Many of us seem to believe that we are here on this earth for a purpose and that we are part of a grand design. Why?
What if we are here because we just happened - unplanned: Maybe we just 'bubbled up' gradually over the aeons of time.
I hasten to add that I'm merely expressing my opinions and beliefs here and I can't pretend to substantiate those beliefs scientifically, any more than can a theist or creationist substantiate their claims.
I don’t believe in God. I think maybe there’s a ‘Life Force’ that is a nebulous energy field that we and all matter are all literally part of and interact with.
So what about creation? Well, I think there was no creator. Who or what would have created a creator? I think everything just is. Perhaps existence of some sort of energy or matter is inevitable.
Can there ever be such a thing as nothing? I mean, empty space is not strictly empty – it’s full of various subatomic gas particles or whatever.
So I think there is always something - there always has to be something by default and that existence doesn’t require a creator.
I believe that we find our own sense of purpose and meaning in life simply by making it as comfortable and pleasant as possible.
Saturday, 25 October 2008
What kind of Education for the 21st century?
I believe we need a thorough overhaul of our education system. Yes, there should be plenty of emphasis on spelling, mental arithmetic and learning tables but surely in addition to vocational study, there’s a need to take a more holistic approach that gives equal importance to the personal development of more fully rounded individuals.
This means the nurturing of our young to become citizens who are capable of thinking for themselves and not being too easily influenced by government propaganda or some of the media nonsense. Many of us don’t realise just how much the establishment elite and the big corporations control our lives via the media to serve their interests and maintain the status quo, regardless of which government is in power. I’m not talking conspiracy theories here – it’s more of an insidious complicity between the ruling elite and the rest of us. It doesn’t much matter which of the main political parties is in power - big business, with its media links, calls the shots. All three main parties rely on business backers to gain power and to stay in power: So how can we ever logically expect a truly radical party that represents the best interests of the nation as a whole?
In short, I think a healthy society needs people who are prepared to question everything around them, be it on political, social, economic or religious issues.
Parents vary in their ability or inclination to encourage their children to ask questions about life around them (maybe due to the pressures of modern living) and so it is vitally important that schools fill this gap.
Education should not just be about facts but also about the testing of the validity of facts.
We also need to be encouraged to feel more empathy for others and be a little more inclined to self-scrutiny i.e. to examine our own biases and motives before we condemn others. Perhaps, above all, we need to recognize the biased information we often receive via the media which is overwhelmingly influenced by politics and big business. I would question the assumption made by many of us that we are an enlightened society. In making comparisons with several other countries of the world, we probably are relatively enlightened but we should not be so smug as to think we are continually making progress as a culture merely because, like America, we are becoming more technically advanced. Technological development can never be a substitute for human development. Technical progress is important, of course, but it depends on where the technology is concentrated and how it benefits mankind in the long run. For example, is building and promoting more advanced and deadlier weapons technology really progress? Do we really need enough weapons to destroy the world over and over again? I don’t think so.
Instead of being educated to get on with people around the world, too often, we seem to be educated to seek confrontation. Politicians would have us believe that wars are just a nasty reality, but is that perhaps a self-fulfilling prophecy rather than an inevitable fact of life in this world of corrupt and greedy power?
I believe all schools should introduce more and more philosophical discussions into lessons. For instance History is a subject full of myths and matters of conjecture and open to different interpretations. Instead of just feeding students with hard ‘facts’ (which are sometimes myths), students should be encouraged to form their own opinions from a wide body of evidence. They should also be taught how other subjects tie in with History and interrelate.
There is so much we can learn from history and yet our politicians, in their arrogance, so often choose not to learn.
Education should not be used merely to produce work fodder for the economy with the individual’s interests being of secondary importance. Our school children need to be offered a broad and imaginative enough education to hold their interest. Unfortunately, it seems to me, both teachers and pupils are unable to achieve this because they have more and more pressure put on them by constant tests, government tinkering and obsession with targets. These targets are often virtually useless and seem to be a means of making the government look good via the "spin department".
