dora wanted to buy a late-model sedan from a friend. Hank fixed his sights on a 15-year-old sports car. She tried to persuade Hank that it made more sense to buy the boring but dependable car, but he would not be swayed.
Previously she would have acceded to his wishes. This time Dora bought the boring but dependable car and steeled herself for Hanks' anger. To her amazement, he spoke not a word of remonstrance. When she later told him what she had expected, he scoffed at her fears and said she should have done what she wanted from the start if she felt that strongly about it.
As Dora discovered, a little conflict won't kill you. At the same time, men who habitually oppose others can adjust their style to opt for less confrontation.
When we don't see style differences for what they are, we sometimes draw unfair conclusions: "You're illogical," "You're self- centered," "You don't care about me." But once we grasp the two characteristic approaches, we stand a better chance of preventing disagreements from spiraling out of control.
Learning the other's ways of talking is a leap across the communication gap between men and women, and a giant step towards genuine understanding.
8.26.2008
The Ideas of Others
Every once in a while people say some of the most profound things and luckily what they say jut happens to get written down for others to read. These are some of my favorite quotes. Feel free to add any of your favorites in the comments.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." -Abraham Lincoln
"Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round heads in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules and they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify them, or vilify them. But the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do." -Jack Kerouac
"Sometimes we have to choose between what is right and what is easy." -Albus Dumbledore"
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." -Mark Twain
"Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent."
— Eleanor Roosevelt
"There is not any memory with less satisfaction than the memory of some temptation we resisted." - James Branch Cabell
"The important thing is this: to be able at any moment to sacrifice what we are for what we could become." -Charles Du Bos
"Age is not a particularly interesting subject. Anyone can get old. All you have to do is live long enough." - Groucho Marx
"In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes." - Andy Warhol
"When the time comes to leave, just walk away and don't make a fuss."
"People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and people in glass cities shouldn't fire missles."
"Artwork that is only about wanting to be famous will never make you famous. Fame is a by-product of doing something else. You don't go to a restaurant and order a meal because you want to have a shit." -Banksy
"you must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and forgets the gift." -Albert Einstein
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth" - Oscar Wilde
"Irony has only emergency use. Carried over time, it's the voice of the trapped who have learned to enjoy their cage." -Lewis Hyde
"Counting your time is not so important as making your time count."
"there's one thing worse than people talking about you, that's people not talking about you." -Oscar Wilde
"On Arturo Toscanini's 80th birthday, someone asked his son, Walter, what his father ranked as his most important achievement. The son replied, 'for him there can be no such thing. Whatever he happens to be doing at the moment is the biggest thing in his life - whether it is conducting a symphony or peeling an orange.'"
- Ardis Whitman
1905-1990, Writer and Lecturer
"Over time I've realized that you can only understand life backwards but you have to live it forwards."
"It's takin' whatever comes your way, the good AND the bad, that give life flavor. It's all the stuff rolled together that makes life worth livin'." -Animal Crossing: Wild World
"Friends: People who know you well, but like you anyway."
"2 rules to success in life. 1. Don't tell people everything you know."
"Modesty is the only sure bait when you angle for praise."-Lord Chesterfield
"Time is nature's way of making sure everything doesn't happen at once."
"Springtime is the land awakening. The March winds are the morning yawn." -Lewis Grizzard
"Laughter and tears are both responses to frustration and exhaustion. I myself prefer to laugh, since there is less cleaning up to do afterward." - Kurt Vonnegut
"Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated." - Confucius
"You have succeeded in life when all you really want is only what you really need." - Vernon Howard
"People are, if anything, more touchy about being thought silly than they are about being thought unjust." - E. B. White
"No one needs a smile as much as a person who fails to give one"
"Maturity is the ability to postpone self-gratification."
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth" - Oscar Wilde
"Age is not a particularly interesting subject. Anyone can get old. All you have to do is live long enough." - Groucho Marx
"Irony has only emergency use. Carried over time, it's the voice of the trapped who have learned to enjoy their cage." -Lewis Hyde
"Counting your time is not so important as making your time count."
"In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes." - Andy Warhol
"On the whole human beings want to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time." - George Orwell
"I don't wanna get lost in the ocean."
"There's no exception to the rule that everyone thinks they're an exception to the rule" - Banksy
"When the time comes to leave, just walk away and don't make a fuss."
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and forgets the gift." -Albert Einstein
"there's one thing worse than people talking about you, that's people not talking about you." -Oscar Wilde
"The wise man asks himself the reason for his mistakes. The fool asks others."
