Wednesday 27 June 2012

Thunderf00t has yet more cats to throw around


Politicians are often touted as 'hawks' or 'doves'. Thunderf00t's recent arrival at FtB can be better described as a cat amongst the pigeons.


On only his second post, he threw his oar into the TAMGate farce that has been enthralling (yawn) its readers for weeks (it seems like months?), by suggesting that it isn't really a big problem.


Today, he responds to PZ Myers' attacks on him, calling him out on his straw man arguments. In his third offering, he cites no less than five examples of what he perceives to be Myers "going off half cocked on some argument that was never made"


I'll not list them all here, Thunderf00t is more than capable of expressing himself, but I would like to see his presence at FtB rattle a few cages. Those that have followed me on Google+ recently will be aware of my growing frustration at a number (but by no means all) of the more established bloggers there cowering to the almighty Myers, rather than having the spine to stand up to him and have an opinion of their own.


Some might say I am not being very fair on those that do actually support Myers' position on TAMGate, and that would be a fair appraisal. If they are genuine in their sycophancy, then I am not talking about them, then.


No. It is those that sit on the fence that I am directing this towards. The self-serving obeisance that I have witnessed recently is excruciating, and in total contradiction to the name of free-thought.


I, for one, welcome Thunderf00t to FtB. His timely presence has been a breath of fresh air at a time when the discussions there were becoming awfully stifled and - dare I say - boring.


It has crossed my mind, that Thunderf00t is trolling for effect. If he is, Ed Brayton should be loving it, and by extension, Myers also. Their revenues must be going through the roof.


Tuesday 26 June 2012

Stop the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer to the USA #SaveRichard


Richard O'Dwyer is a 24 year old British student at Sheffield Hallam University in the UK. He is facing extradition to the USA and up to ten years in prison, for creating a website – TVShack.net – which linked (similar to a search-engine) to places to watch TV and movies online.

O'Dwyer is not a US citizen, he's lived in the UK all his life, his site was not hosted there, and most of his users were not from the US. America is trying to prosecute a UK citizen for an alleged crime which took place on UK soil.

The internet as a whole must not tolerate censorship in response to mere allegations of copyright infringement. As citizens we must stand up for our rights online.

Monday 25 June 2012

Mornings are usually a boring and unproductive time for me. I mean, I keep myself occupied, just with the more mundane day to day humdrum tasks that fill out my day and give me a semblance of reality away from the work you will all be more familiar with.


This morning, though, when answering on-line surveys in the effort to keep my head above water, I got a Skype message from Reap Paden (a.k.a. The Angry Atheist) who runs the GodlessRadio.net podcast.


Now, I have been aware of his show for a couple of years now, and always listen to the show for no other reason than the great people he attracts to it, as the following exchange just goes to show.


Here, follows, a transcript of the conversation:

Saturday 23 June 2012

Philosophy of religion: Counter-apologetics for beginners - Countering J. W. Wartick

J.W. Wartick is a graduate student in Christian Apologetics at Biola University. His interests include philosophy of religion; particularly the existence of God, astronomy, biology, archaeology, and sci-fi and fantasy novels.

With the exception of his taste in novels, we appear to share similar interests, but the one that I wish to discuss here today approaches his thoughts on the philosophy of religion. In particular, his post on 'The morality of God: Christ at the centre'.

As an introduction to counter-apologetics for beginners, his argument in this post serves as a shining example of the weakness of the great many Christian apologists that litter the Interwebz.

So let's take a quick look at his argument.

Wednesday 20 June 2012

Secular Cornwall meet up in Penzance






Friday 15 June 2012

Thursday 14 June 2012

The 10 commandments of good thinking

The level of critical thinking in the community I reside has never failed to amaze me. In fact, as I continue to study philosophy, politics and human nature in general, the more forlorn the hope that one fine day one of my peers might actually raise a valid objection to something other than what is thrown at them by the media.

Don't get me wrong, we are all prone to sloppy reasoning, confirmation bias and other logical fallacies, the important thing is to remember that even those of us that profess clear-mindedness and reasoned thought fall foul of the very misconceptions we seek to undermine.

Critical thinking is possibly the single most important tool the thoughtful person has available to him, but we should be mindful to apply it equally to our own cogitations as much as we do in reaction to other's positions.

