I am not going to go into the whole Romanian horse meat scandal. Knowing full well how the system works, having stumbled upon it numerous times in the past, I ascertain that neither the Romanian side nor its French counterpart or anybody else mixed into this business have executed their respective parts to the letter. In any case, even if in the end Romania presents irrefutable evidence that the mistake did not lie therein, the international image is once again distorted, adding to the numerous scandals from the past. When and if the evidence finally surfaces, nobody will care that it was not the Romanian abattoirs who were at fault.
What I found even more disturbing, however, was the Romanian Ambassador's appearance on CNN. Not only once have I expressed my sincerest disdain for people who are incapable of carrying out their job, who would not so much as earn a passing grade in what they do, if they were to be sincerely and objectively examined. An ambassador's first and foremost mission, besides representing the country, is to be able to communicate successfully with the authorities of the respective country, for the benefit of bilateral cooperation and for the benefit of the aliens legally living in said country.
The Romanian ambassador not only fails at representing Romania, from my point of view he actually did Romania a disservice by appearing on CNN, he fails at even the most basic of prerequisites of the job: speaking English! I am flabbergasted and wonder how difficult can it be to not be able to master a passing grade in proficient communication when you have been the ambassador since 2008?! And yes, I demand proficient communication because he is not just some random public servant, he is not just some member of the diplomatic mission, he is the ambassador. And to have a representative who can barely speak any English(but who has the irreverent audacity to name his English skill in his CV as "very good" ) and above that to send him on one of the most important and most watched news channels in the world to make a fool of himself is, well, just plain idiotic.
I shall say it again: A worse disservice has been done to the Romanian image by this baffling and meagre attempt at an explanation than by the scandal per se. It is not that I find it a necessity that the ambassador be Oxford schooled, most if not all of the people who are Oxford schooled(and who indeed are as such, not just pretend to be in their Curricula Vitae) do not wish to have anything to do with the country after the completion of the studies, but this cannot be the best that we can give. The man comes off as an inbred, uncultivated yob who was sent by "central command" to mumble a few unintelligible utterances. And when, as a British national, you are already taken aback by the fact that you may have eaten horse meat and had not known about it, the last thing you want to do is to see a man who claims to be an Ambassador to your Kingdom for 5 years but who barely speaks your language telling you that it was not Romania's fault. You get even angrier. And for good cause, too.
You do not represent me, sir. Nor do you represent any of the other people from the very select group of individuals who actually have the necessary qualifications to do their jobs. Enroll in an English class, you need it.
Laugh for yourselves
Tuesday 12 February 2013
Sunday 3 February 2013
De Feudalis Controversias
Normally, I do not particularly enjoy lowering the standards of writing this blog in order to tackle more mundane matters, but every so often a certain dispute catches my eye and if it touches on subjects of great interest for me or if it crosses over into discourse and rhetoric of arguments, I decide to tackle it.
A person has a neurosurgical problem. In Romania, you have a choice, you may go to any specialist you like or have heard of or think that is good enough to tackle your problem. So you go and pay 1/4, yes one quarter, of the minimum wage in order to see a most esteemed professor. This man is of poor reputation as a human being but is known to be above average as a professional. He has, naturally, as every slave master in history, a horde of apostles which praise him as the messiah of neurosurgery and then you have the former patients which again view him as a messiah, perfectly understandable attitude. You go see the professor. You wait for the better part of an hour. You are called in. No courtesy, no respect, not so much as a simple greeting. You tell him the problem. Your MRI is too old. Yes, but you're in pain. He looks at you with contempt and undisguised disgust. He tells you to do what you've done up to this point and then yells "Neeext!". You go pay 1/4 of the minimum wage at the front desk. The next steps, if you wish to solve your problem are to first pay another 1/4 or 1/3 of the minimum wage for a new MRI and then the exact same sum once again for a new consult. That, in order to get a diagnosis. If you've successfully completed these steps, you have a whole new adventure coming up, the surgery itself. And it will be much, much more expensive.
I naturally felt sorry for the person who had to live through this, and, having seen a lot of patients with vertebral column complaints this month, I know how painful and irritating it is. It came as no surprise to me, however, knowing the professor in question, the concept of "professor" in Romania and the Romanian healthcare system in general.
What flabbergasted me was a fervent opposition and incredible reactions from literate, some even medically literate individuals who were actually trying to persuade us that the reaction was somehow understandable, and that it is perfectly all right for the professor to act like that, as long as the operations go well. I strongly oppose this idea. There should not be a difference in Mentality between Romania and the "healthcare of the west". Because until the mentality changes, until it is profoundly and completely altered, all the money, the technology and the specialists in the world won't save the rotten system from swiveling helplessly in its own muck.
One of the points raised was that in Romania you may go to the professor directly if you so see fit, as opposed to the western countries wherein the GP arranges these matters on your behalf. A western physician will now ask: why do I want to go directly to the professor? We don't want to discuss the latest findings in the genetics of glioblastoma multiforme, we want to establish a relationship and I, as a patient, want a surgery. In the west the professor is not necessarily the best surgeon, he is an esteemed scientist and is at the forefront of his field. It is obvious that in Romania you want to go to the professor in order to maximize your chances of recovery, because in Romania professors, especially in surgical fields, are irreverential twats with a strong appetite for money who have the most experience because, especially in neurosurgery, and I speak this knowing full well what the situation is, they do not let others do the surgeries, thereby profoundly hindering their chances of gaining experience. There is no clear separation between subspecialties in Romania, spinal, skull base, vascular, oncological, there are but meagre attempts. Usually, the professor does everything. Except opening and closing, those are beyond his dignity. This is the root of the problem and it also explains why "he has to do 6, maybe 10 surgeries a day"- a bit of an overestimation, but let's assume it's true. That happens because he lets nobody else operate and acquire experience. It is not a singular case, though, don't imagine he's the only one doing it and that is precisely why I am not using names.