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." -Abraham Lincoln
"Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round heads in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules and they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify them, or vilify them. But the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do." -Jack Kerouac
"Sometimes we have to choose between what is right and what is easy." -Albus Dumbledore"
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." -Mark Twain
"Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent."
— Eleanor Roosevelt
"There is not any memory with less satisfaction than the memory of some temptation we resisted." - James Branch Cabell
"The important thing is this: to be able at any moment to sacrifice what we are for what we could become." -Charles Du Bos
"Age is not a particularly interesting subject. Anyone can get old. All you have to do is live long enough." - Groucho Marx
"In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes." - Andy Warhol
"When the time comes to leave, just walk away and don't make a fuss."
"People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and people in glass cities shouldn't fire missles."
"Artwork that is only about wanting to be famous will never make you famous. Fame is a by-product of doing something else. You don't go to a restaurant and order a meal because you want to have a shit." -Banksy
"you must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and forgets the gift." -Albert Einstein
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth" - Oscar Wilde
"Irony has only emergency use. Carried over time, it's the voice of the trapped who have learned to enjoy their cage." -Lewis Hyde
"Counting your time is not so important as making your time count."
"there's one thing worse than people talking about you, that's people not talking about you." -Oscar Wilde
"On Arturo Toscanini's 80th birthday, someone asked his son, Walter, what his father ranked as his most important achievement. The son replied, 'for him there can be no such thing. Whatever he happens to be doing at the moment is the biggest thing in his life - whether it is conducting a symphony or peeling an orange.'"
- Ardis Whitman
1905-1990, Writer and Lecturer
"Over time I've realized that you can only understand life backwards but you have to live it forwards."
"It's takin' whatever comes your way, the good AND the bad, that give life flavor. It's all the stuff rolled together that makes life worth livin'." -Animal Crossing: Wild World
"Friends: People who know you well, but like you anyway."
"2 rules to success in life. 1. Don't tell people everything you know."
"Modesty is the only sure bait when you angle for praise."-Lord Chesterfield
"Time is nature's way of making sure everything doesn't happen at once."
"Springtime is the land awakening. The March winds are the morning yawn." -Lewis Grizzard
"Laughter and tears are both responses to frustration and exhaustion. I myself prefer to laugh, since there is less cleaning up to do afterward." - Kurt Vonnegut
"Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated." - Confucius
"You have succeeded in life when all you really want is only what you really need." - Vernon Howard
"People are, if anything, more touchy about being thought silly than they are about being thought unjust." - E. B. White
"No one needs a smile as much as a person who fails to give one"
"Maturity is the ability to postpone self-gratification."
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth" - Oscar Wilde
"Age is not a particularly interesting subject. Anyone can get old. All you have to do is live long enough." - Groucho Marx
"Irony has only emergency use. Carried over time, it's the voice of the trapped who have learned to enjoy their cage." -Lewis Hyde
"Counting your time is not so important as making your time count."
"In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes." - Andy Warhol
"On the whole human beings want to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time." - George Orwell
"I don't wanna get lost in the ocean."
"There's no exception to the rule that everyone thinks they're an exception to the rule" - Banksy
"When the time comes to leave, just walk away and don't make a fuss."
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and forgets the gift." -Albert Einstein
"there's one thing worse than people talking about you, that's people not talking about you." -Oscar Wilde
"The wise man asks himself the reason for his mistakes. The fool asks others."
8.19.2008
Earth? Environmentalism is all about humankind.
Biofuel laws, recycling, cleanup acts - presumably, environmentalism is all about saving the environment, yes? However, Jamais Cascio of How Can You Save The World offers a different point of view.
The Earth is a hunk of rock. Humans can do very little in endangering its existence, aside from blowing it in half with all our nukes or letting it get swallowed by a black hole created by the Large Hadron Collider.
The Earth cares very little to what we'll do to the environment. Whatever happens, the planet will go on, it will recover, and it will make new life long after we've messed up the environment so much that we can't live in it ourselves.
From that point of view, we can see how environmentalism isn't about the environment - it's about humans. The point of environmentalism is to preserve the current state of the environment, because once it shifts too much, then it's us that's in danger, and not necessarily the Earth.
Basically, that's the whole gist of Cascio's point, which is a sentiment I've long held for myself. So remember to recycle. You're saving the human race. You can read Cascio's entire view on the matter by following the source link below.
[Via How You Can Save The World]
The Earth is a hunk of rock. Humans can do very little in endangering its existence, aside from blowing it in half with all our nukes or letting it get swallowed by a black hole created by the Large Hadron Collider.