Philosopher and senior lecturer at Heythrop College in the University of London, Stephen Law has highlighted a post by kungfuhobbit that lays out the 10 commandments of good thinking that I would like to share with you here.

Sunday 10 June 2012

Philosophical - A free Open University course, 'Introduction to philosophy'

This unit is from the Open University archive and it is an adapted extract from Philosophy and the human situation (A211) which is no longer in presentation.

If you wish to study formally at The Open University, you may wish to explore the courses we offer in this curriculum area.
 

This unit gives you an idea of what it is like to study philosophy, introducing you to the teaching methods employed by the Open University in teaching philosophy. If you are considering studying philosophy, we recommend you start here. Although the unit is mainly for people who are new to philosophy, you may find it helpful even if you already have some experience of the subject.

The following material has been written by Maria Kasmirli with quotations from Dr Nigel Warburton.

Philosophical - A free Open University course, 'Philosophy of religion'

The Open University is a great place to start no matter what sphere of study you are considering.


With more than 250,000 students enrolled, including around 32,000 aged under 25 and more than 50,000 overseas students, it is the largest academic institution in the United Kingdom (and one of the largest in Europe) by student number, and qualifies as one of the world's largest universities.

Try over 600 free online courses from The Open University. Available from introductory to advanced level, each takes between 1 and 50 hours to study.
Complete activities to assess your progress and compare your thoughts with sample answers. Sign up for free to track your progress, connect with other learners in our discussion forums and find the tools to help you learn.


Whilst searching for degree courses in philosophy, I encountered one of these free courses that actually forms part of course A222, 'Exploring philosophy'; a course I am hoping to find funding for.


The 'Introducing the philosophy of religion' course is a 12 hour, intermediate degree level course, and Timothy Chappell, Professor of Philosophy, asks what the words 'God' and 'religion' mean, and what it means to ask philosophical questions about them.

Thursday 7 June 2012

Quote of the day



"You are free to go to your temples; free to go to your mosques, or any other place of worship in this Pakistan you may belong to any religion, caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State."

It is hard to think today, that there was once a time in the not too dim and distant past that Pakistan was formed as a secular state. That all changed in 1956 when a new Pakistani constitution was adopted, after being declared an Islamic republic.

With stories coming out of the Commonwealth nation of assassination of Christian ministers, the death penalty being applied in alleged trumped up blasphemy cases and even attacks against popular Islamic mysticism, Sufism, by hard-line fundamentalists, it is difficult to see any hope for a meaningful peace.

Pakistan is a troubled country, for sure. Religion runs roughshod over the Government, making it all but impossible for the rule of law to be justly applied. Subjective religious interpretations are held to have higher authority than objective civil laws, which only further the country's problems.

I don't honestly know what can be done with Pakistan. It is a failed state; its population long ago discarding any semblance of coherent nationhood or civic responsibility, beyond a mutual support for their national cricket team.

One wonders if that is secular in nature?

Secularism IS religious freedom



There have been a number of prominent faces speaking out against secularism of late, amongst them Baroness Warsi, Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, but each of them seem to have curious conceptions of what secularism actually means. I hear them say secularism a lot, but I don't think it means what they think it means.

Over at the National Secular Society, Anne Marie Waters has just released an article that gives a very good account of both what secularism is - and equally important - what it is not. She opts to begin with what secularism is not;
It is not a threat to religious freedom, in fact the opposite is true. The aim of secularism, and the National Secular Society, is to protect fundamental human rights, including the right to religious freedom, by ensuring that we are governed by a state that is neutral on matters of religious faith and that religion remains a matter for the private sphere. This does not mean that there should be no churches or synagogues or mosques, nor that they should be excluded from putting forward their political views, it simply means that those who do not believe in a particular faith are not obliged to do so, and are not obliged to follow the dictates of that faith. This is as important for people of faith as it is for non-believers.
Let me summarise that for you. Secularism strengthens religious freedom.

Those that are hostile - and I use that term advisedly - to secularism give the impression that secularism's supporters want to ban religion, destroy churches in the image of Joseph Stalin and to adopt a totalitarian dictatorship in the image of the National Socialists (or Nazis as they are more popularly known).

This simply couldn't be further from the truth, and is either a staggering ignorance of the term, or wilful and deliberate lie. Neither are acceptable in a decent right-thinking society.