Another point raised was that it was not expensive. 1/4 of the minimum wage for a consult in a country with a social system of health insurance. I don't want to hear that that is an acceptable price for other countries, for other systems. No. It's a lot for Romania. If the system is bad, change it, don't charge 1/4 of the minimum wage for a consult lest I be forced to call hypocrisy. The extremists among the professor's gang were practically yelling that this is the system nowadays and that if you do not like it, you can die. This is an actual quote "This happens everywhere in the world. If you have the money, you pay, if you don't, you die". First of all, this is not the case "all over the world" as I doubt the person in question had seen even 1/100 of the world in order to assess the healthcare system. Secondly, I think certain U.S. courts would be more than happy to offer a considerable amount of money as compensation for such a failed attempt at practicing medicine. I don't care that we are talking about Romania. You are a doctor first, surgeon second. It's common sense. If you curse at everybody you meet while walking in Hyde Park on a Sunday afternoon because you were so taught in your family and that is the system, don't use this as an argument to make me think it is acceptable. It is not. And it is you, who are swearing, who is the antisocial individual, and not the everybody else for not understanding your "system". If you have nothing but disdain for your patients, find another job. It's quite simple, really. If you're incapable of bedside manner, you Fail at half of the job. Romania is no exception.
And above all, detractors of the victim complained that the matter should have not been made public. Yes it should have. Public awareness is the first stop to ever having any hope of changing something. I must stress this once more, I don't care what kind of surgeon you are if you fail at half of that which is your job. The fact that you are a professor does not rattle me in any way, nobody is above the law and neither are you. I was most disappointed to see that this lesson is still not learned. Not to mention that when you have an idea and you wish to raise arguments to support it, you need to know what you're doing. Otherwise, you're simply stating one senseless bit after another. And people need to know. Even if it's Romania and it's a professor with experience in a complicated field, it is still not acceptable. Just like you wouldn't have him swearing at you in the street.
A person has a neurosurgical problem. In Romania, you have a choice, you may go to any specialist you like or have heard of or think that is good enough to tackle your problem. So you go and pay 1/4, yes one quarter, of the minimum wage in order to see a most esteemed professor. This man is of poor reputation as a human being but is known to be above average as a professional. He has, naturally, as every slave master in history, a horde of apostles which praise him as the messiah of neurosurgery and then you have the former patients which again view him as a messiah, perfectly understandable attitude. You go see the professor. You wait for the better part of an hour. You are called in. No courtesy, no respect, not so much as a simple greeting. You tell him the problem. Your MRI is too old. Yes, but you're in pain. He looks at you with contempt and undisguised disgust. He tells you to do what you've done up to this point and then yells "Neeext!". You go pay 1/4 of the minimum wage at the front desk. The next steps, if you wish to solve your problem are to first pay another 1/4 or 1/3 of the minimum wage for a new MRI and then the exact same sum once again for a new consult. That, in order to get a diagnosis. If you've successfully completed these steps, you have a whole new adventure coming up, the surgery itself. And it will be much, much more expensive.
I naturally felt sorry for the person who had to live through this, and, having seen a lot of patients with vertebral column complaints this month, I know how painful and irritating it is. It came as no surprise to me, however, knowing the professor in question, the concept of "professor" in Romania and the Romanian healthcare system in general.
What flabbergasted me was a fervent opposition and incredible reactions from literate, some even medically literate individuals who were actually trying to persuade us that the reaction was somehow understandable, and that it is perfectly all right for the professor to act like that, as long as the operations go well. I strongly oppose this idea. There should not be a difference in Mentality between Romania and the "healthcare of the west". Because until the mentality changes, until it is profoundly and completely altered, all the money, the technology and the specialists in the world won't save the rotten system from swiveling helplessly in its own muck.
One of the points raised was that in Romania you may go to the professor directly if you so see fit, as opposed to the western countries wherein the GP arranges these matters on your behalf. A western physician will now ask: why do I want to go directly to the professor? We don't want to discuss the latest findings in the genetics of glioblastoma multiforme, we want to establish a relationship and I, as a patient, want a surgery. In the west the professor is not necessarily the best surgeon, he is an esteemed scientist and is at the forefront of his field. It is obvious that in Romania you want to go to the professor in order to maximize your chances of recovery, because in Romania professors, especially in surgical fields, are irreverential twats with a strong appetite for money who have the most experience because, especially in neurosurgery, and I speak this knowing full well what the situation is, they do not let others do the surgeries, thereby profoundly hindering their chances of gaining experience. There is no clear separation between subspecialties in Romania, spinal, skull base, vascular, oncological, there are but meagre attempts. Usually, the professor does everything. Except opening and closing, those are beyond his dignity. This is the root of the problem and it also explains why "he has to do 6, maybe 10 surgeries a day"- a bit of an overestimation, but let's assume it's true. That happens because he lets nobody else operate and acquire experience. It is not a singular case, though, don't imagine he's the only one doing it and that is precisely why I am not using names.
Another point raised was that it was not expensive. 1/4 of the minimum wage for a consult in a country with a social system of health insurance. I don't want to hear that that is an acceptable price for other countries, for other systems. No. It's a lot for Romania. If the system is bad, change it, don't charge 1/4 of the minimum wage for a consult lest I be forced to call hypocrisy. The extremists among the professor's gang were practically yelling that this is the system nowadays and that if you do not like it, you can die. This is an actual quote "This happens everywhere in the world. If you have the money, you pay, if you don't, you die". First of all, this is not the case "all over the world" as I doubt the person in question had seen even 1/100 of the world in order to assess the healthcare system. Secondly, I think certain U.S. courts would be more than happy to offer a considerable amount of money as compensation for such a failed attempt at practicing medicine. I don't care that we are talking about Romania. You are a doctor first, surgeon second. It's common sense. If you curse at everybody you meet while walking in Hyde Park on a Sunday afternoon because you were so taught in your family and that is the system, don't use this as an argument to make me think it is acceptable. It is not. And it is you, who are swearing, who is the antisocial individual, and not the everybody else for not understanding your "system". If you have nothing but disdain for your patients, find another job. It's quite simple, really. If you're incapable of bedside manner, you Fail at half of the job. Romania is no exception.
And above all, detractors of the victim complained that the matter should have not been made public. Yes it should have. Public awareness is the first stop to ever having any hope of changing something. I must stress this once more, I don't care what kind of surgeon you are if you fail at half of that which is your job. The fact that you are a professor does not rattle me in any way, nobody is above the law and neither are you. I was most disappointed to see that this lesson is still not learned. Not to mention that when you have an idea and you wish to raise arguments to support it, you need to know what you're doing. Otherwise, you're simply stating one senseless bit after another. And people need to know. Even if it's Romania and it's a professor with experience in a complicated field, it is still not acceptable. Just like you wouldn't have him swearing at you in the street.