The Earth cares very little to what we'll do to the environment. Whatever happens, the planet will go on, it will recover, and it will make new life long after we've messed up the environment so much that we can't live in it ourselves.
From that point of view, we can see how environmentalism isn't about the environment - it's about humans. The point of environmentalism is to preserve the current state of the environment, because once it shifts too much, then it's us that's in danger, and not necessarily the Earth.
Basically, that's the whole gist of Cascio's point, which is a sentiment I've long held for myself. So remember to recycle. You're saving the human race. You can read Cascio's entire view on the matter by following the source link below.
[Via How You Can Save The World]
8.07.2008
Bullshit
Everyone lies: it's just a question of how, when and why. From the relationship saving "yes, you do look thin in those pants" to the improbable "your table will be ready in 5 minutes", manipulating the truth is part of the human condition. Accept it now.
I'm positive that given our irrational nature and difficultly accepting tough truths, we're collectively better off with some of our deceptions. They buffer us from each other (and from ourselves), avoid unnecessary conflicts, and keep the wonderful confusion of our psychologies tucked away from those who don't care. White lies are the spackle of civilization, tucked into the dirty corners and crevices our necessary, but pretentiously inflexible idealisms create. Small lies prop up and support our powerful truths, holding together the insanely half honest, half false chaos that spins the world.
But lies, serious lies, should not be encouraged as they destroy trust, the binding force in all relationships. One particularly troublesome kind of lie is known as Bullshit (BS). These are unnecessary deceptions, committed in the gray area between polite white lies and complete malicious fabrications. BS is usually defined as inventions made in ignorance of the facts, where the primary goal is to protect oneself. The aim of BS isn't to harm another person, although that often happens collaterally. For a variety of reasons BS can be hard to detect, which is why I'm offering this missive as a crash B.S. in BS detection. But be warned: to keep you on your toes there are several bits of BS tucked inside this essay which you will have to find for yourself.
Why people BS: a primer
The first lie in the Western canon comes from the same joyful tome as the first murders, wars and plagues: the Old Testament. Despite my distaste for trips into religious texts, this one has supreme tragicomic value.
To recap from the book of Genesis, God tells Adam and Eve not to eat fruit from the tree of knowledge, as pretty as it is, for they'll die. He wanders off to do some unexplained godlike things, as gods are prone to do, leaving the very tempting, and non pit-bull or electrified fence protected, tree out for all to see. Meanwhile Satan slinks by and convinces Eve apples are good: so she and Adam have an apple snack. God instantly returns, scolds Adam, who blames Eve; resulting in everyone, snakes, people and all, getting thrown out of Eden forever.
Please note that in this tale nearly everyone lied. God lied[1], or was deceptively ambiguous, about the apples (they weren't fatal), Satan misrepresents the apple's power, and Adam, approximates a lie in his wimpy finger pointing to Eve. It's a litany of deception and a cautionary tale: in any book that makes everyone look bad in just a few pages, is it really a surprise how the rest plays out?
People lie for three reasons; the first is to protect themselves. They may wish to protect something they want or need, a concept they cherish, or to prevent something they fear, like confrontation. There is often a clear psychological need motivating every lie.
A well known fib, "the dog ate my homework", fits the BS model. In the desperate fear driven attempt not to be caught, children's imaginations conceive amazing improbabilities. Fires, plagues, revolutions, curses, illnesses and absurd reinventions of the laws of physics and space-time have all been summoned by children around the world on the fateful mornings when they find themselves at school, sans-homework. It's an emotional experience, this need to BS: as logically speaking, the stress of inventing and maintaining a lie is rarely easier than accepting the consequences of the truth.
Which leads to the second reason people lie: sometimes it works. It's a gamble, but when it works, wow. Did you lie to your parents about girls, boys, fireworks, drugs, grades, or where you were till 2am on a school night? I sure did and still do. My parents still think I'm a famous painter / doctor / professor in London (shhh), and my best friend still believes his high school girlfriend and I didn't get it on every time I borrowed his car[2]. Even my ever faithful dog Butch used to lie, in his way, by liberating trash from a house-worth of garbage cans, then hiding in his bed, hoping his lack of proximity to the Jackson Pollock of refuse that was formerly my kitchen would be indistinguishable from innocence.
