Tridimity

Henry James The Birthplace and Stephen Law Philosophy

Q. Why did the lollipop lady cross the road? A. To get away from the chicken

Just a quick link to an interesting and accessible BBC documentary on The Joy of Logic as presented by Prof. Dave Cliffs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08RoVHWta9A Enjoy!

It depends what you mean by love. Recently I was in love with somebody whom is no longer in my life. If I think about them and look in the mirror, I can see my pupils dilate and my pulse rate will increase. Yet I still know that the only reason that I feel this way is because natural selection has shaped myself and all other human beings to select potential mates and to pair bond until any resulting offspring are of sexual maturity. Love may feel, and does feel, extreme from a subjective point of view but the process that produces that effect is fundamentally heartless. Love does not exist without a conduit; just as noises almost certainly exist independently of our senses, the sound itself requires a listener. Love as portrayed in the movies is hogwash.

TAR, Matthew 19:24 “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich person to enter Heaven”. No, I do not agree with the intended meaning of this quote exactly, although I would consider it immoral for a person to be of very great wealth and yet to fail to contribute to the alleviation of the suffering of others by paying taxes or by making private donations to charity. Nobody is demanding that you, or anyone else, single-handedly save every poor man and his dog – or even that you contribute to the extent that it substantially impact upon your standards of living. The current taxation system in the UK, for example, seems to be pretty effective at ensuring that the most financially vulnerable are supported in their time of need such that they are able to survive periods of misfortune with basic food on the table, a roof over their head, and healthcare. Despite their contributions to the welfare system, the rich remain rich (and, indeed, are becoming richer relative to the other social classes). My point is that it is possible to devise systems of mutual aid which are sustainable in the long term. No need to break out a cape and sacrifice yourself for the underprivileged like a martyr. There are, of course, ongoing problems with extreme poverty especially in developing countries – but much of this is the result of corruption and money laundering on the of the part of their respective governments and so ought to be tackled by ridding the world of such corruption as well as contributing as much as is sustainably affordable on the part of MEDCs - see Charmian Gooch's TED talk on the hidden players of global corruption here http://www.ted.com/talks/charmian_gooch_meet_global_corruption_s_hidden_players.html. No one country is bailing out another; all nations must and do, to some extent, take responsibility for the humanitarian question on foreign soil. I have no problem with profit generation per se. The two conditions under which it becomes problematic are: i. Workers are exploited to the extent that their working conditions and/or remuneration threaten their Human Rights and are out of kilter with the sacrifices that they are making for their job. ii. The development of monopolies resulting in the sequestration of wealth and wealth-generation capabilities, amounting to a substantial proportion of the nation’s GDP, in the hands of a very small proportion of the population. This has the effect of inhibiting any entrepreneurial individuals from being able to generate profit and become wealthy for themselves. It seems to be a global trend that the working classes are unfairly exploited with the resulting profit funnelling upwards and stagnating in the hands of a small proportion of the world’s most powerful and wealthy individuals, who are accountable not even to their country of origin, since their companies are multinationals. They do not re-invest in the infrastructure and people who have made the company successful at a local level in their respective countries – they just take and move on and take some more. It is basically economic rape. “Everybody is not entitled to other people’s wealth”. Well I absolutely agree with this statement although I would add the caveats: i. There needs to be equality of opportunity, and unfortunately this is often crushed in capitalist systems, with the eventual formation of monopolies and the inability of new-starts to emerge into the business world. ii. Contribution to the state welfare system is mandatory – both legally and morally. What about healthy strong individuals who happen to be unemployed and are seeking work? I.e. the 20% of under-25s in the UK and US who are doing everything they can to find work and being punished for the recklessness of their parents’ generation? I agree that the welfare system ought not to be abused but that is not an argument against the necessity of a functioning welfare system - we have measures in place to detect and rectify abuse of the welfare system – if that system goes awry then it is a problem with the implementation and monitoring, not with the conceptual justification for the system. I cannot answer this question for any particular individual citizen, because there will be extreme cases who would have been better off - in the short term, at least - as an individual, not contributing to the welfare system (i.e. those who are wealthy and never have to rely on state welfare in any shape or form). There will also be extremes at the other end of the spectrum who would be worse off (or, frankly, dead) were it not for the continual support provided by the state welfare system – i.e. the impoverished, economic dependents. However, I would argue that the average citizen is, on the whole, better off by contributing to the welfare system and receiving aid in their time of need – so, on the whole, they are not harmed by contributing, so long as those contributions are sustainable. Don't forget also that even if you are a rich individual, you will rely on the health and financial wellbeing of your employees and servents - if they fail to be able to survive, and their entire class fails to be able to survive, then your entire way of life is endangered. I am reminded of the bats that remember which other bats did and did not give them a bit of blood meal when they could not find food for themselves in hard times, and who then respond to the future blood meal requests of the latter according to their previous experiences i.e. reciprocal altruism. You don’t want to be one of the bats that did not give blood meal. But it is not black and white: any given individual will tend to give and take depending on their circumstances which are liable to change over time. In this way, the system is self-sustaining. Tri