De Ente et Essentia
An anecdotal reference to the life of Thoma d'Aquino tells that he, during his 2 years of imprisonment on the family grounds due to his insistence on joining the Dominican order, was permanently harassed end constrained by his family into relinquishing his desires. Things even got so out of hand that his brothers brought the most attractive prostitute to entice him into losing his path. The story follows that he drove her off using a blazing hot fire poker and that in that night, had a vision of two angels bestowing him with a holy mark of chastity.
This reminds me of Blaise Pascal, the renowned physician, mathematician and philosopher, who during his infamous "nuit de feu"(night of fire) had a series of uninterrupted sacrosanct visions which led him to retire to a monastery and live a very pious life from that particular moment on, albeit a very short pious life.
I have often heard hefty critique and disdain being brought against these men and indeed against most of the people who are affected by religious visions. Before we are to pass judgment onto them and decide which part we are to take, we need to take a closer look on the historical and social aspects that surrounded these people during the troubled times of the 1200s and of the 1600s. A child born around that time did not have many options with regard to faith, answers, ideas standing before him. Joining the clerical ranks was an honour and, especially for people with a high degree of authoritarianism and ambition, living a deeply pious, virtuous life was the equivalent of getting a promotion every day, in present day terminology. Indeed, the feeling of serving the one and only, almighty Creator of all that is, was and will be, the feeling of belonging to a structure that transcends mere human existence was perhaps the best one could be in that world, if one was not blessed with the opportunity of either being born in a noble family, or being born as an heir to the throne, enjoying the material benefits of royal life.
The brain is wired to function so that it constantly works in the background to sort and solve problems, to put our existence in as good an order as it can achieve, or at least that is what one of the psychological theories accepted today holds true, thus aiming at an explanation at the nature of dreams. Thus, Pascal's fever of over 42 degrees Celsius, which is accompanied most often by hallucinations, was interpreted semiotically by his brain as the fire that Moses felt when God presented him with the tablets on the mountaintop, the presence of the Lord manifested into the telluric realm. We may very well imagine the fear and uneasiness that he felt at the same time, relating to both his illness as well as to his fever, forcing his brain to grasp at any explanation available. As a very literate man, he was well accustomed to the representations of the angelic realm, thus his brain constructed all the images necessary to make him feel as a material presence inside the heavenly realm. The brain was actually fooling itself and became convinced by itself. And since the brain forever thought that God Himself had sent the visions and had allowed access into the ethereal sphere, the brain was, actually, God.
It is a most facile argument to dismiss all paranormal activity and all spiritual visions as mere figments of a hyperactive imagination which desperately wants to believe in something and that clings to the existence of higher beings in order to make it through the day and give life meaning. I do not much like generalizations, but this appears as an undeniable truth. The brain creates the images, there is no activity of the retina, the brain is not actively perceiving something that is happening in reality. Or is it?
1991, The Barrow Neurological Institute in Pheonix, Arizona. A younger Dr. Spetzler, world renowned neurosurgeon and in my opinion one of the best that ever existed, operates on a patient named Pam Reynolds. She had a very complicated large aneurysm requiring that her brain be deprived of all the blood, the heart would be stopped and the body coupled to a cardiopulmonary bypass machine. During this time, she was under intense medical monitoring and the electrical activity in her brain was closely monitored, The ears had a clicking mechanism installed inside to measure electrical activity in her brainstem(stimulating the vestibulocochlear, for my physician colleagues), eyes taped shut. As her heart stopped and all electrical activity in her brain ceased, as evidenced by eeg and electrophysiological monitoring, she had an out of body experience and could later recall in great detail discussions from within the OR and various instruments for instance the high speed drill, which she could not have seen before the induction of the anesthesia as these are brought in the OR sterile in their own bags and are unpacked only in the moment of use. Furthermore, she met dead relatives and had the infamous light at the end of the tunnel vision. I have read some mind-boggling "explanations" by various physicians who seemed to forget basic neuroscience when attempting to offer a "scientific" explanation for this occurrence. Let me be very clear: the brain had no blood. The neurons were not functioning. There was no electrical activity. There is no chance that her brain had so much as seen one dot, let alone create an image. Prof. Spetzler himself acknowledges that he has no explanation for that which had happened during his aneurysm surgery.
This reminds me of Blaise Pascal, the renowned physician, mathematician and philosopher, who during his infamous "nuit de feu"(night of fire) had a series of uninterrupted sacrosanct visions which led him to retire to a monastery and live a very pious life from that particular moment on, albeit a very short pious life.
I have often heard hefty critique and disdain being brought against these men and indeed against most of the people who are affected by religious visions. Before we are to pass judgment onto them and decide which part we are to take, we need to take a closer look on the historical and social aspects that surrounded these people during the troubled times of the 1200s and of the 1600s. A child born around that time did not have many options with regard to faith, answers, ideas standing before him. Joining the clerical ranks was an honour and, especially for people with a high degree of authoritarianism and ambition, living a deeply pious, virtuous life was the equivalent of getting a promotion every day, in present day terminology. Indeed, the feeling of serving the one and only, almighty Creator of all that is, was and will be, the feeling of belonging to a structure that transcends mere human existence was perhaps the best one could be in that world, if one was not blessed with the opportunity of either being born in a noble family, or being born as an heir to the throne, enjoying the material benefits of royal life.
The brain is wired to function so that it constantly works in the background to sort and solve problems, to put our existence in as good an order as it can achieve, or at least that is what one of the psychological theories accepted today holds true, thus aiming at an explanation at the nature of dreams. Thus, Pascal's fever of over 42 degrees Celsius, which is accompanied most often by hallucinations, was interpreted semiotically by his brain as the fire that Moses felt when God presented him with the tablets on the mountaintop, the presence of the Lord manifested into the telluric realm. We may very well imagine the fear and uneasiness that he felt at the same time, relating to both his illness as well as to his fever, forcing his brain to grasp at any explanation available. As a very literate man, he was well accustomed to the representations of the angelic realm, thus his brain constructed all the images necessary to make him feel as a material presence inside the heavenly realm. The brain was actually fooling itself and became convinced by itself. And since the brain forever thought that God Himself had sent the visions and had allowed access into the ethereal sphere, the brain was, actually, God.
