Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:48:42 +0000 wez@totalf1.com (TotalF1.com Forums) IP.Blog 60
I have a new favourite Shakespeare quote.I took some analysis from the internet to save me typing it up.

HAMLET
What's the news?

ROSENCRANTZ
None, my lord, but that the world's grown honest.

HAMLET
Then is doomsday near: but your news is not true.
Let me question more in particular: what have you,
my good friends, deserved at the hands of fortune,
that she sends you to prison hither?

GUILDENSTERN
Prison, my lord!

HAMLET
Denmark's a prison.

ROSENCRANTZ
Then is the world one.

HAMLET
A goodly one; in which there are many confines,
wards and dungeons, Denmark being one o' the worst.

ROSENCRANTZ
We think not so, my lord.

HAMLET
Why, then, 'tis none to you; for there is nothing
either good or bad, but thinking makes it so: to me
it is a prison.

ROSENCRANTZ
Why then, your ambition makes it one; 'tis too
narrow for your mind.

HAMLET
O God, I could be bounded in a nut shell and count
myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I
have bad dreams.

GUILDENSTERN
Which dreams indeed are ambition, for the very
substance of the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream.

HAMLET
A dream itself is but a shadow.

ROSENCRANTZ
Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a
quality that it is but a shadow's shadow.

HAMLET
Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and
outstretched heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we
to the court? for, by my fay, I cannot reason.

According to enotes, 'what brings Rosencrantz and Guildenstern—two of Hamlet's acquaintances from the university—to Denmark isn't Lady Fortune but, as Hamlet suspects, King Claudius. Claudius is worried about Hamlet's seeming distraction, thinking it might be a threat to the state and to the king himself. Claudius coerces Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who aren't too bright, into service as spies, hoping they can lull the prince into revealing the true cause of his "antic disposition" [see p. 2].

When Hamlet calls Denmark a prison, therefore, the metaphor is apt. He is mentally and physically confined by the gaze of the king and his agents, and he feels trapped in the court's general degradation—"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark," as Marcellus had said [see p. 135].

Hamlet is a prisoner of his own thinking, and of his knowledge that his stepfather is a fratricide and his mother incestuous. When he states that "there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so," he's not indulging in ethical relativism as much as wishing for blissful ignorance. He's also implicitly damning the naďveté of the king's new yes-men.'

I haven't studied Hamlet yet, but personally I think this quote is better if instead you take all the possible meanings on board. It's a great example of the power of ambiguity imho. All the meanings add up to make you "think" more about the issue. It can mean so many things, for example:

1. Morality is relative?
2. Morality is not relative, if only you think?
3. Ignorance is bliss?
4. If you're not suicidal, like Hamlet, perhaps you're not thinking enough?
5. The king's men are stupid

At first I thought the phrase meant "there's nothing good or bad, we just think there is". But then, after "thinking" some more, I thought perhaps it means you ought to realise there's good and bad by thinking more about things! ]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:13:20 +0000 But I thought I should set out my views properly here, and despite being an atheist, in this blog entry I want to argue for a particular interpretation of Christianity. These views are based on arguments I've had with friends of all persuasions. I'll only consider Christianity and atheism for simplicity, but you could probably replace "Christianity" with "Islam" or any other religion if you like. Three versions of Christianity have been suggested by me and my friends at uni, most of whom are religious.


Christianity based on the Bible

This is dodgy for several reasons imho. Firstly if a religious text ever contradicts what you honestly feel is right yourself, then you should do what you feel is right. Why would God have given you a sense of right and wrong that is itself "wrong" and immoral? (Also, to give an example, how can you argue against suicide bombers if you do accept what the Bible says when it contradicts what you feel inside? They are simply doing what they have been led to believe by religious leaders.)

Secondly I would argue strongly that the Bible cannot be read in the very detailed way that many try to. Sure, the bit about "thou shalt not commit murder" is clear enough. But the Bible doesn't explicitly say anything about abortion for example, or contraception etc. Intelligent and well educated people disagree on these matters: you can't get much smarter or better read than the Pope vs the Archbishop of Canterbury, and they both have centuries of scholarship to back them up. Yet they disagree.

