After spending years under threat, and facing drastic funding cuts, next year could see the end of University philosophy department as we know it. Philosophy conferences over recent years have seen more and more of the attendees, most of whom are perfectly acceptable thinkers in their own right, are struggling for work, freelancing for periodicals and journals, occasional lecturing, really just scraping by. As you may well imagine, I don't see this as a good thing. To my mind, one of the primary purposes of University is to encourage independent critical thought amongst students, and to train them to analyse and argue rationally and logically. Without a solid grounding in philosophical techniques and the forms used to structure debate and discussion, how can we possibly hope to develop the strength of mind required to drive forward endeavour in other aspects of life?
The days of teaching critical thinking at school level ended a long time ago, so essentially University was the last bastion of this particularly useful skill. It was the last chance saloon for engaging the next generation of inquisitive minds in the rigours and processes developed over multi-thousand years by some of the finest minds of humanity. Without the facility to effectively teach such key skills as ethics, empiricism, virtue at al. how can we possibly expect our upcoming scientists and engineers and entrepreneurs to work for the greater good? What hope society if we are producing experts who can't debate, argue or think?
For me, this false economy is intrinsically linked to the decline in broad based learning, and the drive towards early specialism. Talking to late school age children, many already have a perfectly mapped career path, have already specialised to such an extent that their ability to adapt is severely curtailed and is alreay causing them issues in terms of creativity of thought and breadth of opinion. Is it any wonder that our youth are politically disengaged? Until they are aiming for a career in politics, everything around them seems to be telling them not to worry about it, not to get involved....
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Monday, 27 June 2011
The hypocrisy of the megarich
Whether it is a super-rich individual or a multi-national corporation, there has over recent years been a drive to demonstrate philanthropic concern for the Worlds poor. This is all very laudable and worthy, and in the finest traditons of the American charitable principle of trickle down, whereby the very rich lead by example by giving generously to charitable foundations and this gesture is mirrored by those lower down the pecking order. But is all as it seems? Certainly in the UK we have a situation whereby these same individuals and corporations devote considerable time and enormous sums of money in developing ever more complex ways of avoiding paying tax. I can understand the arguement that by being "tax-efficient" these non-payers may be making a statement that they distrust our political masters and would rather make their own decisions as to where their money is spent, but this arguement is fundamentally flawed.
We live in a democracy, and as such our political leaders are elected by us, and are ultimately responsible to us as voters. Consequently, suggesting that an individual or corporation who is responsible to no-one but themselves, and possibly shareholders will act in a better way than elected officials is not only wrong but insulting to the electorate. Listening to these people talk about the efforts they are making for charities and to heal the World does rather stick in the throat, since these are, when all is said and done, merely personal hobby horses, and most of these groups and individulas are not in a position to have complete transparency in terms of how their donations are used.
Would it not be better for the rich to pay their taxes as the rest of us have to, ad use any money left over to campaign for the political change that they seek, rather than sanctimoniously preaching about the good work they are doing? There are protest groups here in the UK who are trying to bring these tax dodgers to book, and if you have a look into the recent news stories, you may be surprised to see that they are doing this with very little support from HMRC who seem unable to act in a principled manner when dealing with companies like Tesco, Vodafone, Barclays and many many others, preferring instead to engage in "Sweetheart" deals not available to the hoy polloy. Whatever the good intentions of these companies originally, their morals and ethics have all been undone by the reprehensible actions of those who are simple being greedy. Time for non-executive directors and the major accounting firms to bite the bullet and act to bring these companies in line and to help to create a more equitable society for us all, rather than fatter profits for the very few....
We live in a democracy, and as such our political leaders are elected by us, and are ultimately responsible to us as voters. Consequently, suggesting that an individual or corporation who is responsible to no-one but themselves, and possibly shareholders will act in a better way than elected officials is not only wrong but insulting to the electorate. Listening to these people talk about the efforts they are making for charities and to heal the World does rather stick in the throat, since these are, when all is said and done, merely personal hobby horses, and most of these groups and individulas are not in a position to have complete transparency in terms of how their donations are used.
