And yes, we need to rebuild America, and not Afghanistan and Iraq, or Israel for that matter, that's a very true statement, it's high time to start looking at our problems, and not everyone else, and not our so called allies who could turn into our enemies any time we don't suit their policies.
Again thanks for listening.
Monday, October 10, 2011
THE NATION"S SITUATION !!!
The US. government regularly prints money, as it is doing now to finance a colossal national dept, a direct result of a huge tax cut and a disastrous policy of waging wars. This is not a partisan rivalry or dispute; it is a condition decried by both liberal and conservatives alike, our children will pay for these decisions, and poor children will pay twice.
The idea that "for those able, the virtuous thing is to give voluntarily to the needy, unlucky or unable" is bogus, unproductive and unrealistic in a country and society as complex and large as ours. You can do this only with the help of institutions. Social planning is neither desirable nor undesirable; it is unavoidable and an absolute necessity in our world.
A decent society would order national priorities, it would make explicit decisions in diverse contexts and format, about national security, economic growth and employment, caring for the poor and sick, and for the environment.
We could for example, track existing experiments and policies in countries comparable to the United States that had nationalised health care, strict gun control, and social-protection programs.
Begging and charitable giving is not and should not be the policy nor part of the solutions.
What would happen if we took seriously the state-of-nature view romanticised by critics of social protection programs ?? Imagine the unregulated state, it is a dark and an impossible world, a world of food poisoning,drug fatalities, rampant crime,deceptive marketing, a world of unlimited ponzy schemes, chaotic highways, unaccountable sexism and racism, financial ruin caused by unscrupulous entrepreneurs, and constant fear in response to it all.
In a nation whose average household income, so far, exceeds basic needs, it would be a wonder if we weren't among the happiest of nations, and that should make us wonder why more than 70 percent of the US. population - mostly the poor and middle classes- struggle to ensure some of the most basic achievements of modern democracy, and why other liberal democracies are happier with far lower mean household incomes.
Now a days the administrative obstacles to construct a good and better society are greater than ever before. Again, there is a big difference between democracy in an early American village and democracy in a multi cultural, technologically sophisticated country of 300 million citizens.
In order to recover our trust in government, we need to see public officials constantly proposing enterprising ways to make our lives better, proposals to make us healthier, provide more leisure and vacations, more health protection, and in general, more real and effective opportunities and policies to correct the actual huge imbalances between the lower and higher echelons of citizenry, rather than mere freedom from the interference of others.
As usual I'm grateful to J. D. for his insight and inspiration, thanks and salamat
The idea that "for those able, the virtuous thing is to give voluntarily to the needy, unlucky or unable" is bogus, unproductive and unrealistic in a country and society as complex and large as ours. You can do this only with the help of institutions. Social planning is neither desirable nor undesirable; it is unavoidable and an absolute necessity in our world.
A decent society would order national priorities, it would make explicit decisions in diverse contexts and format, about national security, economic growth and employment, caring for the poor and sick, and for the environment.
We could for example, track existing experiments and policies in countries comparable to the United States that had nationalised health care, strict gun control, and social-protection programs.
Begging and charitable giving is not and should not be the policy nor part of the solutions.
What would happen if we took seriously the state-of-nature view romanticised by critics of social protection programs ?? Imagine the unregulated state, it is a dark and an impossible world, a world of food poisoning,drug fatalities, rampant crime,deceptive marketing, a world of unlimited ponzy schemes, chaotic highways, unaccountable sexism and racism, financial ruin caused by unscrupulous entrepreneurs, and constant fear in response to it all.
In a nation whose average household income, so far, exceeds basic needs, it would be a wonder if we weren't among the happiest of nations, and that should make us wonder why more than 70 percent of the US. population - mostly the poor and middle classes- struggle to ensure some of the most basic achievements of modern democracy, and why other liberal democracies are happier with far lower mean household incomes.
Now a days the administrative obstacles to construct a good and better society are greater than ever before. Again, there is a big difference between democracy in an early American village and democracy in a multi cultural, technologically sophisticated country of 300 million citizens.
In order to recover our trust in government, we need to see public officials constantly proposing enterprising ways to make our lives better, proposals to make us healthier, provide more leisure and vacations, more health protection, and in general, more real and effective opportunities and policies to correct the actual huge imbalances between the lower and higher echelons of citizenry, rather than mere freedom from the interference of others.
As usual I'm grateful to J. D. for his insight and inspiration, thanks and salamat
Monday, September 12, 2011
WE'RE ALL ENTITLED TO OUR OPINIONS
The slogan "you are entitled to your opinion" is so often repeated that it is almost impossible for the brain of a modern person not to have absorbed it. Before showing that this cliche is very tricky at best "Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but...." Here is a simple way of putting it, if the opinions to which we are entitled might be false,the entitlement cannot properly be invoked to settle a dispute. It adds no new information on the original matter, it does nothing to show that the opinion in question is true.It does not in fact make the entitlement to an opinion relevant in deciding who is correct in any dispute.