Most Christians do not even know who the authors of the Gospels were. I find this amazing considering their entire morality is based on what these men wrote. Clearly if you are going to base your entire life around a book you ought to be sure who wrote it, or at least what their credentials are. Well, it turns out that most likely the authors were not eyewitnesses of Jesus. Most likely the Gospel authors were merely writing down stories that were being passed around the ancient world at that time. Luke even admits this at the start of his Gospel. This raises questions about how much we can rely on the Bible.

Fourthly, there are many many textual issues that make a detailed reading of the Bible unreliable. The earliest complete New Testament (NT) dates from the 4th century. And when we compare all the early manuscripts of the NT we find that there are more inconsistencies between them than words in the NT itself! (This is not the case at all with the Torah, which was copied by very careful Jewish scribes following organised rules. The NT was copied by all sorts of people, into all sorts of languages.) Of course the vast majority of these inconsistencies are unimportant, but that still leaves many that do change the meaning in crucial ways. There are many documented cases of scribes changing the Bible, both in modern times and ancient times, accidentally or for ideological reasons (see interview or book of Bart Ehrman, Chairman of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill). These changes are often ignored by all Christians. How many more undiscovered cases have successfully fooled us too?

Even in the established version (if there even is one) of the Bible, which suffers from the above problems, there are important inconsistencies between the repeated accounts of the same things. Apart from factual contradictions like that, perhaps more important are the different emphases and perspectives given in each gospel. Each writer clearly has his own opinion and perspective and is really arguing for his personal view of Christianity. John for example is far grander and confident than Mark, who is very modest. John includes all sorts of grand philosophical ideas that the other gospels do not. Luke tends to give a more sympathetic and prominent account of women than the others, as well as a more internationally/inter-racially inclusive view of Christianity. These account are clearly written from the authors' own points of view, rather than purely factually.

Finally you might argue that all of these issues are fixed by God simply taking care of it all. Maybe God wants there to be inconsistencies in the Bible. Maybe God wanted scribes to alter the Bible. Maybe God wanted His "moral instruction manual" to be ambiguous! Well perhaps. But I don't think this is a very defensible or rational point of view. I can't imagine any intelligent person accepting that for no reason.


Christianity based on early Church traditions

This suffers from all sorts of problems too. Firstly, why should I trust a Church leader if he ever says something I feel is morally wrong? Also, I'm not sure what we can learn about the morality of stem cell research from the early Church traditions! Furthermore some of their practices are abhorrent, such as the owning of slaves, and some sects were violent. Nowadays it is accepted that there were large differences of opinion amongst early Church leaders (no doubt even Paul alludes to this in his letters). Of course from around 100AD you have the Gnostics as a large "heretical" sect, but even before then there were wide differences of opinion. And in any case, I wouldn't trust Church leaders today (or in recent history) as automatically being much more enlightened than me, so why should I believe they were 2000 years ago?


Christianity based on individual Conscience

Now we're talking! As I tried to suggest above, the only thing you can trust is your own conscience. This was given to you by God, and it would be a perverse God indeed who made you genuinely think wrong was right. Conversely, your own intelligence and conscience are the things you have to trust! Even if you decide to believe in the above alternative forms of Christianity, you are still trusting your own intelligence and conscience to make that choice!

Certainly there are problems here too. If everything is down to individual conscience, then people will disagree over what is right. But so what? We disagree over the interpretation of the Bible too. If everything is down to individual conscience, then it's easy for people to do wrong, either because they pretend to think it is right, or because they let temptation cloud their judgement. Well, people pretend anyway, and I would say learning to see beyond temptation is the challenge we face on earth. After all, interpretations of the Bible have often been clouded by self-interest too.

Now you may well say "but I and my conscience always agree with the Bible and Church traditions". Well in that case, great! But of course in that case we don't really need to worry too much what the Bible says or about Church traditions. If you really are following your conscience, then we can all discuss morality without any reference to religious texts!