So how do we counter this rising tide of ignorance and misrepresentation?

As is always the key to confounding incorrect assumptions, education is the most important tool in the secularist toolbox.
XKCD
The Internet is the perfect sphere for correcting people's errors. Trawl Google for secularist threads in forums, the comments in news articles and the #secularism hash-tag in Twitter, for example. 

Admittedly, most of your interlocutors will not listen to you, but you will have got the truth out there, and if enough people do this, secularist bashers will eventually not have the luxury of saying they haven't been informed that their positions are wrong, and that their continued misrepresentation annihilates their credibility. 

Write a blog on the subject and post it to the Christianity subreddit and other religious forums. Indeed, anywhere those that are misinformed about the nature of secularism. They need it. (You can post this to r/Christianity here) 

Your local member of Parliament is a must. If he or she doesn't know the meaning of the terms that are important to you, how can you be said to be represented at all? All members have contact addresses, you should drop them a line. Example questions could include:
  • What is your personal opinion on secularism?
  • Will you personally support the removal of unelected Anglican bishops in the House of Lords?
  • Do you personally believe - as happens in courts of law - one's religious persuasion is incidental to the machinations of governance serving a diverse population?
It is my experience that you will receive a response espousing whatever party line he or she adheres to, so it is important that you press home the personal aspect of your line of questioning.

You can find your local MP by entering your post code in the search box here

Join a local discussion group. Both the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society have listings of groups in your area. Not one nearby? Start your own. By contributing to the discussion, you add gravitas to the weight of opinion supporting secularism. The more people align with secular principles, the more likely their voices are to be - not only heard - but recognised.

Write to the editor of your local newspaper. Every local paper has a 'letters' page. It is your forum to state your case to a wider audience. Trying to fit it in with a pertinent story that you have seen in the paper will increase the likelihood of getting published.
 
In my own area, all the local papers have a collective website called 'thisiscornwall', and I know that other counties have similar portals. Here, at least, I know I can write articles of interest to the wider community that are listed alongside the newspaper's content. It is a really useful 'citizen journalism' tool that can really make an impact on its readership.


Why stop at the local level? National newspapers also  have letters pages. More difficult to get published, but if you don't try, you don't get.

You could start by sending the embarrassment that is Baroness Warsi an email to let her know how you feel. 

As always, keep it civil, but more importantly, keep it up.




Do you have any tips on how to spread the true nature of secularism to its opponents? Do you have a story about how it went? What have I overlooked?

Tuesday 5 June 2012

Council docked Muslim worker's pay for prayer breaks


Praying Muslims or sleeping policemen?
I remember reading that a Muslim bus driver stopped mid-route to set out a prayer mat and start praying in the aisle.

If you cannot carry out your duties for religious reasons, you should not be in such a position. 

The news has been littered with cases where people's religion has not so much hindered, as much as outright precluded such people from carrying out their duties. I'll list just two:

Gary McFarlane 


Dismissed as a relationship counsellor by Avon Relate on the grounds that he could not confirm that he would continue to counsel same-sex clients in both relationship counselling and PST with regard to all the sexual issues they may have brought, and that he would agree to carry out relationship work where it involved same-sex sexual issues in line with his acceptance of the group's equal opportunities policy and the British Association for Sexual and Relationship Therapy's Code of Ethics.

At the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Laws stated that "the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled." As religious beliefs were by their nature impossible to prove, they were necessarily subjective, and could therefore only be considered to bind the behaviour of the believer and not that of anyone else. He went on to state:
The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens; and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law; but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.
The application was refused.

Shirley Chaplin


Nurse who was supported by the CLC in an unsuccessful bid to sue the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust for discrimination because it had moved her to a desk job after she refused to remove a crucifix on a chain when asked to do so on health and safety grounds (hospital dress code prohibits front-line staff from wearing any type of necklace in case patients try to grab them). The hospital had offered Chaplin a compromise of wearing her cross pinned inside a lapel or pocket. An employment tribunal ruled they acted reasonably in April 2010, rejecting Chaplin's case.
 
Ms Chaplin intends to appeal against the decision.


As a smoker, I find it awkward to have to admit that this also applies to me, but the fact remains; if I am unable to dedicate myself to the task at hand, I shouldn't be doing a job that requires my undivided attention.