It is a most facile argument to dismiss all paranormal activity and all spiritual visions as mere figments of a hyperactive imagination which desperately wants to believe in something and that clings to the existence of higher beings in order to make it through the day and give life meaning. I do not much like generalizations, but this appears as an undeniable truth. The brain creates the images, there is no activity of the retina, the brain is not actively perceiving something that is happening in reality. Or is it?
1991, The Barrow Neurological Institute in Pheonix, Arizona. A younger Dr. Spetzler, world renowned neurosurgeon and in my opinion one of the best that ever existed, operates on a patient named Pam Reynolds. She had a very complicated large aneurysm requiring that her brain be deprived of all the blood, the heart would be stopped and the body coupled to a cardiopulmonary bypass machine. During this time, she was under intense medical monitoring and the electrical activity in her brain was closely monitored, The ears had a clicking mechanism installed inside to measure electrical activity in her brainstem(stimulating the vestibulocochlear, for my physician colleagues), eyes taped shut. As her heart stopped and all electrical activity in her brain ceased, as evidenced by eeg and electrophysiological monitoring, she had an out of body experience and could later recall in great detail discussions from within the OR and various instruments for instance the high speed drill, which she could not have seen before the induction of the anesthesia as these are brought in the OR sterile in their own bags and are unpacked only in the moment of use. Furthermore, she met dead relatives and had the infamous light at the end of the tunnel vision. I have read some mind-boggling "explanations" by various physicians who seemed to forget basic neuroscience when attempting to offer a "scientific" explanation for this occurrence. Let me be very clear: the brain had no blood. The neurons were not functioning. There was no electrical activity. There is no chance that her brain had so much as seen one dot, let alone create an image. Prof. Spetzler himself acknowledges that he has no explanation for that which had happened during his aneurysm surgery.
Saturday 2 February 2013
De Onus Responsibilitatis
Anyone who has ever found themselves in the position of assuming their responsibility exhibits one out of the two possible attitudes: either the position of responsibility gives one a false sense of importance and relevance or one dreads said responsibility, hating every consequence and activity pertaining to it.
Alas for those who are adepts of the latter manner of behaviour, society is built around the principle that each and every individual is directly responsible of his or her own life and that he or she must follow the rules that society has instituted into effect to the letter lest he or she may face at most the rigours of the law and at least the opprobrium of his fellow citizens. This is taken even further due to the fact that almost every activity which defines our everyday life encloses in itself the natural assumption of assuming responsibility.
So far, there is no clear indication as to why I would even bother to speak of such a subject. Perhaps ill-inspiration or ill-advice have made me write just for the sake of writing, forfeiting the ideas upon which this blog was built, namely knowledge, virtue and critical thinking. Why even bother to write at all? There are two main reasons which lay the foundation pertaining to this essay, and I shall present these as questions: If taking on responsibilities appears to be one of the main functions we need to accomplish as humans living in a society ordered to our liking, why is most of the population on this planet wasting precious energy every day in order to run away from them? And further, by the law of Occam's Razor(Ockham for the connoiseur who knows who the 13th Century personality was), would it not be readily apparent that the system is fundamentally wrong and it places an unnecessary burden on a being destined most evidently for someone else?
First off, allow me to call hypocrisy on those "select" individuals whom, upon reading the previous paragraph automatically, out of low self-esteem and self-insufficiency, categorized it as a sophism, as an "argumentum ad populum". I did not hold my readers' collective intelligence in contempt, I did not assume that the principle of the razor is readily apparent due to the hefty population marching in a certain direction, that of responsibility waiver. On the contrary, I was merely asking the esteemed reader whether it would not be of a more common-sense logic to assume that in the innermost sanctum of the human spirit, responsibility is of no real value and thus society was born on poor judgment and the wrong kind of principles?
And assuming that were the truth, I still do not insinuate that all is lost. Quite the contrary. As Hegel put it, if we were to view for instance the history of philosophy as a series of systems of thought which one after the other suffered the same fate we would actually be witnessing the eternal futile quest of man for the truth and a very sad story of how nothing that man will ever think, especially details and questions pertaining to himself, will ever be good enough, nor will this train of thought ever come to a definitive stop at a station where the absolute answer is to be found. Rather, the systems flow into one another, being quite similar to the flowing metamorphosis of the ideas that Hegel envisioned, and form one giant collection, named by the great Carl Jung the collective subconscious.
But if we indeed need to assume responsibility, and if this is such an integrative part of human existence that society cannot exist without it, why do we not resort to the one tool which can help us shape the world of tomorrow with as much ardour as we can muster up? Why do we not teach it specifically in schools? It is never taught, except for extremely meagre, failed attempts at making pupils, especially in the limited domain of middle education, take responsibility for unimportant matters for extremely short periods of time. You might never use advanced mathematics in your entire life, but you need to use the faculties of decision-making and you need to assume your responsibility every day.
If I am to believe in Schopenhauer, then I am to think that people are led through life by various instances of the same power, the will. Whether the will to live, or, to move on more recently to Nietzsche, the will/lust for power, it is a very egoistical undertaking which has nothing to do with the ability to assume one's responsibility. In fact, were one to be egocentric, the rules of society, aside from their coercive means of enforcement, would mean nothing so long as one's expected ends are not as they should be. If we were to marshal along Schopenhauer's ideas, we would also come across the idea that art, in itself, puts a stop to any and all yearnings, or wills, and offers the person a moment of beatitude, devoid of needing and coveting. This is for instance, in this critic's opinion, the Oxford accent in Her Majesty's English. Or, sometimes, just an ambiguous, unidentifiable text, which forces the reader to think until the last neuron in the neocortex gives up and retires, drifting off into a refractary state.
Alas for those who are adepts of the latter manner of behaviour, society is built around the principle that each and every individual is directly responsible of his or her own life and that he or she must follow the rules that society has instituted into effect to the letter lest he or she may face at most the rigours of the law and at least the opprobrium of his fellow citizens. This is taken even further due to the fact that almost every activity which defines our everyday life encloses in itself the natural assumption of assuming responsibility.