Would it not be better for the rich to pay their taxes as the rest of us have to, ad use any money left over to campaign for the political change that they seek, rather than sanctimoniously preaching about the good work they are doing? There are protest groups here in the UK who are trying to bring these tax dodgers to book, and if you have a look into the recent news stories, you may be surprised to see that they are doing this with very little support from HMRC who seem unable to act in a principled manner when dealing with companies like Tesco, Vodafone, Barclays and many many others, preferring instead to engage in "Sweetheart" deals not available to the hoy polloy. Whatever the good intentions of these companies originally, their morals and ethics have all been undone by the reprehensible actions of those who are simple being greedy. Time for non-executive directors and the major accounting firms to bite the bullet and act to bring these companies in line and to help to create a more equitable society for us all, rather than fatter profits for the very few....
Friday, 24 June 2011
Popularity and consumerism
It seems that in the modern World a person is defined by what they own. This is in stark contrast to the historical analogies of definition by social status as under the feudal system, or by what he does as was seen in the development of career based surnames across Europe. This shift has had a knock on effect I believe in that it has been taken a step further to the stage where people are not simply defined, but judged by their possessions. This can be seen in the demand for labelled clothes, high profile accessories, the latest trainers, the flashest cars and so on. It is interesting to consider how this state of affairs has come about. There are a number of possible reasons for this but I feel that the main ones are the increase in commercialism and marketing and the associated drive through visual imagery to make one feel inferior, a complaint that has been leveled at the fashion industry over the effect it has on womens body image and mental health, and the almost traditional equation of material success with power and strength.
There is a problem with this however. By equating success and consequently popularity with material worth it becomes dfficult to suggest that the developing World should forego the same consumerism for the benefit of the global society. It is difficult to marry the finite nature of the resources used by consumer goods, and the damage caused by procuring those resources, with the requirements of striving to achieve sustainability. We are already seeing conflict positions global with regard to the mismatch between the food requirements of an expanding population, the agricultural requiremets of the bio-fuel industry and the environmental requirements of the ecological systems that maintain this planets climates and atmosphere in an inhabitable state.
Perhaps it is time for the Western World to take a lead and rather than embracing consumerism, use those marketing skills to persuade people that a more ascetic approach is the way forward. This would be one of the things I like
There is a problem with this however. By equating success and consequently popularity with material worth it becomes dfficult to suggest that the developing World should forego the same consumerism for the benefit of the global society. It is difficult to marry the finite nature of the resources used by consumer goods, and the damage caused by procuring those resources, with the requirements of striving to achieve sustainability. We are already seeing conflict positions global with regard to the mismatch between the food requirements of an expanding population, the agricultural requiremets of the bio-fuel industry and the environmental requirements of the ecological systems that maintain this planets climates and atmosphere in an inhabitable state.
Perhaps it is time for the Western World to take a lead and rather than embracing consumerism, use those marketing skills to persuade people that a more ascetic approach is the way forward. This would be one of the things I like
Thursday, 23 June 2011
Beauty in simplicity
It is a philosophy that many people espouse, but few seem to manage. It is seem in mathematics, physics, business, politics and the military, even having its own acronym KISS Keep It Simple Stupid, and yet it seems elusive. When it comes to business it should be the first principle hammered home in business school. If there are two ways of doing something, go with the one that requires the least amount of additional effort, and is the least reliant on other factors. It is the same principle that informs Occhams razer, a theory that suggests that when presented with multiple possible solutions, or reasons for something happening you should also go with the one that requires the least amount of other assumptions to be true, until such time as you are proved wrong. It seems pretty straightforward, so why does it tend not to be used as often as it should? Why do people still see UFO's when there are simpler explanations? Why do we still see the face carved on the surface of Mars even though we know it isn't there?
My best guess is that although we profess a desire for simplicity, whether that be a work, or in life, what we secretly crave is drama and difficulty. I can understand this, becuase it does have a tendency to make life rather more interesting than it otherwise might be. By overcomplicating situations we can be justified in feeling stresses and in complaining, and we do as a species tend to enjoy complication. This is not limited to the mass of society, but at all levels, and through all societies. There are of course exceptions, primarily with religious communities such as those found within the catholic faith practicing a monastic tradition, or with the Hindu ascetics or the Buddhist monasteries. This brings up an interesting question in my opinion. Does the need for complication stem from the ego? It can be argued that these religious communities have a similarity that transcends faith based differences in that they practice the subjugation of the ego for the greater good of the community. They do away with materialism in the form of possessions, and with the associated vices of pride and greed.