With regard to people that use the toilet a lot? Really? Unless they are just skiving, they probably have very good reason to be excused for natural bodily functions to take their course. Whether or not this is the natural processes of a healthy individual, or some medical condition, is of no consequence. When you have to go, you have to go.

But really! Is this religious discrimination on the part of the employer, or secular discrimination on the part of the employee? It is like a case of the pot calling the kettle spherical; its form fits its function lest it is cast aside as useless.

Archbishop calls for free vote on same-sex marriage

Catholic Herald

Archbishop Peter Smith of Southwark has called for MPs of all parties to be given a free vote on same-sex marriage, saying that if the legislation were to be passed it “would have major long-term consequences”.
I actually agree with the bishop here. Our MPs are elected by us - the electorate - to represent our opinions, not party positions.

The three most recent polls would suggest - at least, as a national average - that each and every politician votes for same sex marriage.

A poll conducted by Angus Reid in July 2010 showed that 78% of people supported either same-sex marriage or civil union for gay couples, with 41% opting for same-sex marriage and 37% opting for civil union. The amount of people who supported no legal unions for gay couples decreased by 3% since August 2009.

In July 2011, a representative survey conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion showed that 43 per cent of Britons believe same-sex couples in the UK should be allowed to legally marry, 34 per cent think same-sex couples should be allowed to form civil partnerships, but not marry, and 15 per cent would grant no legal recognition to same-sex couples.

The most recent, a poll published by YouGov in March 2012, showed that 43% of people supported same-sex marriage whilst 32% supported civil partnerships.

I think the whole idea of recognising same sex marriages is precisely that they should have long term consequences; it is not like establishing civil rights is an experiment.


The Archbishop of Southwark, who is chairman of the bishops’ Department of Christian Responsibility and Citizenship, said: “The Government’s proposal to change the definition of marriage is a profound legal reform. It is very important that Members of Parliament of all parties should be given a free vote on an issue of such major significance.”

His intervention emerged after Nick Clegg had said that his Liberal Democrat MPs would be directed to vote in favour of same-sex marriage. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that Lib Dems will “honour what we have said as a party”.
Whilst it is admirable that the Lib Dems have such a progressive outlook on this issue, Mr Clegg's insistence that the party line be drawn in the sand is an affront to our democracy.
David Cameron, on the other hand, has said he will be giving his MPs a free vote on the legislation.
There is not much I find to like about the Conservatives these days, but on this issue Mr Cameron is spot on.
Archbishop Smith added that the matter was an “issue of conscience because fundamental moral questions are at stake about the true meaning of marriage”. He also said that politicians should be “free to express and act on their own principled view”.
Ooh! And I was leaning towards saying that not only do I agree with the Conservatives on this one, but a Catholic bishop too.


I applaud his commitment to determination by democracy, but in placing the onus on the conscience of the MP personally, he forgets that it should not be their consciences they need to seek, but those whom each MP represents.

Monday 4 June 2012

10 reasons why we are winning on gay "marriage"

I don't write much on gay rights. As a heterosexual man, it is not a subject that directly touches me. To be honest, I feel a bit of a fraud.

That said, I do take an interest in oppressed groups, especially if there is an overlap into areas of interest where I have more experience.

Tom Gilson writes a blog called The Thinking Christian that I follow. He is not your typical Christian blogger, inasmuch as he is actually very lucid and the quality - if not the content - of his writing is of a high standard.

In today's RSS feed I came across one of his latest posts entitled '10 reasons we are losing on gay "marriage"'. I couldn't help myself.


