tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.comments2023-03-24T08:31:02.722+01:00Concert notesStuart Claytonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13707750452117583297noreply@blogger.comBlogger215125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-63855922980703785672021-01-03T19:05:03.588+01:002021-01-03T19:05:03.588+01:00Something new causes us to suspend judgement as in...Something new causes us to suspend judgement as in epoche, and by turning this around, by practicing epochē we might be learning something new. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04694831134188836196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-43327026019881202982012-05-14T09:02:42.932+02:002012-05-14T09:02:42.932+02:00No, they still hate me, according to Ralf. They ma...No, they still hate me, according to Ralf. They may imagine that my giving them the chili powder was an obscurely offensive gesture in line with kicking the dog.<br /><br />Once small-minded people put you in their bad books, there you stay - until you win big in the lottery, I guess. The milk of human kindness flows downhill towards the pot of gold.Stuart Claytonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13707750452117583297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-68982246422321653502012-05-14T08:04:42.989+02:002012-05-14T08:04:42.989+02:00Stu, did you ever hear back from the in-laws? Jol...Stu, did you ever hear back from the in-laws? Jolly nice thought to give them the Mexican chili, I'm not that nice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-49870043956071575392012-02-22T18:01:39.689+01:002012-02-22T18:01:39.689+01:00¡jajaja! I'm with your sister.
Nunca había pe...¡jajaja! I'm with your sister. <br />Nunca había pensado en eso como una señal tan clara de nuestra civilización, pero tiene toda la razón. ¿Qué distingue naturaleza de cultura? Ya no pensemos en tabúes, sino en domesticar perros y echarlos de la mesa, como corresponde.Juliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16419101761966668410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-7716633599401604712011-12-23T09:35:31.933+01:002011-12-23T09:35:31.933+01:00Sig: Is the newspaper changing its articles over t...Sig: <i>Is the newspaper changing its articles over time?</i><br /><br />I have on various occasions seen that being done on blogsites, not just that of the NY Times. Thanks for the tip ! I wrote a longer comment about this, which I have now promoted to a post.Stuart Claytonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13707750452117583297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-91087326425600554732011-12-18T08:01:41.655+01:002011-12-18T08:01:41.655+01:002)
(...)
Aggressiveness is an instinct rooted in...2)<br /><br />(...)<br /><br />Aggressiveness is an instinct rooted in most creatures of the animal kingdom — of which, needless to say, mankind is part —, and it can help survival in a hostile world or, as the case may be, have more offspring. The thing with man and other domesticated/social animals is how to control that instinct. Very often aggressiveness needs to be <i>redirected</i> to avoid unnecessary conflicts, and in that respect sports must have played a key role in modern human societies. (Competition in sports could indeed be seen as a substitute to warfare.) But this is passive for most people — who only sit in front of a TV to watch it.<br /><br />I don't know if there is any link with it, or if things were better when long ago human beings could more easily be aggressive with strangers, but I was amazed the other day to read that, in the U.S., “nearly one in five women surveyed said they had been raped or had experienced an attempted rape at some point, and one in four reported having been beaten by an intimate partner” (NYT – 14/12/2011). Maybe one didn't need to beat or rape his wife when he could let his aggressiveness be expressed through skirmishes or full-fledged battles with members of other tribes? (But I doubt it could actually be the case.)<br /><br />Konrad Lorenz has written a fairly good book on aggression (<i>Das sogenannte Böse. Zur Naturgeschichte der Aggression</i>). In chapter V, he describes how freshwater fishes known as <i>cichlids</i> are aggressive between partners (the male being the aggressor) if they are left only with one another. If the aquarium is separated in two by a sheet of glass and if two couples are placed on each side of the glass, the two males can — harmlessly — discharge their anger on one another, which makes relations inside the couple much better.<br /> <br /><br /><i>over the past few years I have become fairly revolted by supermarket meat, because of what I have seen on TV</i><br /><br />Bougon, have you read <i>What a Carve Up!</i> by Jonathan Coe? In this novel, there is one member of the awful Winshaw family — Dorothy if I'm not mistaken — who runs an intensive farming business with only profitability in mind. If memory serves me right, one of the things she does is cutting off the beak of chickens which tend to become aggressive due to lack of living space, thus harming each other. It's quite a good read.Siganus Sutorhttp://mauricianismes.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-90355690979919499652011-12-18T08:00:26.697+01:002011-12-18T08:00:26.697+01:00Let's then try to couper la poire en 2...