Which gives us the third reason people lie, a truth saints and sinners have known for ages: we want to be seen as better than we see ourselves. Sadly, comically, we also believe we're alone in both having this temptation, as well as the shame it brings with it (e.g. "We're not alone in feeling alone"). The secret truth is everyone has moments of weakness: times when fear and greed melt our brains and we're tempted to say the lies we wish were true. And for that reason the deepest honesty is found in people willing to admit to their lies, or their barely resisted temptations, and own the consequences. Not the pretense of the saints, who pretend, incomprehensibly, inhumanly, to never even have those urges at all.
I'm positive that given our irrational nature and difficultly accepting tough truths, we're collectively better off with some of our deceptions. They buffer us from each other (and from ourselves), avoid unnecessary conflicts, and keep the wonderful confusion of our psychologies tucked away from those who don't care. White lies are the spackle of civilization, tucked into the dirty corners and crevices our necessary, but pretentiously inflexible idealisms create. Small lies prop up and support our powerful truths, holding together the insanely half honest, half false chaos that spins the world.
But lies, serious lies, should not be encouraged as they destroy trust, the binding force in all relationships. One particularly troublesome kind of lie is known as Bullshit (BS). These are unnecessary deceptions, committed in the gray area between polite white lies and complete malicious fabrications. BS is usually defined as inventions made in ignorance of the facts, where the primary goal is to protect oneself. The aim of BS isn't to harm another person, although that often happens collaterally. For a variety of reasons BS can be hard to detect, which is why I'm offering this missive as a crash B.S. in BS detection. But be warned: to keep you on your toes there are several bits of BS tucked inside this essay which you will have to find for yourself.
Why people BS: a primer
The first lie in the Western canon comes from the same joyful tome as the first murders, wars and plagues: the Old Testament. Despite my distaste for trips into religious texts, this one has supreme tragicomic value.
To recap from the book of Genesis, God tells Adam and Eve not to eat fruit from the tree of knowledge, as pretty as it is, for they'll die. He wanders off to do some unexplained godlike things, as gods are prone to do, leaving the very tempting, and non pit-bull or electrified fence protected, tree out for all to see. Meanwhile Satan slinks by and convinces Eve apples are good: so she and Adam have an apple snack. God instantly returns, scolds Adam, who blames Eve; resulting in everyone, snakes, people and all, getting thrown out of Eden forever.
Please note that in this tale nearly everyone lied. God lied[1], or was deceptively ambiguous, about the apples (they weren't fatal), Satan misrepresents the apple's power, and Adam, approximates a lie in his wimpy finger pointing to Eve. It's a litany of deception and a cautionary tale: in any book that makes everyone look bad in just a few pages, is it really a surprise how the rest plays out?
People lie for three reasons; the first is to protect themselves. They may wish to protect something they want or need, a concept they cherish, or to prevent something they fear, like confrontation. There is often a clear psychological need motivating every lie.
A well known fib, "the dog ate my homework", fits the BS model. In the desperate fear driven attempt not to be caught, children's imaginations conceive amazing improbabilities. Fires, plagues, revolutions, curses, illnesses and absurd reinventions of the laws of physics and space-time have all been summoned by children around the world on the fateful mornings when they find themselves at school, sans-homework. It's an emotional experience, this need to BS: as logically speaking, the stress of inventing and maintaining a lie is rarely easier than accepting the consequences of the truth.
Which leads to the second reason people lie: sometimes it works. It's a gamble, but when it works, wow. Did you lie to your parents about girls, boys, fireworks, drugs, grades, or where you were till 2am on a school night? I sure did and still do. My parents still think I'm a famous painter / doctor / professor in London (shhh), and my best friend still believes his high school girlfriend and I didn't get it on every time I borrowed his car[2]. Even my ever faithful dog Butch used to lie, in his way, by liberating trash from a house-worth of garbage cans, then hiding in his bed, hoping his lack of proximity to the Jackson Pollock of refuse that was formerly my kitchen would be indistinguishable from innocence.
Which gives us the third reason people lie, a truth saints and sinners have known for ages: we want to be seen as better than we see ourselves. Sadly, comically, we also believe we're alone in both having this temptation, as well as the shame it brings with it (e.g. "We're not alone in feeling alone"). The secret truth is everyone has moments of weakness: times when fear and greed melt our brains and we're tempted to say the lies we wish were true. And for that reason the deepest honesty is found in people willing to admit to their lies, or their barely resisted temptations, and own the consequences. Not the pretense of the saints, who pretend, incomprehensibly, inhumanly, to never even have those urges at all.
What Makes People Tick?
