Monthly Archives: April 2013

by

Is any death different from the other

Fellow sufferers, this post was inspired by a post I read today, the sacrament of remembering.

First I don’t mean disrespect for the dead.

Second, I know many people fear death.

As an observer, I have noticed that some deaths are treated as more important than others. They get more news coverage, they are talked of for several days and innuendos are made about what was likely to be the cause of death. While there are those people whose death go unnoticed, unannounced, people who mattered to some family, a breadwinner, a father, a brother, a mother, a sister and so on. Why do we do this?

On the day of the Boston bombing where 3 people died, a total of 57 or more died in Iraq of bomb related deaths, this didn’t get as much coverage. Have we put a price to those we pay tribute to? Are there lives we consider more important than others?

Why has some death have to occupy the public psyche for so long, that the media bombards us with the goings on of the dead that our lives for sometime becomes, so to speak, living for the dead. Flags are flown at half mast, a day of mourning is declared, speeches written and analysts elbow each other for space to give us their two cents on the issue.

Since, each day so many people die, shouldn’t the flags then all fly at half mast or 3/4 mast all year round to pay tribute to all those who go before us?

I rest my case here!

 

by

Will the sexes ever be reconciled

Fellow sufferers, a few days ago we looked at Arthur Schopenhauer’s views of the fair sex and most if not all of those who read the post found them to be wanting. Whether it was the dominant view then or are his personal views, it appears the general agreement is that he was wrong.

In a chit-chat with one of my friends, I was told, in majority of women’s opinion, men behave like 5 year olds or rather it appears to them that we reach maturity at age 5 and don’t get any better.

On the other hand, while having a similar discussion with the menfolk, some of them think women are mad or mature babies and should be handled with care.

Lastly, there is that group of men and women who hold the view that we are all equal.

Given the above, I have a few questions

  1. What is the extent of equality being sought or advocated?
  2. Are the sexes really equal in any sense?
  3. At what point does an observation or opinion made regarding the sexes become misogyny or sexist?

 

by

Blogs the boss likes

Two blogger buddies nominated me for awards to which I say thank you. Having said that, the awards have rules but as most of you already know, I have a slight apathy to rules. However, in the same spirit, I would like to introduce some blogs that I follow in no given order. This list is however not conclusive and doesn’t mean that your blog isn’t appreciated. It would probably take the whole night if I were to mention all the blogs I follow. I must say from the onset then, that you all, followers and readers alike that you are highly appreciated.

I hope my friends who nominated me find this post as a sufficient response to the awards. Thank you!

A guy without boxers who nominated me is a fine gentleman, true to his nature. He asks the most important question, why has the superstitious naked ape[ as J. Zande calls us] moved so far away from its nature. Thanks very much buddy!

My second nominee is La Hacienda, a fine fellow who lives in Greece that place of classical antiquity. He must be walking in the footsteps of the great Hellenes!

In discussions with my friends about call girls, many people argue that it is wrong to be one claiming there are parts of the body that shouldn’t be used to make money. Well, honest courtesan makes a case for call girls that is difficult to ignore.

There is Ark, who was formerly a king but is now just called Ark which explains why he oscillates between attacking religion and writing about cakes :-D.

My dreamer friend, whose poems tells the story of her travels, her life and the beautiful sunrise from her apartment window.

Livelysceptic for being both lively and sceptical.

Sophiebowns for her captivating stories

Alastairs for pleasant photography.

My longtime friend Club Schadenfreude, the boss, for a dose of geology, idiocy bashing, beer, food and I can’t remember recipes for what else.

I don’t think this fellow is an idiot, but she calls herself  the modernidiot.

Violetwisp which should have just been Violetwhip, she does a lot of whipping.

Marylin at Things I want to tell my mother for her very nice posts.

This list would be incomplete without in his own image, a site dedicated to a critical analysis of the bible coupled with humor and a lot of history lessons from whom I have learnt a lot.

and a friend to this blog of longstanding Daniela.

Special mention is paid to real real me, Debilis whose blog is dedicated to apologetics, and of course Caroline.

by

Ladies please help me here

I read a passage in one of the essays of Arthur Schopenhauer that I would like all of you my friends to give me your opinions on.

He is writing on honour and identifies three types;

  1. civic honour
  2. official honour and
  3. sexual honour.

It would only be fair to define what he means by honour so that later on we don’t get into the issue of definitions. He writes honour is

on its objective side other people’s opinion of what we are worth; on its subjective side it is the respect we pay to this opinion.

He adds that honour really rests upon a utilitarian basis. In looking at sexual honour he divides male and female honour and says female honour is more important than the two because, he writes,  the most essential feature in woman’s life is her relation to man.

He continues to write

Female honor is the general opinion in regard to a girl that she is pure, and in regard to a wife that she is faithful.

And this is based on the following considerations

Women depend upon men in all the relations of life; men upon women, it might be said, in one only. So an arrangement is made for mutual interdependence–man undertaking responsibility for all woman’s needs and also for the children that spring from their union–an arrangement on which is based the welfare of the whole female race. 