So does this offer a model on which to move forward as a species? I suspect that the ego is a crucial part of what makes us who we are as a species and has contributed in no small measure to our success at dominating our planet, and there are arguements that ego is still a crucial component of our makeup until such time as we understand completely the universe and our place within it, since it forms part of the drive to exceeed and to improve individually and collectively. It is then perhaps a waiting game, an acceptance that we are as yet unable to achieve large scale simplicity, but that it is something that we should nevertheless aspire to and have as one of our species key goals. Perhaps it is how we will be measured should we ever find more advanced races in the Universe. Not by our level of complexity, as some reasearchers feel, but by our level of simplicity.....
My best guess is that although we profess a desire for simplicity, whether that be a work, or in life, what we secretly crave is drama and difficulty. I can understand this, becuase it does have a tendency to make life rather more interesting than it otherwise might be. By overcomplicating situations we can be justified in feeling stresses and in complaining, and we do as a species tend to enjoy complication. This is not limited to the mass of society, but at all levels, and through all societies. There are of course exceptions, primarily with religious communities such as those found within the catholic faith practicing a monastic tradition, or with the Hindu ascetics or the Buddhist monasteries. This brings up an interesting question in my opinion. Does the need for complication stem from the ego? It can be argued that these religious communities have a similarity that transcends faith based differences in that they practice the subjugation of the ego for the greater good of the community. They do away with materialism in the form of possessions, and with the associated vices of pride and greed.
So does this offer a model on which to move forward as a species? I suspect that the ego is a crucial part of what makes us who we are as a species and has contributed in no small measure to our success at dominating our planet, and there are arguements that ego is still a crucial component of our makeup until such time as we understand completely the universe and our place within it, since it forms part of the drive to exceeed and to improve individually and collectively. It is then perhaps a waiting game, an acceptance that we are as yet unable to achieve large scale simplicity, but that it is something that we should nevertheless aspire to and have as one of our species key goals. Perhaps it is how we will be measured should we ever find more advanced races in the Universe. Not by our level of complexity, as some reasearchers feel, but by our level of simplicity.....
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Why we get the politicians we deserve
The roots of this rant go back even further than I do, into the dark days of post war Britain. Recovery from the second World War was a slow process with rationing still in effect for many years, and a maintainance of the austerity measures of the War years being retained long after it was necessary. The drive for rebuilding and regrowth spawned an ethos that capitalism was the best way to drive forward, with technical innovation to the fore. The backlash against this was seen through the 1970's in the form of rampant trade unionism encouraged by the Labour government of the period. This had the effect of crippling the industrial base of the UK and limiting our productive and creative advantages globally, additional setting up a national obsession with semi-idolising of entreprenurial spirit. With the coming of Thatcher in 1979 this process only accelerated, giving rise to the greed culture of the '80's and '90's leading to the inevitable collapse of the banking sector in 2008.
At no point in this process did we, as a nation stand up and say "Enough". There were plenty of voices advocating caution, suggesting alternative routes, fighting for fairness within the system, but these were in the main ignored. There are a number of reasons for this but personally I believe that the main driving force for this was the introduction of "spin" to the political system. The media-government complex is a hugely complex beast in which every political move is a story to be twisted to suit the bias of the media outlet concerned. The BBC has shifted from an independent national broadcaster to being afraid to be too outspoken for fear of budget cuts. The mainstream commercial media are hamstrung by their reliance on advertising revenue, so the only place to find journalistiv integrity and balanced reporting is online, and even here, where freedom is almost enshrined in the principle that anyone can utilise the internet, there is a tendency to simply parrot the party line of whichever party the particular commentator favours.
Until such time as we, the people of Great Britain truly understand that we are collectively responsible for the actions and behaviours of our elected officials and act according to the principles of the greater good for the betterment of society as a whole rather than for largely selfish purposes we will continue to get politicians who mirror these values. Sustainable change can only come from weight of opinion, and our first priority as a nature should be to foster and encourage sustainability. We are a nation of innovators and inventors. We should be leading the World in creating solutions to global problems, but instead we are still all driven by the lies of commercial success and ramapnt consumerism at any cost. We get what we deserve, and will continue to do so until we, the people of this great country bring about change ourselves.