October 2nd, 2007 in Communication, Featured
Four Rules to Understand What Makes People Tick
Breaking down human behavior into rules might seem like a gross simplification. But even with the complexities, it is easy to fall into the same mistakes. I'd argue that many heated fights, lost sales and broken hearts are caused by a few critical errors. If you make the wrong assumptions, you've lost before you begin. By keeping in mind these rules, you can avoid repeating the same mistakes.
Rule One: People Mostly Care About Themselves
People aren't thinking about you. A damaging myth to buy into is believing the amount of time you think of yourself compares to the amount of time others think of you. In reality they are nowhere close. Take a look at this chart:
I've used this example before but I believe it deserves repeating. Take a look at the different slices of this chart. The biggest is the time you spend thinking about yourself. The second is the time spent thinking about relationships, but how they affect you. What does Julie think of me? Will my boss give me a raise or fire me? Do my friends respect me or just tolerate me?
Only a tiny sliver is devoted to empathy. Empathy is the rare occasion where you think through the perspective of another person. When I've discussed these ideas previously, many people argue I'm being far too generous with my chart. In reality that sliver is probably even smaller.
This means that you occupy only a tiny percentage of a persons thoughts. Waiting for people to invite you, becoming embarrassed at a minor faux-pas or emphasizing what others think of you come from failing to use this rule. Almost all people are far too self-absorbed to notice.
Rule Two: People are Motivated by Selfish Altruism
To say all behavior is strictly selfish would be misleading. It fails to account for acts of charity, ethics and why people don't just cheat, swindle and lie all the time. Selfish altruism is a broader category that covers why people do nice things as a way to get what they want.
By studying primates, researchers noticed four main categories of selfish altruism. I believe they are the same categories we use, even if slightly more sophisticated:
1. Dominance - Some primates will give help as a way of asserting dominance in the group. It is as if they are saying, "Look at how powerful I am that I can give some of my resources to help you."
2. Reciprocity - You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. The idea is that I do a favor for you with the assumption it will be returned one day. If the cost to me is less than the benefit towards you, I might help you even if I can't predict an immediate payback.
3. Trade - If we both have something the other person wants, we have a reason to interact. While reciprocity is vague on the details of a payback, trade is direct.
4. Familial - It makes sense, from an evolutionary perspective, to help those who might share your genes.
By looking through this lens of selfish altruism, you can better make decisions. Viewing people as completely uncaring or selfish is incomplete. But expecting people to think of you constantly and do nice things for free is dangerous.
Rule Three: People Don't Think Much
I believe we drastically overestimate what we do intentionally. Subconscious patterns, environmental stimulus and programmed reflexes occur frequently, even if we later take credit for them.
The conscious mind is a relatively new addition to the human operating system. And it's been designed to cleverly take credit for a lot of decisions it doesn't really make. If someone asks you to be unbiased in making a decision, it is probably best to just laugh.
The implication of this is that appealing entirely to thoughts won't work. Since a bulk of decision making is made in the background, you need to target that background if you want to be influential. You don't need to be manipulative, just smart enough to recognize that snap judgments mean a lot and your communication is more than just words.
Rule Four: Conformity is the Norm
You become your environment. Uniqueness and individuality tend to warp to fit the people around you. This is true of other people as it is for yourself. It means you should be careful who you pick as friends, partners and colleagues.
This is why I believe it is important to keep a varied social group. When you interact with people from completely different backgrounds, beliefs and behaviors on a regular basis you are more likely to see different perspectives. This also means you have more control in picking who you want to be.
Applying the Four Rules
Here are some applications of these rules you might want to consider:
* What layers are you communicating with? If people are selfish, self-absorbed and fail to think much, just working on the words you use isn't enough. Everything about you is communicating something, and unless you get that message straight, the most persuasive argument won't win anyone over.
* Give reminders. Although some people are meticulously organized, most aren't. Give people the reminders they need so you don't get left out unintentionally.
* What's your social value? This isn't your worth as a person, but what you have to offer in terms of other peoples needs and wants. It is easy to get depressed about human issues, if you don't see the calculations behind it. Improve the value you offer and you can access the selfish altruism in us all.
[Via Four Rules To Understand What Makes People Tick]
Four Rules to Understand What Makes People Tick
Breaking down human behavior into rules might seem like a gross simplification. But even with the complexities, it is easy to fall into the same mistakes. I'd argue that many heated fights, lost sales and broken hearts are caused by a few critical errors. If you make the wrong assumptions, you've lost before you begin. By keeping in mind these rules, you can avoid repeating the same mistakes.