You are entitled to an opinion, in this sense, only when you have good reasons for holding it, evidence,sound arguments, and so on.
It is increasingly a part of a mindset that obstruct the free flow of ideas and their robust and correct values. Many people seem to feel that their opinions are somehow sacred, so that everyone else is obliged to handle them with great care. When confronted with counterarguments, they do not pause and wonder if they might be wrong after all, they take offense.
Does your right to your entitlement to your opinion oblige others to agree with you? NO, as others too, are entitled to their opinions, which might contradict yours. Just think of the practical implications. Everyone would have to change his mind every time he met someone with a different opinion, changing his religion, his politics, his eating and drinking habits.
Does your right to your opinion oblige me to listen to you ? NO, many people have many opinions on many matters. You cannot walk through your normal day without hearing some enthusiast declaring his opinions on God or the Christian religion or the Zionist and imperialist conspiracy or some other topic of pressing concern, listening to them all is practically impossible, and not a duty.
Does your right or your entitlement to your opinion oblige others to let you keep it ? This is the closest to what I think most people mean and want when they claim a right to their opinion. They do so at just that point in an argument when they would otherwise be forced to admit error and have to change their position.
It's just that, on some topics, many people are not really interested in believing the truth. They might prefer it if their opinion turns out to be true.
Many of my friends, though not practicing members of their religions or not even accepting the many absurd details of their different sects, claim to believe in a "superior intelligence"or " something higher than us." Yet they will also cheerfully admit the absence of even a shred of evidence. Never mind. As truth really is not always the point,and it is very annoying to be pressed on the matter.
Finally to register all this, and to make it clear that truth is neither here nor there, they declare, " I am entitled to my opinion." Once we hear these words, one should realize that it is rude and inefficient to persist with the matter. You may be interested in whether or not their opinion is true,but accept that they are not.
As usual my thanks go to Jamie for inspiring and contributing to these ideas, and as always thanks for your time and patience, salamat.
You are entitled to an opinion, in this sense, only when you have good reasons for holding it, evidence,sound arguments, and so on.
It is increasingly a part of a mindset that obstruct the free flow of ideas and their robust and correct values. Many people seem to feel that their opinions are somehow sacred, so that everyone else is obliged to handle them with great care. When confronted with counterarguments, they do not pause and wonder if they might be wrong after all, they take offense.
Does your right to your entitlement to your opinion oblige others to agree with you? NO, as others too, are entitled to their opinions, which might contradict yours. Just think of the practical implications. Everyone would have to change his mind every time he met someone with a different opinion, changing his religion, his politics, his eating and drinking habits.
Does your right to your opinion oblige me to listen to you ? NO, many people have many opinions on many matters. You cannot walk through your normal day without hearing some enthusiast declaring his opinions on God or the Christian religion or the Zionist and imperialist conspiracy or some other topic of pressing concern, listening to them all is practically impossible, and not a duty.
Does your right or your entitlement to your opinion oblige others to let you keep it ? This is the closest to what I think most people mean and want when they claim a right to their opinion. They do so at just that point in an argument when they would otherwise be forced to admit error and have to change their position.
It's just that, on some topics, many people are not really interested in believing the truth. They might prefer it if their opinion turns out to be true.
Many of my friends, though not practicing members of their religions or not even accepting the many absurd details of their different sects, claim to believe in a "superior intelligence"or " something higher than us." Yet they will also cheerfully admit the absence of even a shred of evidence. Never mind. As truth really is not always the point,and it is very annoying to be pressed on the matter.
Finally to register all this, and to make it clear that truth is neither here nor there, they declare, " I am entitled to my opinion." Once we hear these words, one should realize that it is rude and inefficient to persist with the matter. You may be interested in whether or not their opinion is true,but accept that they are not.
As usual my thanks go to Jamie for inspiring and contributing to these ideas, and as always thanks for your time and patience, salamat.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
A VERSION OF OURSELVES !!!
My mother used to tell me for years, that when very young, I refused milk, her milk, or any other from different animals, a doctor at the time advised her to try and feed me with yogurt as a trial, it worked, I'm not sure whether it was the sour taste or the fermentation that I must have liked, but, that was the beginning, I'm still hooked to fermentation,
Everyone knows someone who has a so called eating disorder,and everyone knows about the the huge numbers of people in the world who are starving. Excess is everywhere now, excess of wealth and of poverty, of sex and greed, of violence and of religious belief.
When people are being extreme they push things to their limits, when they are being excessive they push things beyond their limits.