There is only one reason why you are losing on gay marriage; because you are wrong.
TG1. We have been strategically oblivious. The gay-rights insurgency has been following a strategy published more than twenty years ago. Their plan had significant vulnerabilities we could have dealt with effectively in the early 1990s. Instead we paid no attention, and now the challenge is exponentially harder. Their strategy’s weaknesses remain, but the gay rights movement has amassed cultural strength to compensate.
TS1. I couldn't care less, as a heterosexual man myself, about a 'gay agenda'. The link you provided seems perfectly reasonable to me. If there is intolerance and bigotry in society regarding a particular way of life that does no one else any harm, it seems obvious that someone would put together some form of P.R. campaign to highlight acceptance of their right to self-determination. It is, I should imagine, no different than someone setting out the case for acceptance of civil rights for slaves, women and non-segregation. If it is acceptable for these movements to solidify their image in their plight against their oppressors, why should it be any different for GLBT or atheist groups?
TG2. We are unequipped to use our own best weaponry. There are many powerful, love-centered, natural-law arguments against gay “marriage,” but how many of us know what natural law is, or how to understand and present it in this case?
TS2. You are, indeed unequipped to use your own best weaponry. There are many powerful, love-centered, natural-law arguments against any form of “marriage”.
TG3. Even were that not the case, we live in a culture that is impervious to good reasoning, having little education or experience with genuine critical thinking, and being accustomed instead to the manipulations of sloganeering and imagery.
TS3. It is true that the U.S. is generally impervious to good reasoning and poor educational standards. This is highlighted in the numerous studies that show a clear correlation between higher standards of education being synonymous with higher levels of organic atheism and a lower level of intolerance to GLBT issues.
TG4. Lacking awareness of how to use own best weaponry, we are left with picking up our opponents’ missiles—that same sloganeering and imagery—and lobbing them back half-spent.
TS4. It is not 'missiles' you find hurled at you, but reason. Perhaps is is why it is thrown back half-spent.
TG5. We have yielded authority to empirical research “experts,” forgetting that no one has any empirical information yet on what will come of a multi-generational experiment in gay “marriage.” Lacking a scientific reason to oppose gay “marriage” we have needlessly assumed we have no reason.
TS5.Same sex marriage is not a multi-generational experiment in gay “marriage”. It is about affording people the right to live in loving relationships on an equal footing with people of other sexual persuasions. How do you think the multi-generational experiment in slave, women's and non-segregationist "rights" is going? And as I have already stated, you natural law argument is not without devastating consequences for marriage for anyone.
TG6. We have been weak in understanding, advocating for, and practicing the proper meaning of marriage among ourselves.
TS6. I couldn't agree more.
TG7. We are embarrassed to be involved in a “culture war,” having accepted the liberal message that it’s unseemly and that we’re responsible for it. We’re not. They invaded existing culture with dangerously disruptive cultural ordnance. We are simply trying to hold ground.
TS7. It was the existing culture you say has been invaded, that your religion was responsible for. As such, you have every reason to be embarrassed with your involvement in a “culture war”. You are not, as you state, simply trying to stand your ground against a dangerously disruptive cultural ordnance, you are, in fact simply trying to stand your ground against a civic rights movement that in no wise can be said to be any more dangerous than any other rights movement. 
TG8. We are overly cautious over what we might lose—tax exemptions, jobs, reputations—by standing up for what is right.
TS8. Why on earth would affording same sex marriage mean you would have to give up tax exemptions or jobs? I would say that is the most ludicrous argument against it I have ever heard, but then you continue. Reputations? Really? You think your reputation has anything to do with human or civic rights? I would love to hear that defended.
TG9. We have never adopted a mindset of training for battle. Training is hard. It takes discipline, study, and the courage to face potential losses. But we have either misunderstood what it takes to prepare for a fight like this one, or we’re embarrassed to think of ourselves as being in it, or we’re unwilling to pay the price for our nation’s and our children’s spiritual, cultural, moral, and political health and safety.
TS9. You should be embarrassed to be 'in it'. Your children’s spiritual, cultural, moral, and political health and safety are not in any danger from allowing equal rights to people.
TG10. Where we have not made the above mistakes—where we have understood, reasoned, loved, and practiced well—our voice and presence have been stifled by the educational, cultural, and media elite, who have ensured that their message would shout out above all. (We could examine the reasons that has happened, but that’s for another day.)
TS10. As I started this response, you are just wrong.



If you like and share this post, a starving zombie will get a coupon worth one free brain.

Letter to Governor Daniels: Ruth Burger child sex abuse case


Ruth Burger (nee Copley)
Many of you will by now have encountered the story over at Incongruous Circumspection regarding the horrific treatment of Ruth Burger (nee Copley), adopted daughter of Dr. Ken Copley - Pastor of Discipleship at Brownsburg Baptist Church IN., who sexually abused her for years. Her mother, if not sexually, certainly physically abused her for an even longer period of time. The nine part series does not take too long to digest, but its content does.