At no point in this process did we, as a nation stand up and say "Enough". There were plenty of voices advocating caution, suggesting alternative routes, fighting for fairness within the system, but these were in the main ignored. There are a number of reasons for this but personally I believe that the main driving force for this was the introduction of "spin" to the political system. The media-government complex is a hugely complex beast in which every political move is a story to be twisted to suit the bias of the media outlet concerned. The BBC has shifted from an independent national broadcaster to being afraid to be too outspoken for fear of budget cuts. The mainstream commercial media are hamstrung by their reliance on advertising revenue, so the only place to find journalistiv integrity and balanced reporting is online, and even here, where freedom is almost enshrined in the principle that anyone can utilise the internet, there is a tendency to simply parrot the party line of whichever party the particular commentator favours.
Until such time as we, the people of Great Britain truly understand that we are collectively responsible for the actions and behaviours of our elected officials and act according to the principles of the greater good for the betterment of society as a whole rather than for largely selfish purposes we will continue to get politicians who mirror these values. Sustainable change can only come from weight of opinion, and our first priority as a nature should be to foster and encourage sustainability. We are a nation of innovators and inventors. We should be leading the World in creating solutions to global problems, but instead we are still all driven by the lies of commercial success and ramapnt consumerism at any cost. We get what we deserve, and will continue to do so until we, the people of this great country bring about change ourselves.
Monday, 20 June 2011
The quest for the theory of everything
The idea of understanding the universe and all of its' glories has long been the aim of mankind. The great Egyptian civilisations made use of astrology and architecture to try to understand their place in the universe and their interactions with their Gods. This can be seen in the ceremonial preperations for burial of corpses, the stories highlighted in the pyramid and coffin texts and the development of monotheism during the Amarna period. There was a constant questing for an understanding of the infinite throughout the pharonic ages right up to the Ptolomeic period of Greek occupation and indeed one of the best references to this quest comes to us from Solon of Aexandria, a Greek incomer who attempted as part of the library project to collate all of the Egyptian thoughts and stories of the infite. It has been suggested that it was from these sources that Solon came to understand the stories of Atlantis later made infamous by Plato in his discourses.
The quest for knowledge proceeded apace through the Greek and Roman empires with the development and refinement of mathematical and philosophical thought and the application of hard logic. This blended with the spirituality of the time to create myths and Gods that represented the quest for wisdom as a search for knowledge from the universe itself. As Christianity began to take hold during the Roman period there was a branch of that faith which focused on the aquisition and understanding of knowledge as being an integral part of approaxching divinity. This was Gnosticism and came out of a Greek tradition that suggested that to understand and therefore move closer to divinity it was necessary to learn more and understand more about the World. Gnosticism lost out to the more esoteric branches of Christianity, but the desire to know GOd through scientific understanding of Gods creations is a tradition that has continued through the Catholic church to the present day.
Throughout the intervening period there have been traditions wherein knowledge and understand were crucial to the development of society. The Islamic world of the 8th to the 12th century had a tremendous focus on understanding and much of what we now consider to be core to our scientific development in mathematics and physics has come down to us from this period. Similarly in the far East, practical philosophers made tremendous advances in chemistry, and the mugal empire of India developed on these these.discoveries and developed them further. Through trade and exploration these ideas came back to Europe and formed the basis of the enlightenment movement through Italy and France at the same time as the Germanic nations and England began to industrialise with all of the scientific developments that that brought.
During these periods the theme was for the great thinkers of the ages to be polymaths, following multiple lines of enquiry concurrently through multiple disciplines and techniques. In more recent times as we moved into the 19th Century there was a movement away from this strategy towards far more specialism, highlighted by the development of highly specialised areas of study and the differentiation of natural philosophy into its component areas of chemistry, biology and physics. In my opinion this is one of the primary reasons that a unified theory is still little more than a pipedream. The recent advances in physics have been very impressive with the work on the quantum world, chaos theory, string theory and the like beginning to get to grips with the substance of the universe, but I feel that there must be a place for re-integrating the disparate strands of research and thought in order to achieve mankinds ultimate goal of complete understanding.
Harmony is the goal, understanding is the path, endeavour is the journey....