I think that would be amazing. If people really did trust their own consciences (given as a direct gift from God) all religious strife would disappear. And we could discuss things rationally. Fundamentalists cause problems because they trust in ancient books instead of their own conscience - God's real gift to them.


PS I'm listening right now to the interview with Bart Ehrman. It's really interesting. I strongly recommend it.]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:54:35 +0000 funny.]

One thing I've always wondered about people like Hitler is this: does it make sense to say that they are morally responsible for their actions? What exactly is the difference between criminals (mass murderers etc) and the rest of us that ensures we make different choices? If there is a genetic difference then the criminals are mentally ill, and can't be held morally accountable. If there is no genetic difference then we are "all the same" fundamentally and would all have behaved the same way, if we had had the same life experiences, and hence again we can hardly blame the criminals for acting as they do. Thus, no one can be held morally accountable for anything!

The only assumption here, as far as I can see, is that our actions are completely determined by a combination of genetics and experience alone. I guess if you believe in souls then you could say that the souls have genuine free will. This still leaves many problems imho. How exactly do souls have free will? I can't imagine any way in which they could get round the problem above: in other words what makes some souls good and others bad? This really just pushes the problem one step further back and hence is no help at all (as such it seems fitting that this is the religious person's answer ). Also what are souls, how do they affect our behaviour? What evidence do we have for them? And interestingly, what if the criminal doesn't believe in souls, and hence thinks he couldn't help doing what he did? Who is to decide whether souls exist, and hence whether he is morally culpable or not?

Following on from this I thought of some fictional "evil" characters who illustrate my point. First Shylock from Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. Shylock is a victim of Antonio's rampant anti-Semitism and concocts a cunning plan to cut out a pound of flesh from Antonio's quivering body. Here he explains why he is so evil:

SALARINO
Why, I am sure, if he forfeit, thou wilt not take
his flesh: what's that good for?

SHYLOCK
To bait fish withal: if it will feed nothing else,
it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, and
hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses,
mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my
bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine
enemies; and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath
not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian,
what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian
wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by
Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you
teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I
will better the instruction.

Finally a more modern character offers a thought on why people do crazy things:

I'll take seven kids from Columbine, stand them all in line,
Add an AK-47, a revolver, a nine,
a Mack-11 and [that should] solve the problem of mine.
And that's a whole school of bullies shot up all at one time.

These examples only cover the case where different experiences are the cause of different (wrong) behaviours but as I said above, I think the same argument works if the morally wrong behaviour is a result of genetic abnormalities too.]]> Tue, 08 May 2007 22:50:10 +0000
'What a world this is!'

'Ah! Indeed you may say that!' cried Mrs Todgers.

'I'm afraid it is a vain and thoughtless world,' said Mr Pecksniff, overflowing with despondency. 'These young people about us. Oh! what sense have they of their responsibilities? None. Give me your other hand, Mrs Todgers.'

The lady hesitated, and said 'she didn't like.'

'Has a voice from the grave no influence?' said Mr Pecksniff, with, dismal tenderness. 'This is irreligious! My dear creature.'

'Hush!' urged Mrs Todgers. 'Really you mustn't.'

'It's not me,' said Mr Pecksniff. 'Don't suppose it's me; it's the voice; it's her voice.'

Mrs Pecksniff deceased, must have had an unusually thick and husky voice for a lady, and rather a stuttering voice, and to say the truth somewhat of a drunken voice, if it had ever borne much resemblance to that in which Mr Pecksniff spoke just then. But perhaps this was delusion on his part.

'It has been a day of enjoyment, Mrs Todgers, but still it has been a day of torture. It has reminded me of my loneliness. What am I in the world?'

'An excellent gentleman, Mr Pecksniff,' said Mrs Todgers.

'There is consolation in that too,' cried Mr Pecksniff. 'Am I?'

'There is no better man living,' said Mrs Todgers, 'I am sure.'

Mr Pecksniff smiled through his tears, and slightly shook his head. 'You are very good,' he said, 'thank you. It is a great happiness to me, Mrs Todgers, to make young people happy. The happiness of my pupils is my chief object. I dote upon 'em. They dote upon me too-- sometimes.'