TAR, Plants are not sentient and so it is not immoral to use them for culinary or medicinal purposes. Animals, of course, are sentient – and so the moral landscape becomes more complicated. I would argue that there is nothing inherently immoral about sacrificing animals for subsequent use as a dietary component or as part of medical research so long as: i. The animal is sacrificed in a humane way involving no pain or pain that would last less than a second (e.g. instantaneous killing as happens at abattoirs or sacrificing once the animal is under anaesthesia and so cannot feel pain as practiced in medical research institutes). ii. The animal is to be used to meet an essential requirement e.g. as food, or in medical research Killing animals for recreational purposes is not moral as it contravenes point (ii) above and possibly also point (i), depending on the nature of the ‘sport’. It is, of course, entirely possible to refrain from eating meat – so, it is not necessarily compulsory that one prioritise one’s own wellbeing over that of other organisms. *That rather depends on one's toilet habits Heeding one’s own needs is necessary for life – this, however, need not be at the expense of others. Vastness is not an excuse for ignorance. For example, it is impossible to interact with and know every single human being on the planet – but if one human were to be selected at random and you were to meet the person, the chances are that you would already have a fairly good idea of how he/she would think and feel about certain things. Humanity is vast (by the standards of the individual) but ignorance does not necessarily follow. Perhaps because America has and does contribute substantially to the total global greenhouse gas emissions – China may well turn ‘greener’ once their economy has developed further. This is true – but if everybody abided by the maxim, ‘an it harm none, do as ye will’ then nobody would have to impose their will on others. I just realised that I am doing that thing you mentioned: extrapolating my own version of reality and assuming that the world will change its ways to fit my version. Nonetheless, even if it is difficult to implement, the maxim remains the best possible guide, I think, and so remains true on a conceptual level at least. Besides, there is a great deal of co-operation and mutual consideration of boundaries already existing in the world – so perhaps it is not so outlandish an ideal. Of course you do, they are your gene-perpetuation machines I have to disagree with you here: humanity as a whole is worth prioritising. In this sense, any endeavour that will benefit humanity universally (e.g. advances in medical research) is worth pursuing – even if the rewards are longer-term and esoteric. Tri

CharonY, Absolutely, I agree with all of your points made here. Any time an individual's autonomy in determining their own destiny is undermined by others (either well-intentioned family members, peer pressure, societal judgment, and amorphous agents such as socioeconomic background), it is a regrettable occurrence. Hot-housing of children by pushy and well-connected socioeconomically priveleged parents may be the most efficient means of extinguishing that child's interest in the subject or occupation. The moment a parent intimates that they will not feel proud of their son/daughter unless (s)he pursues a certain occupation (e.g. the field of Medicine as passed, almost inexorably, from father to son) is, I think, the moment they have failed as a parent. The child may have had a natural inclination towards Medicine anyhow - but it is the parent's role, I think, to expose children to as many different potential occupational options as possible and to subsequently support their child in whichever field the child decides upon for him- or her-self. Tri

Thanks to Marnix for this one, I miss talking to him. An inbred cat:

Ophi, while I appreciate your point that Johnson's championing of the intellectually superior but socioeconomically deprived, is venerable - my main two points of contention are: i. We should be helping all socioeconomically deprived people - the intellectually gifted, mediocre and challenged - to prosper and to succeed in life, in the context of whatever the deprived perceive 'success' to be. We should be helping all individuals to fulfill a role in society that they are capable of doing and are genuinely happy to do. Mutual respect ought to pervade the priveleged and underpriveleged with all recognising that, irrespective of income, they are all united in the fact that they are contributing in a positive way to society. This would go a long way towards ending class warfare. ii. While I agree with you that it is desirable to remove the talented unerpriveleged from certain aspects of their respective backgrounds, e.g. the negative attitudes towards education and the sheer lack of resources, I certainly would not condone alienating people from their roots and from the spirit of their original community. Their original community and culture will have formed an integral part of that person's identity. That working class camaraderie is not contigent upon one's subsequent material fortune in life. There are certain life lessons and cultural treasures that result from the impoverishment of the working and dependent classes - the mere fact of having little means that the sacrifices one makes for others and the community are all the more meaningful. Do you know what I mean? Wherever I go in life I would not like to think that when I return to my hometown I would be unable to relate to its people because some poxy circumstance or money has ruined the one sympathy that is worth anything. In this sense, I sincerely hope that the intelligent underpriveleged do not 'overcome their background'.

I love it when television presenters lose their composure - Jeremy Vine <3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEU4WDZII5Q

Perhaps. I should probably read the original research article in full rather than the news feature on its own Maybe they essentially re-allocate to reproductive functions (production of gametes, the physical process of copulation, attraction of the female) energy that would otherwise have been safeguarded for survival functions (anabolism, repair, innate immunity). Drosophila are gross http://cshprotocols.cshlp.org/content/2007/10/pdb.prot4847.full

TAR, I do not think that it is helpful to divide humanity into tribes according to nationality or to any other demographic factor. Doing so results in an us/them mentality and the attitude that "we can treat those people however we want to because they are not one of us". It comes back to what you said about expanding the sense of self until others are included in that feeling and to hurt another would be to hurt oneself. Humans must recognise that they are one and the same - so then we may go by our shared identity and choose courses of action which harm neither ourselves or others. Lofty ideals have a tendency to come down to reality with a crash. Humans do have negative attributes and sometimes become angry/violent/traitors/infidels/etc. To ignore the realities of human nature and to focus on a high brow morality is to misunderstand the nature of humans and so to be left defenceless when one faces the consequences of the negative attributes of oneself or others. By understanding human psychology we are more likely to be able to modify behaviour in the best interests of all. Please don't misunderstand me, I am not advocating social Darwinism, although I am arguing that the basis of our morality and certainly our "gut instinct" morality is the biological result of Darwinian natural selection. My version of morality, in principle is simple, in practice is complicated: i. All sentient beings, being conscious of suffering, deserve a high degree of respect (unless they harm other sentient beings) including the rights to life and to control their own destiny ii. Any course of action, in order to be permissible, must not harm oneself or others Tri

Possibly - I guess it is a balance between the effects on lifespan of abstinence versus the effects on lifespan of sexual intercourse (e.g. STIs and STDs). Even if you are in a long-term monogamous relationship, there is no guarantee that your partner is not harbouring an STI, and even if you performed a Western blot on their blood sample and saw with your own eyes a negative result, many infections have a time window before they will become apparent by testing. Just my paranoia But in this context, masturbation would be a safer mode of relieving sexual tension than intercourse.

Psychology is a research-intensive field of Science. Look how much I'm laughing

Abstinence causes lifespan issues in Drosophila

Exactly! If the effect of environment on education and employment prospects were not so great then we would not see News stories like this one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-25136472 Given enough time and financial investment (and familial connections), even stupid rich people will eventually out-compete intelligent poor people. It is possible for those of low socioeconomic standing to secure a high quality education and lucrative employment but it is far more difficult for them to do so. The working classes must necessarily prioritise survival - not gamble their small amounts of wealth on a higher education that may or may not pay off in the long run.