When we are excessive we depart from custom or reason, we overstep limits, we go beyond our rights, we involve in what the dictionary calls extravagant violation of law, decency or morality, we are guilty of outrageous conducts. When we are excessive, in whatever way, we depart from what is considered appropriate behavior, we go out from custom or reason, we abandon, the version of ourselves we are supposed to be.
And where do we get our standards of appropriate behavior, our pictures of ourselves as we are supposed to be ??? from societies, tribes and families we grew up in.
We should be able to enter into the minds and circumstances of those with opposing views to our own.
It's all a matter of balance, as A. Phillips worked hard to express, again thanks for your patience and time and salamat
Everyone knows someone who has a so called eating disorder,and everyone knows about the the huge numbers of people in the world who are starving. Excess is everywhere now, excess of wealth and of poverty, of sex and greed, of violence and of religious belief.
When people are being extreme they push things to their limits, when they are being excessive they push things beyond their limits.
When we are excessive we depart from custom or reason, we overstep limits, we go beyond our rights, we involve in what the dictionary calls extravagant violation of law, decency or morality, we are guilty of outrageous conducts. When we are excessive, in whatever way, we depart from what is considered appropriate behavior, we go out from custom or reason, we abandon, the version of ourselves we are supposed to be.
And where do we get our standards of appropriate behavior, our pictures of ourselves as we are supposed to be ??? from societies, tribes and families we grew up in.
We should be able to enter into the minds and circumstances of those with opposing views to our own.
It's all a matter of balance, as A. Phillips worked hard to express, again thanks for your patience and time and salamat
Sunday, August 7, 2011
J.J., IMMANUEL, FRIEDRICH, AND ME.....
MY, your, or our own odyssey ended in serene isolation and tranquil passivity.
To finally choose to will not to will, and simply to exist in a state of perfect indolence and listlessness.
In my present situation, " I no longer have any other rule of conduct than in everything to follow my propensity and inclinations without restraint."
To record in writing my daydreams and to savor select episodes from my past in the pages of my reveries, a good man lost in his thoughts, savoring anew those moments, brief and transient yet sweet. When I had felt most " perfectly free."
It is founded on daily Soul-searching, "one may say about this way of life what one will." People who take it seriously are distinguished in a way that is worthy of honor. They possess the highest qualities that a human being can possess, namely a calmness and pleasantness, an inner peace that can be disturbed by no obsession, passion or craze.
"The gentle but sensitive tranquility," of the philosopher is infinitely preferable to the euphoric elation and thrills dreamed of by the mystics.
His would be a philosophical life devoted to calm reasoning, impermeable by design to the caprices of strong feelings and unruly impulses.
All changes nowadays frightens me, even one that might offer a greater prospect of improvement in my circumstances.
All I have wanted is a situation in which my spirit, hypersensitive but in other respects carefree, and my body, more troublesome but never actually sick, can both be kept busy without being strained, and that is what I have managed to obtain.
to reach the conclusion that;"The unexamined life is not worth living."
Again many thanks for your patience with my ideas, opinions and my friends, salamat.
To finally choose to will not to will, and simply to exist in a state of perfect indolence and listlessness.
In my present situation, " I no longer have any other rule of conduct than in everything to follow my propensity and inclinations without restraint."
To record in writing my daydreams and to savor select episodes from my past in the pages of my reveries, a good man lost in his thoughts, savoring anew those moments, brief and transient yet sweet. When I had felt most " perfectly free."
It is founded on daily Soul-searching, "one may say about this way of life what one will." People who take it seriously are distinguished in a way that is worthy of honor. They possess the highest qualities that a human being can possess, namely a calmness and pleasantness, an inner peace that can be disturbed by no obsession, passion or craze.
"The gentle but sensitive tranquility," of the philosopher is infinitely preferable to the euphoric elation and thrills dreamed of by the mystics.
His would be a philosophical life devoted to calm reasoning, impermeable by design to the caprices of strong feelings and unruly impulses.
All changes nowadays frightens me, even one that might offer a greater prospect of improvement in my circumstances.
All I have wanted is a situation in which my spirit, hypersensitive but in other respects carefree, and my body, more troublesome but never actually sick, can both be kept busy without being strained, and that is what I have managed to obtain.
to reach the conclusion that;"The unexamined life is not worth living."
Again many thanks for your patience with my ideas, opinions and my friends, salamat.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
THROUGH THE EYES OF ROUSSEAU
Rousseau brings into play in his second Discourse, his great principle for "judging properly," the principle of freedom. Evil is essentially artificial,a product of society. As a result, there is no reason to suffer evil at all.
Instead, one can strengthen one's will, in order to resist the injustices of civilisation, the unfairness, the economic and social inequalities and discrimination against whole segments of the population. And in this way attain a measure of virtue and fairness. We can also exercise our free will justly and righteously in concert with others, in order to change the laws and the unjust conventions that lead a people to accept living under conditions of grotesque inequality and lack of basic human freedoms.