So far, there is no clear indication as to why I would even bother to speak of such a subject. Perhaps ill-inspiration or ill-advice have made me write just for the sake of writing, forfeiting the ideas upon which this blog was built, namely knowledge, virtue and critical thinking. Why even bother to write at all? There are two main reasons which lay the foundation pertaining to this essay, and I shall present these as questions: If taking on responsibilities appears to be one of the main functions we need to accomplish as humans living in a society ordered to our liking, why is most of the population on this planet wasting precious energy every day in order to run away from them? And further, by the law of Occam's Razor(Ockham for the connoiseur who knows who the 13th Century personality was), would it not be readily apparent that the system is fundamentally wrong and it places an unnecessary burden on a being destined most evidently for someone else?
First off, allow me to call hypocrisy on those "select" individuals whom, upon reading the previous paragraph automatically, out of low self-esteem and self-insufficiency, categorized it as a sophism, as an "argumentum ad populum". I did not hold my readers' collective intelligence in contempt, I did not assume that the principle of the razor is readily apparent due to the hefty population marching in a certain direction, that of responsibility waiver. On the contrary, I was merely asking the esteemed reader whether it would not be of a more common-sense logic to assume that in the innermost sanctum of the human spirit, responsibility is of no real value and thus society was born on poor judgment and the wrong kind of principles?
And assuming that were the truth, I still do not insinuate that all is lost. Quite the contrary. As Hegel put it, if we were to view for instance the history of philosophy as a series of systems of thought which one after the other suffered the same fate we would actually be witnessing the eternal futile quest of man for the truth and a very sad story of how nothing that man will ever think, especially details and questions pertaining to himself, will ever be good enough, nor will this train of thought ever come to a definitive stop at a station where the absolute answer is to be found. Rather, the systems flow into one another, being quite similar to the flowing metamorphosis of the ideas that Hegel envisioned, and form one giant collection, named by the great Carl Jung the collective subconscious.
But if we indeed need to assume responsibility, and if this is such an integrative part of human existence that society cannot exist without it, why do we not resort to the one tool which can help us shape the world of tomorrow with as much ardour as we can muster up? Why do we not teach it specifically in schools? It is never taught, except for extremely meagre, failed attempts at making pupils, especially in the limited domain of middle education, take responsibility for unimportant matters for extremely short periods of time. You might never use advanced mathematics in your entire life, but you need to use the faculties of decision-making and you need to assume your responsibility every day.
If I am to believe in Schopenhauer, then I am to think that people are led through life by various instances of the same power, the will. Whether the will to live, or, to move on more recently to Nietzsche, the will/lust for power, it is a very egoistical undertaking which has nothing to do with the ability to assume one's responsibility. In fact, were one to be egocentric, the rules of society, aside from their coercive means of enforcement, would mean nothing so long as one's expected ends are not as they should be. If we were to marshal along Schopenhauer's ideas, we would also come across the idea that art, in itself, puts a stop to any and all yearnings, or wills, and offers the person a moment of beatitude, devoid of needing and coveting. This is for instance, in this critic's opinion, the Oxford accent in Her Majesty's English. Or, sometimes, just an ambiguous, unidentifiable text, which forces the reader to think until the last neuron in the neocortex gives up and retires, drifting off into a refractary state.
Thursday 31 January 2013
De Subtilitatibus Dialecticam
In a world so utterly lacking proper models and personalities in general who inspire value and the very presence of whom shatters any doubts about dubious morality and principles, people nowadays take a particular liking to Albert Einstein. Regardless of the level of education or intelligence exhibited by any one individual, Einstein is quoted, often with misattributed wisdom, in a reverential, pious manner, as if God Almighty Himself had uttered the words. Almost everybody has heard of the phrase "God does not play dice", but few are those who can name the context in which the words came to the German theoretical physicist who has come to symbolize the nonconformist genius, standing as a sort of promise that "anyone" might become a genius.
As evidenced by my earlier essays, I strongly oppose this idea. I shall, however take a moment to recall an anecdotal moment from the 1920's. During his many travels and guest lectures done around that time in a great number of scientific havens throughout the world, Albert Einstein also visited the Netherlands and delivered lectures at the University of Leiden. In a small village near Leiden, Rijnsburg, between the years 1661 and 1663 lived one of the greatest minds that this world had ever and will ever witness, the philosopher Baruch Spinoza or Benedictus de Spinoza, to cite his preferred name. The house, now a museum, was visited by Einstein and the latter was so inspired by the former's works and manner of thinking that he thenceforth declared to believe in "Spinoza's God". Einstein had already declared on numerous occasions when questioned on this matter that he finds the idea of an anthropomorphic God with thoughts and feelings, catering to our every need as humans, hilarious and impossible to take seriously.
This was precisely what a very rebellious Spinoza had told his fellow men in the 17th century, establishing himself as one of the more prominent minds of the Enlightenment and ensuring at the same time perpetual hate and even retribution or harassment from the many religious groups who were ever-present and all-powerful at the time and which could ensure the public ostracization of any and all individuals, if it was to their liking. Spinoza believed in a God whence all of nature stems, viewed as a dynamic entity devoid of human characteristics, such as wants, desires, feelings and the like. Thus absolute determinism was put in place, as any and all circumstances in the Universe stem from God, who is the Universe, both before but especially after change.
And if this was not complicated enough, let us turn to the dialectic of Hegel, a great admirer of Spinoza and the most important of all modern philosophers, and also perhaps the most difficult to read. He employs in his works a very seductive manner of approaching discourse, employing together with every proposed "thesis" an "antithesis", the very opposite of the former followed by a coupling of these two together through a process called by him "aufhebung" and for which no just translation exists that can preserve the fundamental underlying meaning. Through this process, then, a synthesis would be formed. For instance, Socrates's existence has to be coupled with his unfair and untimely death and together they form the synthesis which is the formidably enduring legacy that Socrates has to this very day. Now as you can see, in Hegel's view, God is again out there, absolutely determining various paths, invariably shaping destinies in an ever-morphing and impossible to dissect conundrum. Indeed, ideas seem to "come alive" in this respect and float around the human beings like stars in the night on a clear sky, ever setting their unkown course, morphing with one another or giving birth to one another.