Well, I didn't think it would be possible to despise Boris Johnson any more than I already did, and then he goes and says this: The IQ statistics are fact but we ought to be helping all, irrespective of intellectual ability, to mesh into society by contributing to the human endaevour in a role to which they are suited and contented. People ought not be disrespected just because they score in the lower range of an IQ test. Boardroom greed leads to the inefficient allocation of resources and the over-resourcing of some at the expense of others. Greed leads to inequality and numerous academic studies have shown that socioeconomic inequality is a driving force for unhappiness in society. Spiritual worth! So now Johnny is a decider of spiritual worth! Funny - from his comments, I wouldn't wish to touch his spirit with a barge-pole. i. God does not exist, so 'God-given' makes no more sense than 'Leprechaun-given' ii. Innate differences in ability do exist, but this is not a reason to promote societal divide into the haves-and-have nots. The division is a result of right wing policies being implemented by his very own party! IQ and raw ability sometimes does not even correlate with socioeconomic standing. Feelings of envy actually make people feel unhappy and are symptomatic of a real or perceived injustice in resource allocation and/or self-worth. Envy is not something that should be promoted - much less by a person in a position of responsibility. 'Keeping up with the Joneses' and greed are the two attitudes that fuelled our country's consumer credit culture - that ultimately brought the country to its knees. Inequality breeds class warfare and results in most people alternately wishing to be of a higher social class while simultaneously feeling vitriol against the priveleged who will not marry into them or accept them socially. So they go out and buy junk that they cannot afford in reality in the hopes that others might deem them of higher social standing. Well - I don't have much material wealth but I don't give a fuck. I would rather socialise with people who accept me for who I am not what I have. Did anybody stop to consider that perhaps even the most able people of working class background do not want to overcome their original culture? It is possible to be a self-made millionaire and yet to sympathise wholly with the underpriveleged and to wish to keep alive that working class spirit that is characterised by a camaraderie that is extinguished once you dip your toe into the upper middle class world.

“To curry votes mayhap?” What do you mean here? Your message, that the capitalist systems are the result of democratic processes and so are mandated, was received. While this is true to some extent, the non-black/white reality is that we are living in indirect democracies in which the electorate are only able to exert a measure of power by voting for or against options put forth by the elected representatives. Moreover, citizens must choose come election time between whole parties and manifestos (which may or may not be borne out in reality). For example, party A may stand for capitalism, protection of the environment and pro-fox hunting. Party B may stand for communism, prioritisation of economic wellbeing over the environment, and anti-fox hunting. If I am an ardent communist who believes in protection of the environment and am pro-fox hunting, there is no one party that will adequately represent my wishes. I may choose party A since this fulfils most of my criteria, but the election of a capitalist candidate does not reflect my true wishes. Most seats in the UK are safe anyhow and the effect is to increase the relative worth of those voters sitting in marginal seats. This would not be the case under PR – under PR, number of seats are directly proportional to votes and so are a true reflection of the wishes of the electorate. Hence – I would advocate PR over FPTP. Look, politically I am left-liberal. I agree that our countries out to be democratic but the changes I would seek would be to make the democracy direct rather than the current indirect democracy. PR not FPTP. Um, I know this. I am still advocating democracy – direct democracy. The majority of the country are either working class, lower middle class or dependent on social welfare. If direct democracy were a reality, the overwhelming majority of our elected representatives would be leftists. To the Deuce with the 1%! i. More people than you expect may boycott the exploitative business ii. The customers would not have to hunt around for bargains like that if they were being paid fairly for their labour. That’s the point of capitalism – nobody on the bottom rungs is paid fairly for their labour nor receives fair working conditions. The CEO fat cats receive more than they deserve – the profit feeds upwards and stagnates there until the lower rungs can no longer support the demands of the throned ones. iii. Ergo we need to transform to an economic system that pays and treats employees fairly. I can just imagine how outraged you are going to feel about this. I can hear you now. “Fair working conditions! Outrageous! Simply preposterous!” Hahaha. No I pay the amount set by government which is approximately 1/3 of my income. This level proves sustainable so I wouldn’t want it any other way.

LOL

I actually agree with this approach but depending on the level of study e.g. undergraduate practicals, since they are so supervision-heavy, require fixed timetables and some spoon-feeding of information. The more autonomy provided the better though.

Oh, I see. Perhaps you could have them work in the Labs alternate morning and afternoon sessions interspersed with meal times - some people prefer to work in the mornings while some find it easier to concentrate in the afternoons/evenings. E.g. Monday 10am-1pm Tuesday 2pm-5pm Wednesday 10am-1pm Thursday 2pm-5pm Friday 10am-1pm Assessments could be provided on a regular basis e.g. weekly.