'Always,' said Mrs Todgers.

'When they say they haven't improved, ma'am,' whispered Mr Pecksniff, looking at her with profound mystery, and motioning to her to advance her ear a little closer to his mouth. 'When they say they haven't improved, ma'am, and the premium was too high, they lie! I shouldn't wish it to be mentioned; you will understand me; but I say to you as to an old friend, they lie.'

'Base wretches they must be!' said Mrs Todgers.

'Madam,' said Mr Pecksniff, 'you are right. I respect you for that observation. A word in your ear. To Parents and Guardians. This is in confidence, Mrs Todgers?'

'The strictest, of course!' cried that lady.

'To Parents and Guardians,' repeated Mr Pecksniff. 'An eligible opportunity now offers, which unites the advantages of the best practical architectural education with the comforts of a home, and the constant association with some, who, however humble their sphere and limited their capacity--observe!--are not unmindful of their moral responsibilities.'

Mrs Todgers looked a little puzzled to know what this might mean, as well she might; for it was, as the reader may perchance remember, Mr Pecksniff's usual form of advertisement when he wanted a pupil; and seemed to have no particular reference, at present, to anything. But Mr Pecksniff held up his finger as a caution to her not to interrupt him.

'Do you know any parent or guardian, Mrs Todgers,' said Mr Pecksniff, 'who desires to avail himself of such an opportunity for a young gentleman? An orphan would be preferred. Do you know of any orphan with three or four hundred pound?'

Mrs Todgers reflected, and shook her head.

'When you hear of an orphan with three or four hundred pound,' said Mr Pecksniff, 'let that dear orphan's friends apply, by letter post- paid, to S. P., Post Office, Salisbury. I don't know who he is exactly. Don't be alarmed, Mrs Todgers,' said Mr Pecksniff, falling heavily against her; 'Chronic--chronic! Let's have a little drop of something to drink.'

'Bless my life, Miss Pecksniffs!' cried Mrs Todgers, aloud, 'your dear pa's took very poorly!'

Mr Pecksniff straightened himself by a surprising effort, as every one turned hastily towards him; and standing on his feet, regarded the assembly with a look of ineffable wisdom. Gradually it gave place to a smile; a feeble, helpless, melancholy smile; bland, almost to sickliness. 'Do not repine, my friends,' said Mr Pecksniff, tenderly. 'Do not weep for me. It is chronic.' And with these words, after making a futile attempt to pull off his shoes, he fell into the fireplace.

The youngest gentleman in company had him out in a second. Yes, before a hair upon his head was singed, he had him on the hearth- rug--her father! She was almost beside herself. So was her sister. Jinkins consoled them both. They all consoled them. Everybody had something to say, except the youngest gentleman in company, who with a noble self- devotion did the heavy work, and held up Mr Pecksniff's head without being taken notice of by anybody. At last they gathered round, and agreed to carry him upstairs to bed. The youngest gentleman in company was rebuked by Jinkins for tearing Mr Pecksniff's coat! Ha, ha! But no matter.

They carried him upstairs, and crushed the youngest gentleman at every step. His bedroom was at the top of the house, and it was a long way; but they got him there in course of time. He asked them frequently on the road for a little drop of something to drink. It seemed an idiosyncrasy. The youngest gentleman in company proposed a draught of water. Mr Pecksniff called him opprobrious names for the suggestion.

My granddad surely had a better (and more concise, but who am I to cut and paste Dickens?) quote but the point was the same: previous generations always think the country's going to pot, what with the irresponsible youth. I know that's not what anyone (let alone Russ or Mike) is saying here, and there's a lot to cherish in the older ways of life, but it always makes me smile when journalists etc moan about the state of the world. On reflection, it occurs to me that this scene is more enlightening that I thought at first, becaue the older people bond over the failures of the young! Perhaps that's why every generation moans about the next one. When it comes to the childhood experiences that Mike and Russ were talking about, I think it all evens out in the end. Some things were better in the past but some things no doubt were worse. Human beings are very malleable: we presumably tend to adapt and get used to whatever conditions we find ourselves in.]]> Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:43:05 +0000
Bruce's thread on soccer violence got me thinking about the fact that I actually like the barely controlled aggression on the pitch, although the serious violence in Bruce's thread is unacceptable of course. Sport in general should be about men doing almost whatever it takes to achieve their competitive dream to be better than anyone else at their chosen game. This is why there are times when I admire MS not despite, but because of, his "dodgy" tactics. In football, a bit of swearing and pushing on the pitch is the least that should happen imho but many (Mums especially) complain that it should be more family friendly. I have no problem with some sport being family friendly but I think that this competitive urge is an aspect of masculinity that can be ugly but also very beautiful, and men need to defend its appropriate place in society.