The quest for knowledge proceeded apace through the Greek and Roman empires with the development and refinement of mathematical and philosophical thought and the application of hard logic. This blended with the spirituality of the time to create myths and Gods that represented the quest for wisdom as a search for knowledge from the universe itself. As Christianity began to take hold during the Roman period there was a branch of that faith which focused on the aquisition and understanding of knowledge as being an integral part of approaxching divinity. This was Gnosticism and came out of a Greek tradition that suggested that to understand and therefore move closer to divinity it was necessary to learn more and understand more about the World. Gnosticism lost out to the more esoteric branches of Christianity, but the desire to know GOd through scientific understanding of Gods creations is a tradition that has continued through the Catholic church to the present day.
Throughout the intervening period there have been traditions wherein knowledge and understand were crucial to the development of society. The Islamic world of the 8th to the 12th century had a tremendous focus on understanding and much of what we now consider to be core to our scientific development in mathematics and physics has come down to us from this period. Similarly in the far East, practical philosophers made tremendous advances in chemistry, and the mugal empire of India developed on these these.discoveries and developed them further. Through trade and exploration these ideas came back to Europe and formed the basis of the enlightenment movement through Italy and France at the same time as the Germanic nations and England began to industrialise with all of the scientific developments that that brought.
During these periods the theme was for the great thinkers of the ages to be polymaths, following multiple lines of enquiry concurrently through multiple disciplines and techniques. In more recent times as we moved into the 19th Century there was a movement away from this strategy towards far more specialism, highlighted by the development of highly specialised areas of study and the differentiation of natural philosophy into its component areas of chemistry, biology and physics. In my opinion this is one of the primary reasons that a unified theory is still little more than a pipedream. The recent advances in physics have been very impressive with the work on the quantum world, chaos theory, string theory and the like beginning to get to grips with the substance of the universe, but I feel that there must be a place for re-integrating the disparate strands of research and thought in order to achieve mankinds ultimate goal of complete understanding.
Harmony is the goal, understanding is the path, endeavour is the journey....
Selling out
"If you do an advert, then you are off the artistic register forever" So said the eponymous namesake of this blog, and it is perhaps more true today than it has ever been. We seem to exist in a world were celebrity is defined by how many endorsements you can make. Kate Moss has been dropped and rehired more times than it was once thought possible, Jedward make far more from endoresements than they could possibly make from music, lady Gaga is considered more powerful than Oprah when her entire career seems to be an endorsement for herself as a brand. Even beyond this to the World of charity, once, it could be argued, the only for of endorsement that was even vaguely acceptible. We now see charities engaging in the worst excesses of mainstrea media advertising in order to generate revenue.
On this, amongst many other things I am in agreement with Mr. Hicks. There can be no excuse for product endorsement if you, as a performer, want to be considered ethical. There is no such thing as an innocent endorsement, there is no company that is ethical enough to be considered acceptable. This may seem harsh, but let us consider environmental charities. There are huge swathes of the developing world where indigenous peoples are being forcibly resettled in a way that would be considered completely unacceptable, if it wasn't for the fact that they are being removed in the name of environmental protection, This, to me is completely unacceptable and smacks of colonialism. It is not a new phenomena. Diane Fossey the primate researcher treated the indigenous very badly indeed physically assaulting them despite the fact that they had been living side by side with the local gorilla population for thousands of years and could have been a useful resource.
If celebrities thought for even a moment about the long term effects of the products and services and on the people they are influencing I strongly suspect that we would see a dramatic decrease in endorsements, and in my opinion, the World would be a better place....
On this, amongst many other things I am in agreement with Mr. Hicks. There can be no excuse for product endorsement if you, as a performer, want to be considered ethical. There is no such thing as an innocent endorsement, there is no company that is ethical enough to be considered acceptable. This may seem harsh, but let us consider environmental charities. There are huge swathes of the developing world where indigenous peoples are being forcibly resettled in a way that would be considered completely unacceptable, if it wasn't for the fact that they are being removed in the name of environmental protection, This, to me is completely unacceptable and smacks of colonialism. It is not a new phenomena. Diane Fossey the primate researcher treated the indigenous very badly indeed physically assaulting them despite the fact that they had been living side by side with the local gorilla population for thousands of years and could have been a useful resource.
If celebrities thought for even a moment about the long term effects of the products and services and on the people they are influencing I strongly suspect that we would see a dramatic decrease in endorsements, and in my opinion, the World would be a better place....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)