The ending is up to the people, their historical destiny is, to an uncertain but critical extent, in their hands. Such is the significance of being free. By rising up against a regime that would instill only " the blindest obedience."
Rousseau reminds us, a people acts only according to the natural order, by reasserting its essential freedom, and whatever the outcome of these revolutions, a new beginning, or a relapse into bad habits, as we are witnessing with different aspects nowadays in some countries. No one can complain about someone else's injustice, but only of his own imprudence or his misfortune.
A new way of thinking about the human condition is appearing in the Arab world, despite the gloomy description of mankind's decline and fall. The principle of freedom dawned on the Arab world, and gave infinite strength to man, who thus perceived himself as great and limitless.
Inspired from a text by J. Miller about J.J. Rousseau. thanks for your patience and salamat.
Instead, one can strengthen one's will, in order to resist the injustices of civilisation, the unfairness, the economic and social inequalities and discrimination against whole segments of the population. And in this way attain a measure of virtue and fairness. We can also exercise our free will justly and righteously in concert with others, in order to change the laws and the unjust conventions that lead a people to accept living under conditions of grotesque inequality and lack of basic human freedoms.
The ending is up to the people, their historical destiny is, to an uncertain but critical extent, in their hands. Such is the significance of being free. By rising up against a regime that would instill only " the blindest obedience."
Rousseau reminds us, a people acts only according to the natural order, by reasserting its essential freedom, and whatever the outcome of these revolutions, a new beginning, or a relapse into bad habits, as we are witnessing with different aspects nowadays in some countries. No one can complain about someone else's injustice, but only of his own imprudence or his misfortune.
A new way of thinking about the human condition is appearing in the Arab world, despite the gloomy description of mankind's decline and fall. The principle of freedom dawned on the Arab world, and gave infinite strength to man, who thus perceived himself as great and limitless.
Inspired from a text by J. Miller about J.J. Rousseau. thanks for your patience and salamat.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
" TO LOVE... !!! "
What is real love ? I'll tell you what I think real love is. I'll draw you couple scenes, and then you can form your own conclusions.
What do most of us really know about love, it seems to me we just pass by love, and always begin love and end it as easily.
We say we love each other and we do, I don't doubt it. I love my wife and my wife loves me, and you guys love each other too, the kind of love I'm talking about, the physical love, the impulse that drives you to some-one special, as well as love of the person's being, his or her essence. Carnal love , and sentimental love, the day to day caring about the other person.
But sometimes I have a hard time accounting for the fact that one must have loved his first wife too, or her first date and dream boy. And we all did, I did, I know I did. So I suppose we're all alike in that respect.
" There was a time when I thought I loved my first wife more than life itself. But now I hate her memory." A friend once told me. How do we explain that ? what happened to all that love ?
I will hypothetically address a couple who met not too long ago, you love each other, it shows all over you, you glow with it. But you both loved other people before you met each other, you both could have been married before, just like some of us, and you probably loved your spouses very much and sincerely.
My wife and I have been married for many years now, and the terrible thing is, is that if something happened to one of us tomorrow, I think the other person, would grieve for a while, but then the surviving party would go out and love again, have some-one else sooner or later.
All this , all of this love we're talking about, would just be a memory, maybe not even a memory.
Am I wrong ?? Am I way off base ? because I want you, some-one, to set me straight if you think I'm wrong.
Inspired by R. Carver. And as usual thanks for your time and patience, salamat.
What do most of us really know about love, it seems to me we just pass by love, and always begin love and end it as easily.
We say we love each other and we do, I don't doubt it. I love my wife and my wife loves me, and you guys love each other too, the kind of love I'm talking about, the physical love, the impulse that drives you to some-one special, as well as love of the person's being, his or her essence. Carnal love , and sentimental love, the day to day caring about the other person.
But sometimes I have a hard time accounting for the fact that one must have loved his first wife too, or her first date and dream boy. And we all did, I did, I know I did. So I suppose we're all alike in that respect.
" There was a time when I thought I loved my first wife more than life itself. But now I hate her memory." A friend once told me. How do we explain that ? what happened to all that love ?
I will hypothetically address a couple who met not too long ago, you love each other, it shows all over you, you glow with it. But you both loved other people before you met each other, you both could have been married before, just like some of us, and you probably loved your spouses very much and sincerely.
My wife and I have been married for many years now, and the terrible thing is, is that if something happened to one of us tomorrow, I think the other person, would grieve for a while, but then the surviving party would go out and love again, have some-one else sooner or later.
All this , all of this love we're talking about, would just be a memory, maybe not even a memory.
Am I wrong ?? Am I way off base ? because I want you, some-one, to set me straight if you think I'm wrong.
Inspired by R. Carver. And as usual thanks for your time and patience, salamat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)