Today, we are informed that the now married with children, and war veteran  Ruth, wrote to Governor Mitch Daniels (Rep.) requesting that the Hamilton County District Attorney to re-open and conduct a thorough investigation into her claims. The letter is dated April 10th, 2012, and as yet has not received a response.


Dr. Ken Copley
Now the story has broken internationally, I feel it necessary to bring this case to the attention of a wider audience, and to give the Governor the opportunity to take Mrs Burger's claims a little more seriously. To that end, I have written to the Governor (copies of which have been shared with the Indianopolis Star, Incongrous Circumspection and my own personal blog) asking him to take action on Mrs Burger's claims - as is his responsibility. I urge you to do the same.

Please feel free to copy-pasta my letter if you are in a hurry, but individually written letters usually have more impact. Also, letting him know that you are posting this to numerous other outlets will likely get his attention. 

Here is my letter in full:

I am writing to the Governor to highlight an important case that I have become aware of through a blog I follow, that I feel he should give his most urgent attention to.


On April 10th of this year, Ruth Burger wrote to the Governor detailing the negligence of various organisations within his jurisdiction regarding her child sexual abuse claim. To date, as far as I am aware, he has not so much as afforded her the decency of a response.


Mrs Burger's accusations are very serious, and have wide ranging implications beyond her own circumstances. By ignoring her reasonable requests to see justice prevail, the Governor gives the outward impression that he is accommodating paedophiles by turning a blind eye to criminal behaviour when it is reported.


Now that this story has broken, I am sure the Governor would now like to approach the situation with the dignity and gravitas that it deserves, and respond immediately to Mrs Burger's April letter with a strong condemnation against child sex abuse and institutional negligence of behalf of those that have treated her so shoddily.


More than anything, though, I am sure Mrs Burger would like to see Justice is carried out according to the law, so I beyond the Governor's condemnation of events so far, perhaps he would also like to take up her case a personal cause.


The fact that this story has reached me, here in the extremities of the British Isles is testament its international scope, and is not likely to be a story which is likely to go away, so I urge him to strongly come out on this issue lest he be seen as part of the problem himself.


The details of the story can be found here; http://incongruouscircumspection.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/hammer-drops-dr-kenneth-copley-exposed.html


Thank you for your consideration.


Regards,


Mr Tris Stock


cc: Indstar.com, mygodlesslife.blogspot.co.uk, tris-stock-co-uk.blogspot.co.uk, incongruouscircumspection.blogspot.co.uk



Will you also write to the Governor? Can you also publish your letter for the world to see? I would be only too happy to past them here if you do not have a blog of your own!

Saturday 2 June 2012

Quote of the day



"The unexamined life is not worth living."
- Socrates

What I am reading: Plato - The Republic

As part of my autodidactic study into philosophy, I have done some research into introductory texts on the subject. The consensus would appear to be Plato's 'The Republic'.


I have a list of four such introductory titles, which I shall divulge as I obtain copies of each.


As I progress through each tome, I shall publish my notes on them as and when I feel a suitable length article is forthcoming. And upon completion of each book, I shall give a full review.
The ideas of Plato (c429-347BC) have influenced Western philosophers for over two thousand years. Such is his importance that the twentieth-century philosopher A.N. Whitehead described all subsequent developments within the subject as foot-notes to Plato's work. Beyond philosophy, he has exerted a major influence on the development of Western literature, politics and theology. The Republic deals with the great range of Plato's thought, but is particularly concerned with what makes a well-balanced society and individual. It combines argument and myth to advocate a life organized by reason rather than dominated by desires and appetites. Regarded by some as the foundation document of totalitarianism, by others as a call to develop the full potential of humanity, the Republic remains a challenging and intensely exciting work.
You can buy your own copy at the following links


U.K.
U.S.





Have you read The Republic? What did you think? What other philosophy titles do you think are suitable introductory texts to philosophy?

Friday 1 June 2012

Sometimes I really hate people.

Hardly the first subject I wanted to approach in the personal section of my new blog, but something has happened today that has left me as irate as I have been since my return to the U.K..

Look at the state of my garden:



Now, I am not blaming anyone but myself for that; I have been slacking off of late. But today I was feeling quite 'gung-ho', and really wanted to get the sagging wire fencing down that allows the creepers and brambles to take hold.