Rule One: People Mostly Care About Themselves
People aren't thinking about you. A damaging myth to buy into is believing the amount of time you think of yourself compares to the amount of time others think of you. In reality they are nowhere close. Take a look at this chart:
I've used this example before but I believe it deserves repeating. Take a look at the different slices of this chart. The biggest is the time you spend thinking about yourself. The second is the time spent thinking about relationships, but how they affect you. What does Julie think of me? Will my boss give me a raise or fire me? Do my friends respect me or just tolerate me?
Only a tiny sliver is devoted to empathy. Empathy is the rare occasion where you think through the perspective of another person. When I've discussed these ideas previously, many people argue I'm being far too generous with my chart. In reality that sliver is probably even smaller.
This means that you occupy only a tiny percentage of a persons thoughts. Waiting for people to invite you, becoming embarrassed at a minor faux-pas or emphasizing what others think of you come from failing to use this rule. Almost all people are far too self-absorbed to notice.
Rule Two: People are Motivated by Selfish Altruism
To say all behavior is strictly selfish would be misleading. It fails to account for acts of charity, ethics and why people don't just cheat, swindle and lie all the time. Selfish altruism is a broader category that covers why people do nice things as a way to get what they want.
By studying primates, researchers noticed four main categories of selfish altruism. I believe they are the same categories we use, even if slightly more sophisticated:
1. Dominance - Some primates will give help as a way of asserting dominance in the group. It is as if they are saying, "Look at how powerful I am that I can give some of my resources to help you."
2. Reciprocity - You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. The idea is that I do a favor for you with the assumption it will be returned one day. If the cost to me is less than the benefit towards you, I might help you even if I can't predict an immediate payback.
3. Trade - If we both have something the other person wants, we have a reason to interact. While reciprocity is vague on the details of a payback, trade is direct.
4. Familial - It makes sense, from an evolutionary perspective, to help those who might share your genes.
By looking through this lens of selfish altruism, you can better make decisions. Viewing people as completely uncaring or selfish is incomplete. But expecting people to think of you constantly and do nice things for free is dangerous.
Rule Three: People Don't Think Much
I believe we drastically overestimate what we do intentionally. Subconscious patterns, environmental stimulus and programmed reflexes occur frequently, even if we later take credit for them.
The conscious mind is a relatively new addition to the human operating system. And it's been designed to cleverly take credit for a lot of decisions it doesn't really make. If someone asks you to be unbiased in making a decision, it is probably best to just laugh.
The implication of this is that appealing entirely to thoughts won't work. Since a bulk of decision making is made in the background, you need to target that background if you want to be influential. You don't need to be manipulative, just smart enough to recognize that snap judgments mean a lot and your communication is more than just words.
Rule Four: Conformity is the Norm
You become your environment. Uniqueness and individuality tend to warp to fit the people around you. This is true of other people as it is for yourself. It means you should be careful who you pick as friends, partners and colleagues.
This is why I believe it is important to keep a varied social group. When you interact with people from completely different backgrounds, beliefs and behaviors on a regular basis you are more likely to see different perspectives. This also means you have more control in picking who you want to be.
Applying the Four Rules
Here are some applications of these rules you might want to consider:
* What layers are you communicating with? If people are selfish, self-absorbed and fail to think much, just working on the words you use isn't enough. Everything about you is communicating something, and unless you get that message straight, the most persuasive argument won't win anyone over.
* Give reminders. Although some people are meticulously organized, most aren't. Give people the reminders they need so you don't get left out unintentionally.
* What's your social value? This isn't your worth as a person, but what you have to offer in terms of other peoples needs and wants. It is easy to get depressed about human issues, if you don't see the calculations behind it. Improve the value you offer and you can access the selfish altruism in us all.
[Via Four Rules To Understand What Makes People Tick]
8.04.2008
Philosophy and maybe the proof of God’s existence?
Can't remember where I read this but its interesting non-the-less.
One of the most far-reaching consequences of the rationalism of the Enlightenment was the undermining of basic Christian faith among the educated classes. The effect was unintended because the project of many Enlightenment philosophers was to prove the existence of God using reason: Descartes and Leibniz assumed that God's existence could be rationally proved, indeed God was a necessary part of their philosophy.
There are many traditional "proofs" for the existence of God, and we will look at three of them: The argument from design, the ontological argument and the cosmological argument.
Traditional "proofs" of God's Existence
1) The argument from Design.
If you found a clock and examined the mechanism within it, you would probably think that this intricate mechanism was not the outcome of mere chance, that it had been designed.
Now look at the universe; is it possible that such an intricate mechanism, from the orbits of planets round the sun to the cells in your fingernails could all have happened by chance? Surely, this enormously complex mechanism has been designed, and the being that designed it must be God.
