Inside the Asylum

Dr Strangelove has posted about the tactic in international relations of doing your best to appear irrational. After all, it puts your enemies on the back foot, and makes them very very cautious in dealing with you. (I can't find Strangelove's post. Maybe it was on a previous incarnation of the Asylum.) Anyway, you have to wonder if that's the case with the rhetoric coming out of Venezuela, and from his enablers in Cuba and elsewhere in the socialist world. First let's look at Castro:

A military agreement entered into by the United States and Colombia "is tantamount to annexation," said Cuban leader Fidel Castro on Friday... [we can't keep quiet] when a country [Colombia] is devoured by the empire [USA] as easy as a lizard catches a fly."

What does this "annexation" really consist of? As Nicolas von Kospoth, editor of defpro.com (Defense Professionals) says:

these protests are ridiculous considering the actual extent of this 10-year deal: a total of 800 military personnel and 600 civilian contractors will be deployed at seven military bases in Colombia.

So is Castro irrational? Deliberately trying to appear irrational? You be the judge.
OK, next we get Chavez himself:

Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez late on Tuesday denied claims that he wants to provoke an armed conflict with Colombia. He refuted allegations that he is a "warlike" man.

Yes, because deploying 15,000 extra troops to the border of a neighbor and telling your people to prepare for war isn't at all "warlike." He also had this to say, in reference to a coming visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

“Imperialism and its lackeys have Iran and Venezuela on sight but we will defeat them,” said President Chavez. “As Iran has Israel, we have Colombia's government at the service of the Yankee empire.”

Yes, you heard that right. Chavez feels about Colombia the same way Ahmadinejad feels about Israel. Where's the international condemnation of Chavez? On November 11th of all days, where is the outrage? Have we really forgotten so much of the 20th Century that world leaders think that you shouldn't take this kind of talk seriously? Well, with Obama not even caring about the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago, I guess the answer is yes. And you know the saying about people who forget the lessons of history. Taking another historical analogy, Colombia isn't a Poland, but it might end up being a Czechoslovakia. That would make Obama our Neville Chamberlain. I guess that fits.

There's a new book out by Don Watson, the author of The Dictionary of Weasel Words. It's called Bendable Learnings. It's about government spin and the language of saying ... well, nothing much using big words.

The Tasmanian government defines outcomes as:". . .the benefits or other long-term changes that are sought from undertaking the project. They are achieved from the utilisation of the project outputs. Outcomes are linked with objectives, in that if the outcomes are achieved then the projects objective(s) have been met."

Edith Cowan University writes about student priorities policy as ". . .issues arising from the contributing feedback processes and are generally underlying causal issues being different from specific issues identified and addressed within the contributing feedback process".

I think the whole point of this kind of thing is either to a) make the obvious sound complicated, or b) to make obviously wrong things sound so complex that (they hope) no one will notice.

First, there was a Manga version of Marx's Das Kapital, and now, there's a Manga version of Hitler's Mein Kampf. Whatever next?
[Update] Of course ... it's got to be everyone's favorite political philosopher Mao! Manga Marx, Manga Mein Kampf, and Manga Mao ... it certainly seems to fit.

Asterix the Gaul was first published in October 1959. Happy fiftieth birthday Asterix! Apparently, Asterix is the most translated piece of French literature! Well, I did say I was starting to like the French.

Asterix is just great ... As John Mander says:

The stories are ostensibly for kids, but full of puns and current event gags and spoofs of Latin... But here’s what’s important: Goscinny and Uderzo paid their audience the compliment of assuming we had enough knowledge of Classical history to get the jokes.

I actually remember studying for a high school Classical Studies exam by reading Asterix (amongst other things). I got a good grade, so don't knock it!
However, as Mander also notes:

Alas, the world has changed in 50 years. Europe is become the European Union, and national pride—French or otherwise—is not to be encouraged. A couple of years back according to Charles Bremner of the Times, Albert Uderzo was asked by Dominique Versini, the EU Children’s Defender to let Asterix and Obelix be the official ambassadors to the United Nations convention on the Rights of Children. Not so fast, said the higher-ups at Defence for Children International:
‘… Astérix conveys an “archaic…hierarchical” world at odds with the revolutionary” values of the 1989 convention…said Jean-Pierre Rosenczveig, a senior juvenile judge who heads the French DCI. Astérix also projects “a Gaulish vision which ignores the intercultural reality of French society,” they say. His constant resistance against the Romans and other foreign invaders sends altogether the wrong message in the peace-loving European Union.’

Hah ... is nothing sacred anymore?