Education should be conducted in a happy and interesting environment and can only be achieved if pupils are allowed to learn at their own speed and not made to feel they are failures just because they don’t pass every test that comes along.
Education should put less emphasis on status and qualifications for professional careers.
I’m sure a good plumber can be at least as, if not more important, as some over-paid management or human affairs consultant, for example.
This means the nurturing of our young to become citizens who are capable of thinking for themselves and not being too easily influenced by government propaganda or some of the media nonsense. Many of us don’t realise just how much the establishment elite and the big corporations control our lives via the media to serve their interests and maintain the status quo, regardless of which government is in power. I’m not talking conspiracy theories here – it’s more of an insidious complicity between the ruling elite and the rest of us. It doesn’t much matter which of the main political parties is in power - big business, with its media links, calls the shots. All three main parties rely on business backers to gain power and to stay in power: So how can we ever logically expect a truly radical party that represents the best interests of the nation as a whole?
In short, I think a healthy society needs people who are prepared to question everything around them, be it on political, social, economic or religious issues.
Parents vary in their ability or inclination to encourage their children to ask questions about life around them (maybe due to the pressures of modern living) and so it is vitally important that schools fill this gap.
Education should not just be about facts but also about the testing of the validity of facts.
We also need to be encouraged to feel more empathy for others and be a little more inclined to self-scrutiny i.e. to examine our own biases and motives before we condemn others. Perhaps, above all, we need to recognize the biased information we often receive via the media which is overwhelmingly influenced by politics and big business. I would question the assumption made by many of us that we are an enlightened society. In making comparisons with several other countries of the world, we probably are relatively enlightened but we should not be so smug as to think we are continually making progress as a culture merely because, like America, we are becoming more technically advanced. Technological development can never be a substitute for human development. Technical progress is important, of course, but it depends on where the technology is concentrated and how it benefits mankind in the long run. For example, is building and promoting more advanced and deadlier weapons technology really progress? Do we really need enough weapons to destroy the world over and over again? I don’t think so.
Instead of being educated to get on with people around the world, too often, we seem to be educated to seek confrontation. Politicians would have us believe that wars are just a nasty reality, but is that perhaps a self-fulfilling prophecy rather than an inevitable fact of life in this world of corrupt and greedy power?
I believe all schools should introduce more and more philosophical discussions into lessons. For instance History is a subject full of myths and matters of conjecture and open to different interpretations. Instead of just feeding students with hard ‘facts’ (which are sometimes myths), students should be encouraged to form their own opinions from a wide body of evidence. They should also be taught how other subjects tie in with History and interrelate.
There is so much we can learn from history and yet our politicians, in their arrogance, so often choose not to learn.
Education should not be used merely to produce work fodder for the economy with the individual’s interests being of secondary importance. Our school children need to be offered a broad and imaginative enough education to hold their interest. Unfortunately, it seems to me, both teachers and pupils are unable to achieve this because they have more and more pressure put on them by constant tests, government tinkering and obsession with targets. These targets are often virtually useless and seem to be a means of making the government look good via the "spin department".
Education should be conducted in a happy and interesting environment and can only be achieved if pupils are allowed to learn at their own speed and not made to feel they are failures just because they don’t pass every test that comes along.
Education should put less emphasis on status and qualifications for professional careers.
I’m sure a good plumber can be at least as, if not more important, as some over-paid management or human affairs consultant, for example.
Friday, 24 October 2008
A Few Thoughts on Morals
I think it’s instinctive in a normal healthy human being, if they are unspoiled by the pressures of our artificial existence, to act in a moral way with or without the guiding hand of a God figure. Surely, if we behave in a certain way because God or anyone else says so, then that is not a moral action – it is an action that we perform because we are told to do so but not necessarily because we feel it is right. We have our own man-made laws that are designed to curb any clearly unacceptable behaviour that harms others and I think it is our responsibility to hone and fine tune these laws to reflect broad justice and civilized behaviour across society as a whole.