2) The ontological argument
God is the perfect being. As He is most perfect, He must have all perfections. If God lacked existence He would not be perfect, as He is perfect he must exist.
3) The cosmological argument (God as "First cause")
Everything that exists has a cause. However, there must at some time have been a cause prior to all other causes. This 'prime mover' or first cause is necessary to explain existence. This first cause is God.
Pascal's Wager
The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) put forward an argument that would appeal to agnostics. (An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God's existence.)
His argument goes something like this: God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If we believe in God and he does not exist then at worst all we have forgone is a few sinful pleasures.
If we do not believe in God and he does exist we may enjoy a few sinful pleasures, but we may face eternal damnation. If we do not believe in God and he does not exist then our sins will not be punished.
Would any rational gambler think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal damnation?
Kant
Kant attempted to show how philosophy could prove the existence of God. Unfortunately, for him his previous work showed that we could not know reality directly as thing-in-itself. What is real in itself is beyond our experience. Even if God exists, we can not know God as he really is.
For Kant the Christian could have faith in God, and this faith would be consonant with reason and the categorical imperative. Given that human beings have the autonomy to create moral values, it would not be irrational to believe in a God who gives purpose to the moral realm.
Hegel
Hegel thought that the God of religion was an intuition of Absolute Spirit or Geist. Hegel's Geist is not like the transcendent (outside of our consciousness) God of traditional Christianity. For Hegel God is immanent and when we have understood that history is the process of Geist coming to know itself it appears that we are all part of Geist, or God.
Feuerbach and Marx
For Feuerbach and Marx religion is seen as the projection of the human essence onto an ideal: God does not make man. Rather "God" is the invention of human consciousness. Marx also sees that religion is part of an ideological view that encourages the oppressed to accept their fate. As he says: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions."
Søren Kierkegaard
Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) agreed with Kant that the existence of God could not be proven by reason. However Kierkegaard did not think that it was rational to believe in God, rather one should have faith in God even if this seems to reason to be absurd. To put it another way reason has no place in faith. God is beyond reason.
Kierkegaard is regarded as the first existentialist.
Nietzsche: The Death of God
"Have you not heard the madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place and cried incessantly, 'I seek God!, I seek God!' ... Why, did he get lost? Said one. Did he lose his way like a child? Said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Or emigrated?... The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his glances.
"'Whither is God'? He cried. 'I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. All of us are his murderers...'"
"...the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they to were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke and went out. 'I came too early,' he said then; 'my time has not come yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering -it has not yet reached the ears of man."
In these passages Nietzsche is showing the inevitable unfolding anthropocentrism (lit. putting man at the centre of the world) implicit in philosophy since Kant. If we view our existence through human categories, then our concept of God is itself a human creation.
Nietzsche is not simply asserting his atheism; he is suggesting that once we are aware that the concept of God is our own creation we can no longer base our religious and moral beliefs on any notion of a divine external reality.
In the period that Nietzsche was writing, the death of God was just beginning. Western thought was starting to face the prospect of a radical change in its orientation, and it wasn't quite ready to own up to it yet.
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche represent opposite reactions to the inability of rationality to give a rock solid theoretical proof of God's existence. Kierkegaard calls for us to embrace God even if it seems an absurdity, while Nietzsche says it is time for us to create a new mode of being, with human creativity at its centre.
The atheist existentialist Sartre accepted God's death and much of his writing is attempt to look at the human condition in a world that is without a prime mover who could have provided a basis and structure for the understanding of being.
The twentieth century
Anglo American analytic philosophers of the twentieth century have tended to agree that philosophy may help us clarify religious concepts, without giving us a secure foundation for religious belief.
Many people claim to have had a religious experience, to have experienced the divine directly. This experience is direct and is of a different quality to sensory experience or intellectual discovery, and therefore outside of the scope of philosophy.
The view that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved by philosophy has not stopped developments in modern theology. Theologians are attempting to balance the anthropocentric view of God presented by philosophers since the Enlightenment with the need to provide a spiritual path and a guide to an ethical and meaningful way of life.
One of the most far-reaching consequences of the rationalism of the Enlightenment was the undermining of basic Christian faith among the educated classes. The effect was unintended because the project of many Enlightenment philosophers was to prove the existence of God using reason: Descartes and Leibniz assumed that God's existence could be rationally proved, indeed God was a necessary part of their philosophy.