The Master said, "If a gentleman is kind to his relatives, the common people will be inspired toward goodness; if he does not neglect his old acquaintances, the people will honor their obligations to others." Analects VIII.2

interpretation: relationships between people are of utmost importance in Confucianism. (I will put another quote from the Analects in a future post that makes this point even more strongly.) In previous Wisdom that Confucius Taught posts I've already stressed the importance of correct behavior on the part of rulers. Here we have a specific example of a particular type of correct behavior. Thus we have situations like this:

June 6, 2008: A draft law in Liaoning province makes it an obligation for adult children to contact or visit their parents regularly.

and this:

In several Chinese cities, officials have to prove they are model sons and daughters to have any chance of promotion. The city government of Jinchang, northwest China's Gansu Province, interviews the family, friends and neighbors of officials up for promotion to test their respect for parents. The same requirement is applicable in Hejin city in Shanxi Province and Daming county in Hebei Province.

Elsewhere, in regions where Confucianism has less influence, several relatives of Obama have done less well. On the other hand, a Confucian would have no doubt that the president should intervene to help his aunt and prevent her from being deported from the US.

Daniel Bell, who teaches at Tsinghua University in Beijing, wrote the following Op-Ed in the New York times a few days ago:

Jiang Qing, a leading exponent of the new Confucianism, explicitly criticizes the idea of state sovereignty, saying that sovereignty lies with “heaven” rather than the state. He argues for a democratic institution that would offer more opportunities for political participation, while criticizing democracy for being too narrowly focused on the interests of the current generation of voters. Jiang proposes another political institution designed to represent non-voters whose interests are typically neglected in democratic states, such as foreigners, future generations and ancestors... Communism is dead as a unifying myth that can sustain the Chinese people, they argue, so what does China stand for now? Here’s where Confucian values become relevant.

It should be noted that Bell himself is a member of the "Left" himself, and it's informative to see how he operates in this Chinese environment. While I like Confucianism a lot, I don't see it in the same terms as Bell. Bell is ideologically aligned the China's "New Left" which is seeking to create a new socialist paradise only this time basing it on a Confucian model. The contempt for democracy that is felt amongst the liberal elite in USA comes out in full unshackled form from this academic when he finds himself in a place where he doesn't even need to pretend that the will of the people matters. Still, the questions that are raised are interesting: what happens when you deny state sovereignty and replace it with the Will of Heaven? How do we cope with the interests of non-voters?

I'm not paraphrasing. That's the headline.

President Obama addressed the idea of taxing and regulating marijuana ... His words: “No, I don’t think that is a good strategy to grow our economy.” Clearly, he got that wrong... The moderator who was reading questions submitted via whitehouse.gov, raised the topic. His answer was prefaced with the recognition that this was a “fairly popular question.” Actually, it was the most popular question, by far. Yet the president failed to treat it with the same thoughtfulness awarded to other topics. The entirety of his response is below (yes, it’s only 53 seconds long). Do you think he handled it fairly?

I'm in two minds about this particular debate, so I won't offer an opinion about the rights and wrongs of it. What I find amusing is the way hardcore Obamarites are suddenly finding that the changemeister isn't quite what they thought they were voting for. The comments are also interesting. I've excerpted a small selection:

This to me is a sign of ignorance or perhaps a person the enjoys others suffering. In either case I take offense to this display of disrespect to the majority of free Americans.

The whole Change.org thing was Obama's idea, his baby and he laughingly blows of a huge number of voters

Way to blow off the question and insult the online crowd that got you into office Obama.

I actually cried when I heard the dismissive answer

ONE WORD, REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No change, no hope.

I started supporting financially the Obama push even before his presidential campaign got going. Having read his books, listened to his podcasts, and heard him speak a few times i had so much hope... Your uneducated, belittling, half-assed reply to the multitude of cannabis legalization questions was appalling.

Obama you are the joke and I wish I was in a another life in another country cause this one is f****d and its gonna get worse

betrayed, sad, insulted, rage... what negative emotion didn't I feel after seeing that?

This is at Change.org!!!

Many philosophers have a problem with patriotism, or love of country. When they try to explain what that problem is they usually sound just like Will Wilkinson (commenting on George Kateb).

We all are touched with what Yi-Fu Tuan calls “topophilia,” a sentimental connection to place, and cannot avoid indulging in it. But we can avoid making an overriding ideal of it. Indepedence Day ought not be a celebration of this place, America, its imaginary history, and the imaginary solidarity of its people. It ought to be a celebration of the universal ideal of a society in which all are equally without right to rule one another and equally invested with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — a celebration of the ideals of the Declaration.

