Saturday, December 12, 2009

“Why 'me first' philosophy - Gulf Daily News” plus 4 more

“Why 'me first' philosophy - Gulf Daily News” plus 4 more

fivefilters.org featured article: Normalising the crime of the century by John Pilger

Why 'me first' philosophy - Gulf Daily News

Posted: 12 Dec 2009 02:18 PM PST

The column 'Is civilisation just skin deep?' (GDN, December 8) reflected much of Bahraini (and GCC, I'm afraid) camaraderie and spirit; or more likely, lack of it.

The basic concept of common courtesy is above and beyond, I'm afraid, let alone 'the live and let live' mentality. In a region rife with resources, both human and inanimate, it is disheartening to see people who cannot get along enough to utilise those resources for good, or even bad, for that matter. Unfortunately, the region's epidemic and its cure is total apathy, leading to a selfish, obstinate way of life, where the 'me first' philosophy reigns supreme. It is a shame to see my fellow countrymen act in such an uncivilised manner, for in doing so, they provide the world with the ammunition to call them ignorant, backward and utterly hopeless.

For, what is civilisation other than common courtesy? What separates a human being from an animal is common sense and tact.

Arabs cannot, and most likely will not, advance in the world unless their image changes drastically from the one they constantly perpetuate. As offensive as many stereotypes of us may seem, they are sadly, dangerously close to the truth. In a world where warfare is no longer physical and technological advancement is the winning side, where are the Arabs? Have they decided that the invention of mathematics, the discovery of medicine, the myriad travels and geographical conquests of yore are to be their crowning glories forever? Have they opted for outs on the 21st century and beyond? It surely seems like it at this point in time. It is such a shame to become relegated to one of the largest consumer cultures in the world after having once been an empire of strength, courage and invention.

As frustrating and astounding as the traffic jam might have been to Mr Horton, it is infinitely more so to myself and others in my predicament. For the families, bachelors, drivers and spectators, he had come in contact with our countrymen, fathers, cousins, distant relatives and friends. It is not just a society to us, it is, alas, our traffic-jammed home. RJA

fivefilters.org featured article: Normalising the crime of the century by John Pilger

Tigers earn first win of season with simple philosophy - Spectrum

Posted: 12 Dec 2009 06:47 AM PST

ST. GEORGE - The Hurricane girls' basketball team is young and learning varsity competition on the fly. They're still transitioning to coach Shelly Kidd-Thomas - who is in her first campaign at the Tigers helm - and her philosophy.

All those elements finally clicked together for success on Friday as Hurricane ended a three-game losing streak after cruising to a 52-35 win over Virgin Valley.

"It's coming together. We won today (Friday). We're not where we want to be yet, but we're getting close," Kidd Thomas said.

In addition to being young, the Tigers (1-3 overall) aren't tall either.

Courting 10 out of 13 junior with only three of those players standing more than 5-foot-9, Hurricane will go through plenty ups and downs this season.

The key in the win over the Bulldogs, though, was the emergence of one of those young prospects in Lini Ieremia.

The undersized forward (5-foot-6) controlled the paint behind 13 points and five rebounds. Many of her points came on loose ball pick-ups followed by turn around, high arching six-footers. In any case, the southpaw has found playing time and shot opportunities rare this season. That is until Friday's contest.

"I haven't played a complete game like this so far," Ieremia said. "I think we're getting better with each game. Our chemistry on the court is improved, talking a lot more and just playing as a team."

The forward was part of a sophomore team group that tallied endured only one defeat last year. Success they hope to portray at the varsity level.

Against Virgin Valley, the name of the game was defense.

The Bulldogs - also young - struggled in moving the ball up court for four quarters. The Tigers forced 25 steals - 12 were created by sophomore Carly Stratton - that led to numerous easy buckets.

Ahead 27-19 heading into the third, Hurricane began to put the game out of reach despite playing the bench a good portion of the second half.

Virgin Valley's Rachel Morris showed her promising talent with numerous blocks in the paint and 13 points on the floor. But it wasn't enough as too many turnovers ultimately made this a one-sided contest.

"Since we're not very tall we want to be aggressive and push the ball up the floor offensively. And defensively we like to go with a full court press set," Kidd-Thomas said.

By all accounts in the first win of the season, Hurricane's philosophy has potential in 2009-10.

fivefilters.org featured article: Normalising the crime of the century by John Pilger

Michael Steven Bender, 58, North Vernon - Republic

Posted: 12 Dec 2009 01:56 PM PST

ACCESS DENIED

We are sorry to inform you that you have been temporarily blocked from this website.

Your IP Address or perhaps someone from the same geographical area as you has been tracked visiting one or more websites and requesting large amounts of content in a short amount of time. This has caused your IP Address to be flagged as a possible bot, spider, crawler, spyware, or some other malware. In general, we do not allow bots, spiders, or crawlers to access our websites.

This is not meant to accuse you of anything. If you are a legitimate user and feel that you have reached this page in error, please complete the form below. Our staff will review the information that you provide and determine what options are available.

You are browsing this site with:


Your IP address is:
208.94.117.201 (208.94.117.201)

FOR THOSE THAT DON'T KNOW HOW TO HAVE A WRESTLING PARTY, HELP IS HERE! - Pro Wrestling Insider

Posted: 12 Dec 2009 01:13 PM PST

FOR THOSE THAT DON'T KNOW HOW TO HAVE A WRESTLING PARTY, HELP IS HERE!

Folks, sometimes you see an article that just leaves you almost speechless.