Maybe the question of morals is a bit like being ill. If you are ill you just want to get better – you don’t need a purpose – your desire to get better is overwhelmingly powerful.
I think, in the same way, ‘good’ is better than ‘bad’ and so I think we naturally gravitate toward goodness – we just need to recognise when our soul is sick.
The ancient Greek philosopher, Socrates, apparently believed that if an individual is armed with knowledge, they will behave in a temperate or 'good' way. Socrates has been criticised for being too simplistic or maybe downright wrong but I think he was essentially correct. It all depends on how we interpret this 'knowledge' and I suppose it depends on how absolutist we want to be.
Critics would probably say that bad people do bad things simply because they have bad natures.
Then we have to ask: How much of our nature is down to inborn traits or to societal, environmental and upringing influences? I would guess that all these factors come into play - but to what extent and in what ratio? Who knows?
I reckon that if an individual is properly educated to realise the importance and rewards of reciprocating favourably with others, then essentially, they will not behave badly. In theory, of course, this depends on other interdependent factors like the need to ensure that we are all nurtured to maintain our self-esteem in the face of the tough reality of human competition. This is for another topic, but it surely requires the recognition that most of us have various talents and contributions to make to society - what we lose on one, we can gain on another. We should not feel too important nor too unimportant in the scheme of things.
Maybe the question of morals is a bit like being ill. If you are ill you just want to get better – you don’t need a purpose – your desire to get better is overwhelmingly powerful.
I think, in the same way, ‘good’ is better than ‘bad’ and so I think we naturally gravitate toward goodness – we just need to recognise when our soul is sick.
The ancient Greek philosopher, Socrates, apparently believed that if an individual is armed with knowledge, they will behave in a temperate or 'good' way. Socrates has been criticised for being too simplistic or maybe downright wrong but I think he was essentially correct. It all depends on how we interpret this 'knowledge' and I suppose it depends on how absolutist we want to be.
Critics would probably say that bad people do bad things simply because they have bad natures.
Then we have to ask: How much of our nature is down to inborn traits or to societal, environmental and upringing influences? I would guess that all these factors come into play - but to what extent and in what ratio? Who knows?
I reckon that if an individual is properly educated to realise the importance and rewards of reciprocating favourably with others, then essentially, they will not behave badly. In theory, of course, this depends on other interdependent factors like the need to ensure that we are all nurtured to maintain our self-esteem in the face of the tough reality of human competition. This is for another topic, but it surely requires the recognition that most of us have various talents and contributions to make to society - what we lose on one, we can gain on another. We should not feel too important nor too unimportant in the scheme of things.
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
What is Intelligence?
Intelligence means many things to many people. Is wisdom intelligence? I suppose so, but not necessarily to a high degree - though it implies a certain amount of rationality. Wisdom is being sensible, a quality that is based on experience, but nevertheless subjective for all that – it's as much a quality of emotional intelligence as anything. Intelligence and wisdom seem not to be mutually exclusive - there seem to be a good number of intelligent people doing pretty stupid things. Undoubtedly the ability to work out maths problems quickly and accurately is a form of intelligence - a kind of intelligence that can be measured and difficult to dispute. I think many of us would agree that an ability to quickly grasp the reality of a situation is an important feature of intelligence - but of course, that assumes that there is a consensus on what that reality actually is. Another feature of intelligence might be the ability to extrapolate already known facts to infer conclusions to new or similar problems.
Surely intelligence isn't just about quick thinking - it's also about depth and breadth of thinking and the awareness of the many possible ramifications of a certain course of action or idea.
The power of reasoning is a sort of over-arching, all encompassing quality many of us might ascribe to intelligence - but paradoxically, intelligence can be combined with irrational behaviour.
What do we mean by rationality? The dictionary provides us with a definition of two strands: 1. logical thought processes. 2. sensible thoughts. Surely these two definitions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Logic is about reasoning; but surely reasoning can be faulty and therefore not necessarily sensible.