I was about to post in that thread something about how I think most of humanity's greatest achievements stem from this competitive urge but then I thought it's a good topic for a rant over here! So, I do indeed think that and found some imho very interesting facts and theories to back it up. When I think of great achievements probably the first ones that spring to my mind are Newton and Shakespeare's writings and the Lunar Landings in the 1960's - and all of these were inspired by competition. The race to the moon is obviously a competition and the two geniuses mentioned are thought to have been motivated at least in part by competition too: Newton with everybody (he makes MS look like a gentleman), but for example Leibniz or Hooke, while there are many imitations in Shakespeare's plays of his greatest contemporary, "Kit" Marlow, apparently in repeated attempts to out-do him at his own games. Also look at F1: imho the two greatest drivers of the "modern" era are Senna and Schumi. It's hard to think of more competitive and controlled-aggressive characters, even by F1 driver standards.

Then a very quick google search revealed this interesting paper, that I haven't read all the way through yet, but it looks fascinating! Anyway I'll just quote the guy's conclusions in full and you can read the rest if you like. The author is a reader at the LSE and he's got a very interesting webpage .

"Perhaps the tragic life of the French mathematician Evariste Galois (1811–1832)
best illustrates my argument (Singh, 1997, pp. 210–228). Despite the fact that he died
at age 20, Galois made a large number of significant contributions to mathematics.
(His work was integral to Andrew Wiles
celebrated proof of Fermat
s Last Theorem
in 1994.) Galois was involved in an affair, and the woman
s fiance challenged him to
a duel. The night before the duel, Galois stayed up all night and wrote down all of his
mathematical ideas on paper. (It is due to these notes, written on the last night of his
life, that many of Galois
ideas survived to the posterity.) From other comments
written on the paper, next to a series of mathematical notations, however, it is clear
that Galois spent the night, intensely thinking about the woman over whom he was
to have a duel the next morning. Something compelled this young man of 20 to produce
so many brilliant mathematical ideas in one night and then go to a duel the next
morning, ready to kill or be killed over a woman. It is my contention that the same
psychological mechanism was responsible for both.
If the age–crime curve and the age–genius curve have similar shapes, and if marriage
has the desistance effect on both crime and genius, then it is highly unlikely that
social control theory of criminal behavior and desistance (Laub et al., 1998; Sampson
& Laub, 1993), or, for that matter, any theory that is specific to criminal behavior, can
hold the whole key to why men commit crimes and why they desist. Following Daly
and Wilson (1988) and Kanazawa and Still (2000), I argue that a single psychological
mechanism is responsible for making young men highly competitive during early
adulthood and then quickly making them desist after their marriage in later adulthood.
It is my contention that both crime and genius are manifestations of young
men
s competitive desires to gain access to women
s reproductive resources, which,
in the ancestral environment, would have increased their reproductive success."

So I think this competitive urge that we normally only see the ugly side of, in terms of young men being criminals, dangerous drivers, aggressive louts etc, actually also accounts for most of the most amazing achievements anyone has ever made. I wouldn't be surprised if Newton and Shakespeare had quite a lot in common with Senna and Schumi or Wayne Rooney, including their potential for very competitive and aggressive behaviour.]]> Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:40:12 +0000 almost as arrogant as the great man too, so perhaps we are more alike than I'd like? Hmm your thoughts on this conundrum will be much appreciated.]]> Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:45:31 +0000