This whole concept is then heartily and heavily contradicted by Marx, a very intelligent individual who did not claim, as I so often hear him be misquoted and misrepresented, that the material aspects of this world are the only things that matter. Rather, he refuses to give the ideas to power to morph into living entities and proposes that our ideas, which do exist, do not lead into a determinate solipsism wherefrom no escape is possible, but rather that our ideas have a direct consequence in the material world, determine the material world and that this, and this alone, should serve as their primary function and Raison d'être.
To sum up, a frequently quoted and much talked about book pertaining to Umberto Eco is called "Opera Aperta", or open text, wherein he postulates that the more chances a text gives the reader with regard to its possible interpretations, the better perceived, better liked and more valuable a text becomes. I think it has more to do with the open-mindedness with which you approach any given text. Maybe my previous articles had been purposefully leading in a clear direction or maybe, as I have written in a certain comment I simply choose the omniscient narrator perspective and offer everybody the chance to rationally critique and to rationally determine what they have read. Likewise, I urge you to simply think.
As evidenced by my earlier essays, I strongly oppose this idea. I shall, however take a moment to recall an anecdotal moment from the 1920's. During his many travels and guest lectures done around that time in a great number of scientific havens throughout the world, Albert Einstein also visited the Netherlands and delivered lectures at the University of Leiden. In a small village near Leiden, Rijnsburg, between the years 1661 and 1663 lived one of the greatest minds that this world had ever and will ever witness, the philosopher Baruch Spinoza or Benedictus de Spinoza, to cite his preferred name. The house, now a museum, was visited by Einstein and the latter was so inspired by the former's works and manner of thinking that he thenceforth declared to believe in "Spinoza's God". Einstein had already declared on numerous occasions when questioned on this matter that he finds the idea of an anthropomorphic God with thoughts and feelings, catering to our every need as humans, hilarious and impossible to take seriously.
This was precisely what a very rebellious Spinoza had told his fellow men in the 17th century, establishing himself as one of the more prominent minds of the Enlightenment and ensuring at the same time perpetual hate and even retribution or harassment from the many religious groups who were ever-present and all-powerful at the time and which could ensure the public ostracization of any and all individuals, if it was to their liking. Spinoza believed in a God whence all of nature stems, viewed as a dynamic entity devoid of human characteristics, such as wants, desires, feelings and the like. Thus absolute determinism was put in place, as any and all circumstances in the Universe stem from God, who is the Universe, both before but especially after change.
And if this was not complicated enough, let us turn to the dialectic of Hegel, a great admirer of Spinoza and the most important of all modern philosophers, and also perhaps the most difficult to read. He employs in his works a very seductive manner of approaching discourse, employing together with every proposed "thesis" an "antithesis", the very opposite of the former followed by a coupling of these two together through a process called by him "aufhebung" and for which no just translation exists that can preserve the fundamental underlying meaning. Through this process, then, a synthesis would be formed. For instance, Socrates's existence has to be coupled with his unfair and untimely death and together they form the synthesis which is the formidably enduring legacy that Socrates has to this very day. Now as you can see, in Hegel's view, God is again out there, absolutely determining various paths, invariably shaping destinies in an ever-morphing and impossible to dissect conundrum. Indeed, ideas seem to "come alive" in this respect and float around the human beings like stars in the night on a clear sky, ever setting their unkown course, morphing with one another or giving birth to one another.
This whole concept is then heartily and heavily contradicted by Marx, a very intelligent individual who did not claim, as I so often hear him be misquoted and misrepresented, that the material aspects of this world are the only things that matter. Rather, he refuses to give the ideas to power to morph into living entities and proposes that our ideas, which do exist, do not lead into a determinate solipsism wherefrom no escape is possible, but rather that our ideas have a direct consequence in the material world, determine the material world and that this, and this alone, should serve as their primary function and Raison d'être.
To sum up, a frequently quoted and much talked about book pertaining to Umberto Eco is called "Opera Aperta", or open text, wherein he postulates that the more chances a text gives the reader with regard to its possible interpretations, the better perceived, better liked and more valuable a text becomes. I think it has more to do with the open-mindedness with which you approach any given text. Maybe my previous articles had been purposefully leading in a clear direction or maybe, as I have written in a certain comment I simply choose the omniscient narrator perspective and offer everybody the chance to rationally critique and to rationally determine what they have read. Likewise, I urge you to simply think.
Wednesday 30 January 2013
De Gaudiis Opus
This essay should have been called of the joys of labour. I think I cannot recall a situation when, with regard to the subjects of working and jobs in general, I would not hear the eternal phrase "in life, you have to do that which you like". I myself am guilty of using this poor reasoning more times than I wish to admit. However, I am at the point where I not only wish to marshal my facts so that I may present what in my opinion is the truth, but I am also in awe how a very simple-minded take on life could be held in such high esteem by people whom I thought to be of much greater mental quality and whose rational critique narrowly impressed me.
It would be indeed both useless and a waste of time to dwell again on the subjects of my previous 3 articles. If you have not read them, do so, in order to not wrongly accuse me of sophistical thinking, where presumably I allow my ideas to flow on a path littered with errors of premise. I shall not, thus, address the idea that education is extremely poor and simplified today, to the point where it narrowly misses the harrowing position of catering to the lowest common denominator of humanity. This is nothing more than fact. It has reached the point where if you attempt to free yourself from the shackles of poor education and follow the ideals set forth by Leonardo da Vinci and other Hominis Universalis you will find yourself being scoffed at by the very people who in their own private circles and indeed their own private bathrooms consider themselves as well-read, distinctly educated individuals with a poignant opinion. Educated people scoffing at other educated people out of spite and envy. Progress needs to be halted, because progress nowadays means going back to certification of merit. And seeing as merit is no longer relevant, I bid you welcome to the land of today. I must, however, urge you to smile, as tomorrow the situation will most likely spiral further until it reaches the blissful point of utter and complete ignorance.
