Thursday, May 17, 2018

Sisyphus, Roll That Boulder
Different hill, different boulder, and still we must envision Sisyphus happy, enjoying the returns of his efforts.

There has been much in the news of Jordan Peterson and his new book and philosophy. He is very articulate but shoot your mouth off, expect flack, ignore flack, as a philosophy... well that is my impression of the Youtube stuff I have seen.

I tried to read his book, but anyone who thinks the bible is literally true, and uses it as an example on the first page of his book does not get me to go beyond there. The bible is story or myths, fairy tails of old, and similar. There may be some truths and fact in it, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I have, within my control, the ability to suspend assent and rejection, or hold in abeyance, any proposition.  The bible cannot be considered as historically accurate, for there is enough errors in it that bullshit is bullshit applies.

Any time anyone says anything on the internet, we can expect flack. True. Likely. So keep your negativity to yourself or I will just turn comments off, not just delete them with my bow fingers.

No one is teaching morality anymore. Religion always did a poor job, families likewise, schools not much, so likely all the young get is a bit of incidental learning, social learning. The underlying reasons, causes, benefits, advantages are just not taught. The more I read about ethics, the more I realize that morality has logical foundations, and we drift off the proper course when we do not return to the foundation from time to time. We may need to check to see it we are still over a foundation when we run into difficulties. In order to do this, we need to understand all the foundations.

One of those foundations is culture/religion, so two separate groups cannot be expected to get along in any one geographic region. Getting rid of religion and understanding the "social rules" can reduce conflict. So here is one: shoot your mouth off and take a chance on offending others, or reserve comments and perhaps avoid offense, that is the question. Always speak the truth seems the way to go, but then we say there is no evidence of any supernaturals, and we can give offense to the religious, if they realize their god is a supernatural. Oh well, in the end we all just die off anyway.     


Sunday, May 6, 2018

Existentialism Defined

Copied from someplace: 

Existentialism is a movement in philosophy and literature that emphasizes individual existence, freedom and choice. It began in the mid-to-late 19th Century, but reached its peak in mid-20th Century France. It is based on the view that humans define their own meaning in life, and try to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe. It focuses on the question of human existence, and the feeling that there is no purpose or explanation at the core of existence. It holds that, as there is no God or any other transcendent force, the only way to counter this nothingness (and hence to find meaning in life) is by embracing existence.
Thus, Existentialism believes that individuals are entirely free and must take personal responsibility for themselves (although with this responsibility comes angst, a profound anguish or dread), and emphasizes action, freedom and decision as fundamental in rising above the essentially absurd condition of humanity (which is characterized by suffering and inevitable death).

Turkeys can not fly with the eagles.  Sad fact, many of us are born turkeys. There is no evidence that the turkeys and eagles are the same species. We turkeys should be happy as turkeys, and not try to be eagles. Do the eagles become phoenix's when they fly into the sun?

But existential philosophy is so much more, and fits a magpie philosophy of life. It is based on the assumption that our most valuable asset is life, and we are individuals who make our own decisions. Can anyone rationally dispute that?

Existentialism leads to a form of ethics and a form of moral behavior, both derived rationally from the foundation of our life being the most valuable thing to we individual people, and with little more beyond derived virtues, we arrive at a set of ethics that rival Buddhism, the Stoics, the Veda, and surpass christian and muslim dictates. There is no need for faith and religion, no need for a god concept, no need for all those dubious beliefs. Life is good.   


Wednesday, May 2, 2018



Do they not realize that a cross is the symbol of oppression to all non-christians?

Rebellion can go two ways: open hostility or recognition that they are just ignorant, and we ignore their fixed and wrong concepts, and carry on leaving them in blissful ignorance.

Perhaps it is time to start painting big red A's on public doorways, or some such public protests. 

Thursday, April 26, 2018

Society is just irrational

Society is just irrational

So what does society want?
  • for these seconds of society to not exist
  • Or to not feel the way they do for the way they are treated
  • or to not feel
  • or to not express there feelings
  • and some to act out. 
Society, modern society, has seconds, people who do not fit in, and we can form a community, like never before. We exist, we do, we live. Get over yourselves.

Our behavior is ultimately the result of our morals, ethics, emotions, and our own twisted logic. Our life in society made us the way we are. If you do not like the way we are, we are the result of your actions and our makeup. It is not our fault that society does not service our needs and are abusive. It is not your place to criticize the result of society's abuses. Some people are just living wild within our modern society. What else can they do?

Some of these events are just suicide by cop. There is no other way to look at it. 