You will notice the little 'greenhouse' I have at the bottom of the path...


After a brief survey of the area to see what it was that was necessary to complete this job I headed into said greenhouse to fetch my tools in order to set about the task ahead of me, only to find that some reprobate had - during the night - walked into my garden from the front of the property (there is no other entry point) and proceeded to the very end of it just to steal an old spade, garden fork and a rake. The greenhouse is not visible from the road; hence its location.

I was livid.

I am livid.

Some time last week, I suspect the same clowns took a couple of my largest pots, discarding the one that was not in great condition in the garden of a neighbour four or five houses down.

I couldn't be bothered to retrieve it.

When I moved in here last November, I had big plans for my garden. I wanted to grow fruit and vegetables, despite knowing that Treneerites were likely to come along and help themselves. I figured they would be at least civil enough to leave some for me.

Not so, it would appear. Far from being fair-minded about the whole thing, they have gone as far as relieving me of the entire means of production. So fuck 'em. They are not going to get any produce out of me.

The front of the property - it must be said - is almost an invitation to waltz right in at leisure. The gates do not lock, the wall is knee high and the state of repair would suggest I don't care. But I do care. I care a lot.

Thankfully, I have contents insurance that covers just this sort of eventuality, so I shall be able to replace them, even if I fear it is too late now to make any meaningful in-roads to urban horticulture this year. This, of course, means that I have to make a police report; which I have done.

Not that I feel that there is any chance of recovering the items, but because my insurance company will likely insist that I do so. Were I uninsured, I should have let it pass; chalking it up to experience. So finding that I can make a report online was a refreshing option for me.

A quarter of an hour later my report had been filed, and not an hour after that I received a phone call confirmation and a reference number for my insurer. She asked if I wanted to have the community police do a door-knock around the area. At first, I was reluctant to reply in the affirmative. What was the point, I thought. Upon further refelction, though, the idea appealed to me, so I said yes.

I live in a community of people who are likely similarly blighted by petty theft and other seemingly minor irritations, and the local police showing a presence around the area is hardly likely to do any harm. Indeed, informing the people they encounter that there is a garden lurker in the neighbourhood may illicit further information regarding other crimes that had previously gone unreported. The more crime that is reported here, the more likely it is that both the police and the residents will try and do something to stop it. There is also the distant possiblilty that someone saw something that could lead to my possessions being returned. I shall not be holding my breath, but it would be nice not to have to involve my insurers after having only been with them for one month.

On the whole I fear there is very little the police can do, but I must admit that even though my anger has yet to subside, I am soothingly pleased with the way the police have handled the issue so far. So if nothing else comes of it, then I cannot be surprised. But if something does come of it, then the boys and girls in blue will have gone up inexorably in my opinion. Given the fact that my property is already gone, the future is a draw-win situation for me.

Not to be outdone, I still mean to carry on with my gardening plans, but I must now consider defensive strategies against my foes.

I shall be welcoming a new neighbour to the flat below sometime this month, and he abhors gardening. Lucky little me gets to take on the entire patch, which means I can fortify the place against our oppressors. A large fence, full-size lockable gates and a secure shed are what my initial thoughts are leaning towards, but I have not ruled out the possibility of motion lamps and booby-traps.

All of this needs to be put into action before I can so much as consider landscaping the grounds properly. This is likely to cost Joe and I a lot of money, but I refuse to leave myself open to further hardship by not securing my property. What price one's security afterall?

For those who do not know me, it is impossible for you to realise just how this has affected me. I am sure you have all been victims of crime one time or another, but I suffer from a certain cognitive malais that makes it almost impossible for me to function on any level that might be deemed 'normal'.

Before getting my home, I lived in a hostel under very trying conditions, whose project workers seek to assist people with varying degrees of anti-social symptoms (be it alcohol, drugs, parole or mental incapacity) to set about returning back into the community on a more even keel. There have been some pretty 'hairy' moments, but the system has done (I hope) a very good job with me, although I still haven't dealt with my cognitive issues.

It is these issues that make today's events so difficult for me. I want to like people - but try as I might - the more I encounter, the more I hate them. I do not use the word 'hate' lightly either.

All I wanted to do was grow some peas.



Have you ever been the victim of theft or burglary? Did you report it to the police? What happened?