This entire collection of essays is actually a revolt against said conformist petty-minded good-in-everyone oriented education. I shall transform not knowing into an art, as knowing disgusts me nowadays to the point where the more "education" an individual appears to have, the less likely I am tempted to establish any sort of contact and be once again chagrined by how much self-sufficiency and crass disinterest towards rational critique lie behind the wall of great and many "achievements".
We have thence established the disquieting nature of today's education, we have yet again enforced the idea that the people of today have extremely disconcerting ideals, and if you have stuck here long enough to get to this point you are ready to admit that which you have always known. Not every individual is relevant, not everybody is "good at something", not everybody should "have a place in the world" and most certainly life is not about doing what you like. This hedonistic epicurian misunderstanding stems from a clever manipulation: people who think they like what they do work with the most efficiency. And yes, the brain can be fooled in a wide array of ways, that is why a new job always comes with perks, trainings and the like, to fool the brain into thinking it has struck gold and has found heaven on earth in the form of a job. However, regardless of the complexity, of the complicated nature or of the ever-present challenges one faces while being employed anywhere, inevitably, if one is smart enough, routine will settle in. And this cannot be prevented in any manner, I'm afraid. The brain is hard-wired to operate in patterns but it is also hard-wired to seek pleasure. Perhaps a promotion or a raise due to the fact that you have strictly adhered to a pattern 1000 times seems like a proper stimulation of the feeling of praise, however although the brain might associate following the pattern with an award, it will get tired and eventually bored due to an overworking of synapses. The brain needs a new challenge in order to function properly. And man is expected to work for the better part of 50 years of his life, every year.
Of course, perhaps most of the people, with sufficient training and simple pleasures to occupy their worthless time at home can be docile and might "be efficient" at a "job they loved, but now are not so sure". There is no point in taking "liking" something as a criterium for choosing a path in life. You may find that something extremely difficult is very pleasurable after many failed attempts, and you might find that something you "like" because it was easy for you to accomplish is actually extremely boring in the long run, as the brain gets used to the pattern easily and routine quickly settles in. The only redeeming chance if you are not part of the flock and do not want to be herded for 50 years, is to make use of creativty and force your mind to be each day much better than the day before. You owe it to yourself, because at the end of the day the only thing you HAVE TO accomplish is this life is see yourself to the grave. Might as well make the journey as interesting as possible. Especially with respect to the choice of company.
It would be indeed both useless and a waste of time to dwell again on the subjects of my previous 3 articles. If you have not read them, do so, in order to not wrongly accuse me of sophistical thinking, where presumably I allow my ideas to flow on a path littered with errors of premise. I shall not, thus, address the idea that education is extremely poor and simplified today, to the point where it narrowly misses the harrowing position of catering to the lowest common denominator of humanity. This is nothing more than fact. It has reached the point where if you attempt to free yourself from the shackles of poor education and follow the ideals set forth by Leonardo da Vinci and other Hominis Universalis you will find yourself being scoffed at by the very people who in their own private circles and indeed their own private bathrooms consider themselves as well-read, distinctly educated individuals with a poignant opinion. Educated people scoffing at other educated people out of spite and envy. Progress needs to be halted, because progress nowadays means going back to certification of merit. And seeing as merit is no longer relevant, I bid you welcome to the land of today. I must, however, urge you to smile, as tomorrow the situation will most likely spiral further until it reaches the blissful point of utter and complete ignorance.
This entire collection of essays is actually a revolt against said conformist petty-minded good-in-everyone oriented education. I shall transform not knowing into an art, as knowing disgusts me nowadays to the point where the more "education" an individual appears to have, the less likely I am tempted to establish any sort of contact and be once again chagrined by how much self-sufficiency and crass disinterest towards rational critique lie behind the wall of great and many "achievements".
We have thence established the disquieting nature of today's education, we have yet again enforced the idea that the people of today have extremely disconcerting ideals, and if you have stuck here long enough to get to this point you are ready to admit that which you have always known. Not every individual is relevant, not everybody is "good at something", not everybody should "have a place in the world" and most certainly life is not about doing what you like. This hedonistic epicurian misunderstanding stems from a clever manipulation: people who think they like what they do work with the most efficiency. And yes, the brain can be fooled in a wide array of ways, that is why a new job always comes with perks, trainings and the like, to fool the brain into thinking it has struck gold and has found heaven on earth in the form of a job. However, regardless of the complexity, of the complicated nature or of the ever-present challenges one faces while being employed anywhere, inevitably, if one is smart enough, routine will settle in. And this cannot be prevented in any manner, I'm afraid. The brain is hard-wired to operate in patterns but it is also hard-wired to seek pleasure. Perhaps a promotion or a raise due to the fact that you have strictly adhered to a pattern 1000 times seems like a proper stimulation of the feeling of praise, however although the brain might associate following the pattern with an award, it will get tired and eventually bored due to an overworking of synapses. The brain needs a new challenge in order to function properly. And man is expected to work for the better part of 50 years of his life, every year.
Of course, perhaps most of the people, with sufficient training and simple pleasures to occupy their worthless time at home can be docile and might "be efficient" at a "job they loved, but now are not so sure". There is no point in taking "liking" something as a criterium for choosing a path in life. You may find that something extremely difficult is very pleasurable after many failed attempts, and you might find that something you "like" because it was easy for you to accomplish is actually extremely boring in the long run, as the brain gets used to the pattern easily and routine quickly settles in. The only redeeming chance if you are not part of the flock and do not want to be herded for 50 years, is to make use of creativty and force your mind to be each day much better than the day before. You owe it to yourself, because at the end of the day the only thing you HAVE TO accomplish is this life is see yourself to the grave. Might as well make the journey as interesting as possible. Especially with respect to the choice of company.
Tuesday 29 January 2013
E Pluribus Unum
Don't worry, I have no intention to herein bring praise and/or malice with respect to the United States of America. That may well be the topic of another essay. This time I intend to weigh in on a topic which has been on my mind for as long as I remember, the uniqueness of each individual.
From the very starting point of our lives, we are taught that we are all unique individuals, each with important and relevant "strong points" that will someday "make a difference in the world". At least that is the paradigm instituted in western schools, not only in Europe, but especially in the U.S., where the school is a safehaven of any and all models of morality and achievement, inasmuch as everybody receives a trophy, regardless of actual merit. In other schools grading systems are turning into obsolete instruments of torture, the accent is placed on "personal development" and there is almost no differentiation of merit.