Philosophers have just the same problem with romantic love. After articulating the characteristics that do, or should, make someone lovable, they stumble in explaining why one does, or should, love some particular person, instead of everyone who is lovable. Having stumbled, they make the error of telling us to love the abstract characteristics that make something lovable, rather than the particular entities, people or societies, that are lovable.

Independence day ought to be a celebration of a society in which all are equally without right to rule one another and equally invested with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — a celebration of a society that embodies the ideals of the Declaration.

President Bush recently referred to some of America's enemies as Islamic Facists, to which Keith Burgess-Jackson objected that he was misusing the term 'fascist'.

The reason it’s inappropriate to describe Islamists as fascists is simple: They’re not statists. To Muslims, including that subset of Muslims I call Islamists (see below), a state is at best a temporary thing, performing certain administrative, organizational, or ideological tasks. It has no independent significance, as it does in, say, the Christian tradition. (“Render unto Caesar” and all that.) Islamists aren’t trying to create a state in which all the parts work as one; their ultimate goal is a stateless world in which everyone worships Allah.

He then clarifies his argument.

1. All fascists are statists (by which I mean people who assign intrinsic moral significance to the state).

2. No Muslims are statists.

Therefore,

3. No Muslims are fascists.

Therefore,

4. The concept of an Islamic (Muslim) fascist is incoherent.

The problem with this argument is that, by similar reasoning, most communists would not count as statists either, because most of them view the socialist state as a temporary stage before the establishment of a truly communist, classless, and stateless society. I think it is quite reasonable to view both islamists and communists as statists because both aim to create totalitarian states, and believe that the interests of individual citizens should be subordinated to the interests of the totalitarian state. Unlike fascists, both groups view the totalitarian state as a temporary phase serving a further purpose, but I don't think that is enough to make it a mistake to call them statists.

Here's a top ten list of academic World Trade Center conspiracy theorists. I noticed that three of them were philosophers. That's more than any other discipline on the list. I guess that's proof that studying philosophy doesn't necessarily improve reasoning skills. One of them is actually an engineer, which is even more embarrassing, but at least she has the excuse of having been in a coma for six years. (via the Corner)

It's actually three, and therein lies the roots of our suffering.

I've always found the question "do you love me?" difficult to answer. Our culture and language assume there is only one kind of love that exists between two adults (whatever their sexual orientation). But the problem is that it simply doesn't match our physical reality.

Here is an excerpt from an article on the Economist:

Helen Fisher, a researcher at Rutgers University, and the author of a new book on love, suggests it comes in three flavours: lust, romantic love and long-term attachment. There is some overlap but, in essence, these are separate phenomena, with their own emotional and motivational systems, and accompanying chemicals.

Because they are independent, these three systems can work simultaneously—with dangerous results. As Dr Fisher explains, “you can feel deep attachment for a long-term spouse, while you feel romantic love for someone else, while you feel the sex drive in situations unrelated to either partner.” This independence means it is possible to love more than one person at a time, a situation that leads to jealousy, adultery and divorce

It's as if we only had one word for hunger, fatigue and thirst, and worse, we actually believe they are the same thing. So we'd feel frustrated or even guilty when we still feel hungry after drinking all we can. We'd have people who get ostracized by friends and family because they've got all the food and drink they need and it's wrong to catch a nap on the side.

Sounds absurd? What do you think?

I just noticed that Harry Frankfurt's classic essay "On Bullshit" has been published as a (very short) book. You can read the orginal essay here, or go see an interview with Frankfurt about the book here.

Lying is usually understood to involve saying something that you believe to be false, although some might add that what you say must actually be false. Misrepresentation, I think, involves saying something that you believe to be true, in order to get your audience to believe something that you believe to be false. Bullshit, according to Frankfurt, involves saying anything at all, with complete disregard for whether it is true or false, in order to get your audience to believe what you want them to believe.

If we accept humans are evolved to devote most of their energies competing with other members of their society for status, it makes sense that we will never be truly content. For those humans who were too easily satisfied were at a evolutionary disadvantage and weeded out, as reproductive opportunities were limited to those who with the highest social status (if we discount the strategy of rape, which is basically a fringe form of competition).

So in that light, it's pretty obvious that almost every men in modern society will experience what's commonly known as a midlife crisis. For sooner or later, their evolutionary trait will propel them to seek more status and therefore mating opportunity. (women do not have midlife crisis because they do not gain any significant reproductive advantage with multiple partners)

In this predominantly Christian society, it's easy to forget that monogamy is actually a fairly recent invention. Almost all successful men have multiple partners, if not all at once, then serially.

So what's the point of this post? Well, obviously I am interested in hearing what others have to say on this subject. It should be pretty obvious that neither the usual Christian morality nor the trivial "what's natural is obviously good" sort of justification is what's looked for here.