He says to do this women have

to band together with a show of _esprit de corps_, and present one undivided front to their common enemy, man,–who possesses all the good things of the earth, in virtue of his superior physical and intellectual power,–in order to lay siege to and conquer him, and so get possession of him and a share of those good things. 

How does he propose women do this?

To this end the honor of all women depends upon the enforcement of the rule that no woman should give herself to a man except in marriage, in order that every man may be forced, as it were, to surrender and ally himself with a woman; by this arrangement provision is made for the whole of the female race. 

He continues on this path by saying

Any girl who commits a breach of the rule betrays the whole female race, because its welfare would be destroyed if every woman were to do likewise; so she is cast out with shame as one who has lost her honor. 

He says it is the same doom that befalls a married woman. He writes thus

The same doom is awarded to a woman who breaks the marriage tie; for in so doing she is false to the terms upon which the man capitulated; and as her conduct is such as to frighten other men from making a similar surrender, it imperils the welfare of all her sisters. 

He says such a breach is punishable and can lead as well to loss of civic honour. And continues to write on this loss

This is why we minimize the shame of a girl, but not of a wife; because, in the former case, marriage can restore honor, while in the latter, no atonement can be made for the breach of contract.

In the interest of brevity let us briefly consider what he says concerning male honour.

He writes

It is their _esprit de corps_, which demands that, once a man has made that surrender of himself in marriage which is so advantageous to his conqueror, he shall take care that the terms of the treaty are maintained; both in order that the agreement itself may lose none of its force by the permission of any laxity in its observance, and that men, having given up everything, may, at least, be assured of their bargain, namely, exclusive possession. 

He writes that if a woman breaches the marriage tie, the man can punish her by separation. But he says if he condones her

his fellowmen cry shame upon him; but the shame in this case is not nearly so foul as that of the woman who has lost her honor; the stain is by no means of so deep a dye, because a man’s relation to woman is subordinate to many other and more important affairs in his life.

He writes at the end of the chapter on sexual honour,

…. men’s honour originates in esprit de corps.

by

Does Christianity have a redeeming feature?

Well, I know there are Christians who are going to disagree and that is really welcome. Having said that, I will go ahead to write why I think Christianity as a religion or a worldview whatever its adherents want to call it, has no redeeming feature. I will just give a few examples and hopefully we can develop the list together.

1. It is life denying

In the old testament, women are treated as impure after childbirth, that they need cleansing. They tell us man is born sinful [I know the evangelicals are moving away from the doctrine of original sin]. They condemn you at birth and at the grave. They tell you, rather their greatest prophet, Jeebus tells you that to be angry is as good as murder, he criminalizes sensual thoughts. He, Jeebus, even curses a tree out of season!

2. Death is the modus operandi

In all situations where their god has felt like redeeming humanity, a people he condemns in the beginning of Genesis, he has chosen blood as his method. The difference has always been in numbers, but death all the same.

3. Their supposed god has favorites

In Genesis, he chooses the gifts of Abel over those of Cain without any reason. The christian apologist insists their supposed god is all loving. Where was the love when he chose the sons of Jacob as a special group, where was the love when he killed the child born of David and Uriah’s wife, where was the love when he stopped the sun for 6 hours? so that Joshua could continue butchering, where was the love when his prophet killed all the prophets of Baal?

4. It is anti- secularism, anti- intellectualism 

There is no verse in the bible that encourages doubt and inquiry. It requires you to submit to authority and nothing more. All its laws are not earth based, they are meant to please the heavens. Nowhere is dissent preached, nowhere is independence of mind advocated, it calls people sheep and its adherents are truly sheeples[many if not all of them]!

**********************************************************************************************************************

As a bonus, there is a piece on free will over at WEIT that some of you maybe interested in looking at.

Jim Al-Khalili mistakes unpredictability for free will

by

A word of advice to fellow bloggers

I don’t know whether this could be said, giving myself an air confidence or something of that sort. I will however go ahead and say it. What am talking about here, is attracting blog followers. A friend of mine says, the followers you have is directly proportional to the effort  you put in visiting different blogs, I don’t know about you but here I go with the words of Schopenhauer when he talks about fame and honour. He writes concerning the difficulty of winning fame thus

….the difficulty of winning fame by any given work stands in reverse ratio to the number of people who are likely to read it; and hence it is so much harder to become famous as the author of a learned work than as a writer who aspires only to amuse. 

No am not looking down upon entertainers, just saying

it is hardest of all in the case of philosophical works, because the result at which they aim is rather vague, and at the same time, useless from a material point of view; they appeal chiefly to readers who are working on the same lines themselves.

And those of you atheist bloggers, who write on atheism and philosophy will agree with the above assessment. When I visit my friend archy’s site, all the comments I have seen have been by people I ‘know‘ to be atheists. Maybe some theists visit, as they visit all our blogs and like posts, but I think all of you will agree that apart from the random theist intent on just dissenting for no other reason than that he can, most of those who regularly read and comment on your blogs are likely members of the choir!