Monday, April 23, 2018

The apocalypse is near

The apocalypse is near, but it is not what or how you think. The end will for all of us, by ourselves or a few at a time, as a result of time and climate change, and some will live on to their natural end.

We have gone through a period of massive population expansion to twice what the earth's atmosphere can support long term, so now we are at a point of selection and pruning down the unwanted people within society. Who are the unwanted? Those who cannot survive, for it is not a human force making the decision, but the environment, evolution and nature. Those who can live unassisted in the high carbon dioxide will be those who survive and reproduce, and survive and reproduce, as evolution has always occurred through growth and bottlenecks. The sixth extinction, with the humans as one of the species heavily impacted is what I am saying.

I do not expect that the human will go extinct. We are too adaptive and can manipulate our micro-environment. It will be those who are most adaptable that will survive, those who have nothing but there lives to lose, those who will do what they think it takes to survive. Morals, ethics, and what we know as civilization will be the first causality, government the second. The cash flow will dry up, and who knows what else. I expect that we old folk will just die and rot where we fall, in the later stages of decline, unless we have food stores, and then we will be killed for the food stores. It will be ugly, there will be no laws, no enforcers, just violence, until the people reduce in number and learn to grow gardens, and preserve food for winter, and return to a new agrarian society, that will support the much reduced population. I am thinking 25 to 50 % of today's population, with much of that being agrarian. I do not know what that population might look like, but in the long term, I think humans will survive; however the humans may not be of the same species as today.

The other choice is engineering ourselves out of the problem. What would that look like? Oxygen tanks or enriched air tanks and machines at the ready, but how will the economics of that work? Oh well, with my age a lung issues, I will likely be in the first few rounds of deaths.

Are we at the verge of splitting into two species? Quite possible. All that it will take is an effort to selectively breed a superior human, superior lung capacity, and intellect. Well, it is more a matter of choosing mates based on characteristics than emotions of any kind. Then reproducing. Love and the like will be secondary after family propitiation consideration... a second career, a second life, likely without much family, what ever that might look like... I do not know.   


Sunday, April 15, 2018

The Trolley Problem

The trolley problem that I refer to is that old one, 5 people on one track, 1 on a side track, what do you do. The correct answer is all the choices are wrong. So it is suggested that least damning is the best. Business and organizations often get in this situation, and they will chose what is best for the company or organization, not what is best for society. That is their right. But what about places like Alberta Health. Do they make the best decision for the people or Alberta Health? If there is any doubt, Alberta Health looks out for Alberta Health. Consider the vaccination guidelines of statins. Is there any doubt.

So Consider the US position on war, since WWII. Viet Nam, to Syria. Ethically all wrong, for any violence is just wrong if we consider that cooperation is the essential of ethics, there are just wrong. Aggression is always wrong. Aggression sold as defense is wrong. Defense is, well, defense. But what is the choice to defense? Annihilation? But even defense, while necessary is wrong. There is nothing to be done but defense, but it is still just wrong. It is not cooperation. There is nothing right to be done when something wrong is being done.

So until we have peace, and all people are willing to cooperate, we ethic loving peoples are screwed. Considering the carbon dioxide problem, all humans are screwed, but oh well. More screwed. Each man for him self, primarily, or perhaps the family unit, for those of you that have a family unit.

Saturday, April 14, 2018


How should we handle a person who has lower morals than ourselves?

If an organization is involved, the likely action will be the best for the organization. In the case of American Atheists, it was to fire David Silverman. It surprises me that he lasted this long with his interest in the smoke and booze, and prodigal ways at conventions with the AA credit card. I did not have any issues with him picking up rounds of drinks, but I thought AA might have something to say about it. Oh well. I was not aware of his philandering, but it does not sunrise me. AA did what it needed to do to protect the organization.

But my morals would not let me mess about as David is reported to have done, but the question is how should I deal with such people at a personal level? I have concluded that I will just not associate with such behavior, and will not associate with those who cannot separate reality and fiction. Is that wrong, to go to what I know is safe? I am old. I can get through with far less "old friends and relatives" So perhaps it is just easier to detach. Period. Oh well. 

The principal of existential ethics or individual ethics is that our life is the primary value in our lives, and we should not do anything that detracts or devalues that. So in the moral case above the other has risked there value, and I do not wish to be associated with the likes. But at the same time, is my life poorer without them in my life? It is a balancing act, a draw, an evaluation. There is no wrong answer. It is a choice, a decision. Does it all really matter any way?