---...Let's then try to <i>couper la poire en 2</i>...<br /><br />----<br /><br />1)<br /><br /><i>Quotes from the review: <br />When you heard that a gunman had slaughtered scores of Norwegian teenagers (...)<br />The real fascination of this book is how we got from being a species that enjoyed the spectacle of roasting each other alive (...)<br />To readers familiar with the literature in evolutionary psychology (...)</i><br /><br />That's strange. I read the NYT article yesterday and I couldn't find the first two paragraphs quoted. Is the newspaper changing its articles over time?<br /><br />Regarding animal rights, the Spanish members of parliament seriously considered conferring some human rights to great apes. One could then imagine a court case during which a primate (a man) would be judged for the murder/rape/abuse/you-name-it of another primate (an orang-utan).<br /><br />But it could be asked to the Spanish lawmakers: Why great apes only? Because they look somewhat like ourselves? Because they are deemed to have feelings similar to ours? Then our dogs (or other people's goats) surely have feelings as well, don't they? Every now and then, when I crush a damn snail that has been devouring the passion fruits we had planted, I keep on thinking what he/she/it must be feeling.<br /><br />About three centuries ago, it was more or less accepted in the Western world that one human being could own and sell another human being. Maybe some time during the next century it will be found impossible, in the West, that a living creature (a man) could own and sell another living creature (a cow).<br /><br />When it comes to violence, in modern societies it is more or less acknowledged that only the State has the right to exert coercion or violence on people, while at the same time the laws it makes forbid violence between individuals. And it is probably better this way, as revenge or lynching has never made things better. Nowadays it even seems that in some Western countries slapping a child can bring parents to the police station, and it is frowned upon when parents appear as coercers.<br /><br />(...)Siganus Sutorhttp://mauricianismes.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-90292849991310549242011-11-13T12:07:08.536+01:002011-11-13T12:07:08.536+01:00It's probably not in itself going to make some...It's probably not in itself going to make someone change their mind, but it's at least a rational argument against those who say worrying about animals is mere sentimental fussing. Also, "rights" is a goal for people who care about animals: a) they don't have to start thinking from scratch every time there's an injustice and b) there are successful precedents (slavery, gay & women's rights) that show that something this big can be changed over time. There are lots and lots of young people who are vegans (including Ø's son), it's not like when we were young. They're turning vegan for assorted reasons, but the concept of animal rights is one of them.AJP Crownhttp://abadguide.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-59833670315992125732011-11-07T02:33:26.549+01:002011-11-07T02:33:26.549+01:00It's not all bad, but things have gotten out o...It's not all bad, but things have gotten out of hand when everyone thinks their little special-purpose plot of life should be protected by special-purpose rights actionable at law. That's what I meant by "consumer paradise" - all demands and money-back guarantees, even though everything is paid for by credit.<br /><br />I still wonder about one thing: do you think it likely that arguments about "rights" and "justice", in connection with the treatment of animals, had any effect on persons who did not already feel strongly about the subject ?Stuart Claytonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13707750452117583297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-10391754937073397982011-11-06T19:09:50.193+01:002011-11-06T19:09:50.193+01:00Yes, the problem with a list of rights is that, li...Yes, the problem with a list of rights is that, like the Ten Commandments, it's always being interpreted to fit someone's views. With the US Constitution it's simultaneously its strength and weakness.<br /><br />Some security and wish-fulfillment may be possible, & not all bad, surely? The consumer thing is temporary, in my opinion, just a carrot part of the loans crisis. I think we'll see a backlash.AJP Crownhttp://abadguide.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-29840875698324350492011-11-06T18:40:59.765+01:002011-11-06T18:40:59.765+01:00What is behind these developments in America, I th...What is behind these developments in America, I think, is a widespread desire for ultimate security and fulfillment of every wish - a consumer paradise. But the only kind of state that can address all these claims and clamor is an absolute state that pokes its nose into every cranny. I submit that many rights people have not seriously considered this consequence.Stuart Claytonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13707750452117583297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-31415314172374797752011-11-06T18:11:17.308+01:002011-11-06T18:11:17.308+01:00there's no inherent difference between humans ...<i>there's no inherent difference between humans and other animals ... animals ought to be protected under the law in the same ways & to the same extent as humans.</i><br /><br />I agree. But for just that reason I have the same difficulties accepting the notion of "human rights" as I do that of "animal rights". If such notions must be introduced to justify legislation to prevent the worst, then so be it - for now.