My opinion on this matter will most certainly be considered controversial, especially by those who are members of my generation. They will say that I have narrow views, that I think like an old person whose mind is filled with nostalgic memories, that I am too much of a conservative and I resist change for no good reason. Allow me to make it clear: I like change, I like evolution, I like pushing the boundaries ever further but that which I do not like is the trivialization which has turned much of modern education into a joke.
In the old days, education was reserved for certain cathegories of individuals pertaining to the higher social classes and to this day a higher level of education is most often associated with a higher social standing. More prejudice than truth, unfortunately. However, coupled with the industrial revolution of the 19th and especially 20th centuries, the rise of the middle class meant that "old" education had to be modified to suit more modern needs. This important change led to the two major consequences that are relevant to this day: almost anybody nowadays has access to education. However, as almost anybody had access to education, its level had to sink in order to accomodate the lesser endowed individuals. From this point forward, however, the trend has been nothing but a descending spiral threatening to make the act of education a futile undertaking.
Before you decide to rise against my dissertation on the high horse of equality and equal chances, take into consideration that there are some things which can only be fulfilled by an educative path that resembles a struggle, that some lessons can only be learned through a "master-apprentice" approach to education and that this idea is becoming more and more hated by the second because the people that are in charge of education as we know it today are the not-so-well endowed individuals who should never have polluted the fine art of teaching others in the first place. Higher education is not for everybody. This is not the case today. Everybody wants to major in something, and getting accepted into a higher education institution is uncannily facile and sometimes relies more on the amount of money one intends to spend and far less on the personal virtues which should constitute the most important premise of access into higher education.
Some countries have taken this idea too far, and we bare witness to people of no real capacity having doctorates in intricate fields and even university professors with almost nothing that recommends them for the job, not even pedagogical skill. The "magisters" of the Roman Era, of the Enlightenment, have all but vanished, leaving behind people who turn education into a joke and a business.
My opinion means no disrespect towards the people for whom the ideals of education are unaltered and who continue to do a magnificent job in their respective fields. My view addresses the declining situation of education in general. If you feel threatened by my opinion or react with unwarranted anger against it then you, too, are part of the problem.
So why "e pluribus unum"? Because society wants to falsely instill from a young age inside each individual the idea that he or she is unique, special and has extremely relevant character traits which can shape the world. Everybody is "the One". And the truth is, most of the population inhabitng this planet as we speak is irrelevant and education, instead of managing to make people matter in the reference system, actually manages the opposite nowadays, increasing said redundancy!
Of course I vouch for an educated society, of course people must be taught to behave, to live together, each person's supposed potential must be sought. However, we must differentiate the animals which need obedience training, and who need to be taught just how to behave and nothing more and the Mensch who needs to be turned into an Ubermensch by means of education. Otherwise we are just throwing the baby with the bathwater. Philosophers might well rule society someday, although chances are indeed slim.
From the very starting point of our lives, we are taught that we are all unique individuals, each with important and relevant "strong points" that will someday "make a difference in the world". At least that is the paradigm instituted in western schools, not only in Europe, but especially in the U.S., where the school is a safehaven of any and all models of morality and achievement, inasmuch as everybody receives a trophy, regardless of actual merit. In other schools grading systems are turning into obsolete instruments of torture, the accent is placed on "personal development" and there is almost no differentiation of merit.
My opinion on this matter will most certainly be considered controversial, especially by those who are members of my generation. They will say that I have narrow views, that I think like an old person whose mind is filled with nostalgic memories, that I am too much of a conservative and I resist change for no good reason. Allow me to make it clear: I like change, I like evolution, I like pushing the boundaries ever further but that which I do not like is the trivialization which has turned much of modern education into a joke.
In the old days, education was reserved for certain cathegories of individuals pertaining to the higher social classes and to this day a higher level of education is most often associated with a higher social standing. More prejudice than truth, unfortunately. However, coupled with the industrial revolution of the 19th and especially 20th centuries, the rise of the middle class meant that "old" education had to be modified to suit more modern needs. This important change led to the two major consequences that are relevant to this day: almost anybody nowadays has access to education. However, as almost anybody had access to education, its level had to sink in order to accomodate the lesser endowed individuals. From this point forward, however, the trend has been nothing but a descending spiral threatening to make the act of education a futile undertaking.
Before you decide to rise against my dissertation on the high horse of equality and equal chances, take into consideration that there are some things which can only be fulfilled by an educative path that resembles a struggle, that some lessons can only be learned through a "master-apprentice" approach to education and that this idea is becoming more and more hated by the second because the people that are in charge of education as we know it today are the not-so-well endowed individuals who should never have polluted the fine art of teaching others in the first place. Higher education is not for everybody. This is not the case today. Everybody wants to major in something, and getting accepted into a higher education institution is uncannily facile and sometimes relies more on the amount of money one intends to spend and far less on the personal virtues which should constitute the most important premise of access into higher education.
Some countries have taken this idea too far, and we bare witness to people of no real capacity having doctorates in intricate fields and even university professors with almost nothing that recommends them for the job, not even pedagogical skill. The "magisters" of the Roman Era, of the Enlightenment, have all but vanished, leaving behind people who turn education into a joke and a business.
My opinion means no disrespect towards the people for whom the ideals of education are unaltered and who continue to do a magnificent job in their respective fields. My view addresses the declining situation of education in general. If you feel threatened by my opinion or react with unwarranted anger against it then you, too, are part of the problem.
So why "e pluribus unum"? Because society wants to falsely instill from a young age inside each individual the idea that he or she is unique, special and has extremely relevant character traits which can shape the world. Everybody is "the One". And the truth is, most of the population inhabitng this planet as we speak is irrelevant and education, instead of managing to make people matter in the reference system, actually manages the opposite nowadays, increasing said redundancy!
Of course I vouch for an educated society, of course people must be taught to behave, to live together, each person's supposed potential must be sought. However, we must differentiate the animals which need obedience training, and who need to be taught just how to behave and nothing more and the Mensch who needs to be turned into an Ubermensch by means of education. Otherwise we are just throwing the baby with the bathwater. Philosophers might well rule society someday, although chances are indeed slim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)