Zachary Fruhling, a Ph.D. Candidate in Philosophy at the University Of California, has written an article entitled "How To Host A Professional Wrestling Party" on AssociatedContent.com.  Yes, a future doctor of philosophy informs you how to have a successful wrestling party.  He includes such valuable tips as:

- "Talking to the guests of your professional wrestling party beforehand about their favorite wrestlers and wrestling moments can help to give you an idea of what your guests would like to watch."

- "It is important not to overlook food and beverages for your professional wrestling party. Traditional party food, such as nachos, popcorn, hot dogs, pizza, soda, beer, and so on, are the best foods to serve at a professional wrestling party because they evoke memories of live wrestling events or pizza/wrestling parties when they were younger. A professional wrestling party is not the time to break out the fine china or silver flatware."

- "In conclusion, there is no one correct formula for a perfect professional wrestling party. Provide a healthy mix of wrestling material, both new and old, provide material that displays the best and the worst of professional wrestling, try to show your guests the matches and the wrestlers
that they would like to see, introduce them to the best WWF and WWE wrestling that they may not have seen before, and remember that wrestling is supposed to be fun to watch!"

You can read all these helpful tips on having a wrestling party, if you need to, at this link.  Now, I never thought about pursuing a doctorate after I earned my Master's, but I'm pretty sure I could have figured this stuff out too!

fivefilters.org featured article: Normalising the crime of the century by John Pilger

An Atheist Pot, a Christian Kettle, and an ironic charge of blackness - Christian Post

Posted: 12 Dec 2009 10:00 AM PST

In my last couple posts I initiated a discussion on theories of incarnation. In the threaded discussion to the post "Did Baby Jesus know more physics than Einstein?" I made the following comment: "The challenge is to explain what this [incarnation] means qua human and divine knowledge in a way that is both orthodox and coherent." In other words, how could Jesus be simultaneously divine (and so knowing all things) while also human (and so not knowing all things)?

This prompted the following comment from AnAtheist.Net which was so cutting that I buried my face in a pillow and cried myself to sleep: "Ah, I see. Start with a conclusion. Look at the facts. Find a way to make them fit the conclusion that you started with. The work of the theologian."

Now I take AAN's intention here to be that of "isolate and destroy". In other words, separate the theologian out from other academics with the charge that he or she is engaged in an intellectually self-serving and thus irrational and illegitimate enterprise of proving the conclusion.

It is a common technique, memorably captured (for instance) in Bertrand Russell's dismissal of Thomas Aquinas in his History of Western Philosophy. Thomas, according to Russell, was not a real philosopher because he began with his conclusions and then sought to establish them through reasoned argument. (You must look up Kenny's ironic rebuttal to Russell on that.)

Anyway, once I dried my tears and regained my composure, I penned (or typed) the following response to AAN: "How wonderfully naive of you not to realize that this is a central methodology in science and philosophy."

There you have it, my proverbial shot across AAN's bow. His response was disappointingly restrained: "Yes, how naive of me...." he wrote.

My guess is that AAN did not really think he was naïve. More to the point, I suspect he still thought that the theologian is unique here. And to this I must invoke the old story of the pot calling the kettle black. (Just in case there is any confusion, AAN's the pot while I'm the kettle.)

Here's my reason for thinking so. I'll give an example from philosophy and one from science.

Let's begin with philosophy. The vast majority of atheistic philosophers today are materialists of one or another sort. Up until the last decade or two that meant that they believed everything that exists is material. (Why that has begun to change is an interesting story in itself.)

Anyway, that has been their "conclusion": the mind must be material. But how can the mind be material when it appears to be a hotbed of irreducibly non-material properties like sensation (qualia) and intentionality? In response, materialist philosophers of mind from Gilbert Ryle to Daniel Dennett and Patricia Churchland have sought to explain how, despite the evidence to the contrary, the mind really is material such that, for instance, my sensation of tasting peppermint ice cream is identical to a particular type or token set of neurons firing.

And this project on the mind is but one part of building a naturalistic view of the world, for that project extends to a range of other areas as well including the nature of ethics, aesthetics, the origin of religion, et cetera.

Now it may be that AAN believes atheistic philosophers are wrong to attempt to explain the mind, or free will, or morality, or personal identity, in accord with materialist or naturalistic philosophy. But my guess is that he would not want to delegitimize these projects because they are essential for the development and defense of a naturalistic (i.e. non-supernaturalistic) worldview.

But once AAN concedes the legitimacy of philosophical projects qua atheism, he has cut his indictment of theology at the knees because the atheistic philosopher is functionally identical in terms of method with the Christian theologian. Both begin with certain data and then seek to explain that data relative to a background set of beliefs.

With all that said,we can consider our second example, evolutionary biology, much more briefly. As I am sure AAN knows, evolutionary biology is racked with controversies, as indeed are all major theories in science. Let's note one of those major controversies: the origin of biological information. Most evolutionary biologists blanch at the idea of invoking intelligent design as a theory to explain this puzzle. Fine. But then don't miss the obvious: they are beginning with the working assumption that biological information did not arise through a designed process and they proceed to explore theories to support that "conclusion".

So now let's return to AAN's comment with the appropriate edits in place: "Ah, I see. Start with a conclusion. Look at the facts. Find a way to make them fit the conclusion that you started with. The work of the theologian, and philosopher, and scientist."

(Footnote: this is not a Feyerabendean argument for irrationalism - i.e. I'm arbitrary but so are you so I'm okay. Rather it is an argument that rational method begins with a background set of beliefs and argues with respect to those assumptions.)

fivefilters.org featured article: Normalising the crime of the century by John Pilger
Posted by at

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)