We need to accept that the views of someone whose beliefs are opposed to (or even hostile to) our own are nevertheless often well thought out and therefore, in that sense, rational. For example, the more ‘tender-hearted’ among us will tend have more liberal and socially aware and compassionate answers to both global and domestic problems: Those of the tougher, more hawkish disposition, will see life as a Darwinian fight for survival of the fittest and expect the less fortunate among us to ‘pull ourselves together’. I think it's worth noting here, however, that the scientist and admirer of Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, seems very much opposed to Darwinian natural selection or 'Social Darwinism' being applied as a 'business model' for humankind.
Maybe these tougher minded, perhaps more adventurous, people actually enjoy a state of confrontation and conflict in their world. Maybe the world is like that. For example, maybe the neo-cons are quite happy, untroubled and unrepentant over their intervention in Iraq and the state of affairs they have brought about there or exacerbated.
Maybe your interpretation of logic depends on your empathy with and threshold of sensitivity to feelings and needs of other beings.
I’m being a ‘Devil’s Advocate’ here – Personally, I naturally lean toward the need for a more compassionate view of life.
The trouble is, ‘rationality’ it seems to me, is a highly subjective definition.
Anyway, within the framework of everyday life, the general idea of irrationality i.e. of being silly, stupid and without logic, is still supported by a broad consensus.
I’m not sure to what degree rationality can be taught. However, I certainly think that we can and should be taught more about how our logic is often skewed by our negative emotions like greed. Our logic is also skewed, I think, by delusions caused by our various insecurities. Then, last but not least, is the stress and overwork factor which prevents us from stepping back and examining our lives and getting in touch with our true selves.
We just need to observe the behaviour and decisions of some of our global corporations and political leaders, their aides and think-tanks, to see what close bed fellows intelligence and irrationality can be.
Surely intelligence isn't just about quick thinking - it's also about depth and breadth of thinking and the awareness of the many possible ramifications of a certain course of action or idea.
The power of reasoning is a sort of over-arching, all encompassing quality many of us might ascribe to intelligence - but paradoxically, intelligence can be combined with irrational behaviour.
What do we mean by rationality? The dictionary provides us with a definition of two strands: 1. logical thought processes. 2. sensible thoughts. Surely these two definitions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Logic is about reasoning; but surely reasoning can be faulty and therefore not necessarily sensible.
We need to accept that the views of someone whose beliefs are opposed to (or even hostile to) our own are nevertheless often well thought out and therefore, in that sense, rational. For example, the more ‘tender-hearted’ among us will tend have more liberal and socially aware and compassionate answers to both global and domestic problems: Those of the tougher, more hawkish disposition, will see life as a Darwinian fight for survival of the fittest and expect the less fortunate among us to ‘pull ourselves together’. I think it's worth noting here, however, that the scientist and admirer of Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, seems very much opposed to Darwinian natural selection or 'Social Darwinism' being applied as a 'business model' for humankind.
Maybe these tougher minded, perhaps more adventurous, people actually enjoy a state of confrontation and conflict in their world. Maybe the world is like that. For example, maybe the neo-cons are quite happy, untroubled and unrepentant over their intervention in Iraq and the state of affairs they have brought about there or exacerbated.
Maybe your interpretation of logic depends on your empathy with and threshold of sensitivity to feelings and needs of other beings.
I’m being a ‘Devil’s Advocate’ here – Personally, I naturally lean toward the need for a more compassionate view of life.
The trouble is, ‘rationality’ it seems to me, is a highly subjective definition.
Anyway, within the framework of everyday life, the general idea of irrationality i.e. of being silly, stupid and without logic, is still supported by a broad consensus.
I’m not sure to what degree rationality can be taught. However, I certainly think that we can and should be taught more about how our logic is often skewed by our negative emotions like greed. Our logic is also skewed, I think, by delusions caused by our various insecurities. Then, last but not least, is the stress and overwork factor which prevents us from stepping back and examining our lives and getting in touch with our true selves.
We just need to observe the behaviour and decisions of some of our global corporations and political leaders, their aides and think-tanks, to see what close bed fellows intelligence and irrationality can be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