There are many traditional "proofs" for the existence of God, and we will look at three of them: The argument from design, the ontological argument and the cosmological argument.
Traditional "proofs" of God's Existence
1) The argument from Design.
If you found a clock and examined the mechanism within it, you would probably think that this intricate mechanism was not the outcome of mere chance, that it had been designed.
Now look at the universe; is it possible that such an intricate mechanism, from the orbits of planets round the sun to the cells in your fingernails could all have happened by chance? Surely, this enormously complex mechanism has been designed, and the being that designed it must be God.
2) The ontological argument
God is the perfect being. As He is most perfect, He must have all perfections. If God lacked existence He would not be perfect, as He is perfect he must exist.
3) The cosmological argument (God as "First cause")
Everything that exists has a cause. However, there must at some time have been a cause prior to all other causes. This 'prime mover' or first cause is necessary to explain existence. This first cause is God.
Pascal's Wager
The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) put forward an argument that would appeal to agnostics. (An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God's existence.)
His argument goes something like this: God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If we believe in God and he does not exist then at worst all we have forgone is a few sinful pleasures.
If we do not believe in God and he does exist we may enjoy a few sinful pleasures, but we may face eternal damnation. If we do not believe in God and he does not exist then our sins will not be punished.
Would any rational gambler think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal damnation?
Kant
Kant attempted to show how philosophy could prove the existence of God. Unfortunately, for him his previous work showed that we could not know reality directly as thing-in-itself. What is real in itself is beyond our experience. Even if God exists, we can not know God as he really is.
For Kant the Christian could have faith in God, and this faith would be consonant with reason and the categorical imperative. Given that human beings have the autonomy to create moral values, it would not be irrational to believe in a God who gives purpose to the moral realm.
Hegel
Hegel thought that the God of religion was an intuition of Absolute Spirit or Geist. Hegel's Geist is not like the transcendent (outside of our consciousness) God of traditional Christianity. For Hegel God is immanent and when we have understood that history is the process of Geist coming to know itself it appears that we are all part of Geist, or God.
Feuerbach and Marx
For Feuerbach and Marx religion is seen as the projection of the human essence onto an ideal: God does not make man. Rather "God" is the invention of human consciousness. Marx also sees that religion is part of an ideological view that encourages the oppressed to accept their fate. As he says: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions."
Søren Kierkegaard
Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) agreed with Kant that the existence of God could not be proven by reason. However Kierkegaard did not think that it was rational to believe in God, rather one should have faith in God even if this seems to reason to be absurd. To put it another way reason has no place in faith. God is beyond reason.
Kierkegaard is regarded as the first existentialist.
Nietzsche: The Death of God
"Have you not heard the madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place and cried incessantly, 'I seek God!, I seek God!' ... Why, did he get lost? Said one. Did he lose his way like a child? Said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Or emigrated?... The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his glances.
"'Whither is God'? He cried. 'I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. All of us are his murderers...'"
"...the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they to were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke and went out. 'I came too early,' he said then; 'my time has not come yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering -it has not yet reached the ears of man."
In these passages Nietzsche is showing the inevitable unfolding anthropocentrism (lit. putting man at the centre of the world) implicit in philosophy since Kant. If we view our existence through human categories, then our concept of God is itself a human creation.
Nietzsche is not simply asserting his atheism; he is suggesting that once we are aware that the concept of God is our own creation we can no longer base our religious and moral beliefs on any notion of a divine external reality.
In the period that Nietzsche was writing, the death of God was just beginning. Western thought was starting to face the prospect of a radical change in its orientation, and it wasn't quite ready to own up to it yet.
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche represent opposite reactions to the inability of rationality to give a rock solid theoretical proof of God's existence. Kierkegaard calls for us to embrace God even if it seems an absurdity, while Nietzsche says it is time for us to create a new mode of being, with human creativity at its centre.
The atheist existentialist Sartre accepted God's death and much of his writing is attempt to look at the human condition in a world that is without a prime mover who could have provided a basis and structure for the understanding of being.
The twentieth century
Anglo American analytic philosophers of the twentieth century have tended to agree that philosophy may help us clarify religious concepts, without giving us a secure foundation for religious belief.
Many people claim to have had a religious experience, to have experienced the divine directly. This experience is direct and is of a different quality to sensory experience or intellectual discovery, and therefore outside of the scope of philosophy.
The view that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved by philosophy has not stopped developments in modern theology. Theologians are attempting to balance the anthropocentric view of God presented by philosophers since the Enlightenment with the need to provide a spiritual path and a guide to an ethical and meaningful way of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