<br /><br />What worries me is the browbeating, crypto-religious nature of this rights business. You must do things in a certain way because something absolute and unappealable - now rights, in the past God - says so. This undermines our modern legal systems, which work with "positive" law - laws that have a certain form today, but perhaps a different form in 20 years. They give us provisional order under a legislative consensus, not eternal justice. <br /><br />Eternal justice is what rightwing Christians and lesbian black animal-loving homeowners are aiming for - a settling of accounts once and for all. The lawyers love it, I bet.Stuart Claytonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13707750452117583297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-9696930647663773082011-11-06T17:28:47.775+01:002011-11-06T17:28:47.775+01:00Oh well these distinctions are terribly important ...Oh well these distinctions are terribly important to the animal lot, and there must be some <i>Rechte</i> people in Germany, though I've no idea what they call themselves. <i>Schutz</i> is a whole nother position, sort of like the ASPCA. Animal rights, as first proposed by Singer in the 1970s, is the idea that there's no inherent difference between humans and other animals, and that the supposed differences have been put in place and exploited by various religions; so that just as all humans deserve "human rights", animals ought to be protected under the law in the same ways & to the same extent as humans. So the idea of "pets", for instance, is as abhorrent to some animal rights activists as special treatment for your house nigger might have been a few years ago for a human-rights activist in the South - whereas the ASPCA or a <i>Tierschutz</i> person wouldn't have a problem with "pets" <i>per se</i>, just with how well they're treated.<br /><br />No, of course I didn't mean that you're a cruel person. I don't expect all my friends to be 100% interested in animals or with any other of my own pursuits.AJP Crownhttp://abadguide.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-32207531680485932932011-11-06T16:45:27.132+01:002011-11-06T16:45:27.132+01:00Crown, the welfare of animals is certainly not a m...Crown, the <i>welfare</i> of animals is certainly not a matter of indifference to me. I just can't make any sense out of animal "rights". I find it hard to believe that there are many people, if any, who changed the ways they treat animals - or the ways they view how others treat animals, for instance battery hens - as a <i>result</i> of public discussions about animal "rights". <br /><br />What I see is that people over the last 40 years have learned to use the notion of "rights" as pseudo-juridical armor for deeply-felt convictions. Nothing wrong with deeply-felt convictions, of course. But this "rights" discussion, in America and (my unreliable impression) also in Great Britain, has drawn people ever more tightly into the culture of litigiousness, accusation and acrimony that now grips America.<br /><br />I suppose that from a salesman's point of view, any argument is OK that helps him sell his ideas. I am not a good salesman, since I reject arguments and counter-arguments that I know are constructed from bits of plastic. But that does not make me a monster. I am guided de facto by sympathy, not by the flashlight of reason. <br /><br />For instance, over the past few years I have become fairly revolted by supermarket meat, because of what I have seen on TV. I remember from the '60s something Hare wrote about the possibility of convincing a person that there is something wrong about (I think it was) cruelty to others. If that person is unable to imagine himself in the situation of those whom he treats cruelly, then no rational discussion is possible. All my experience has confirmed this.<br /><br />In Germany there are no <i>Tierrechte</i> (animal rights), there is just <i>Tierschutz</i> (animal protection), which covers a range of radical changes in the way animals are now treated. I had never heard of Singer until you mentioned him. <br /><br />I agree with you 100% that grand talk about increasing/decreasing "violence" is irrelevant.Stuart Claytonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13707750452117583297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-92192633316407707192011-11-06T15:20:04.754+01:002011-11-06T15:20:04.754+01:00...On the other hand, I don't buy Singer's......On the other hand, I don't buy Singer's argument about Pinker. Who cares if the world's getting, statistically speaking, less violent? The idea that violence may, eventually, in about ten-thousand years, wither away and die is nothing more than science-fictionlike speculation, and until then there's going to be more than enough violence to go around. It just doesn't matter.AJP Crownhttp://abadguide.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-11728275964774090672011-11-06T14:52:38.149+01:002011-11-06T14:52:38.149+01:00...Mr. Potato Head. The words "reason", ...<i>...Mr. Potato Head. The words "reason", "ethics" etc. seemed to be bits of plastic being rearranged yet again to produce a striking result. Now whether or not an Anglophone person has read any of the German and French writers I mentioned above, surely - I feel - he/she must have tired of all those inconclusive but insistent Anglophone discussions over the years</i><br /><br />I don't think of Peter Singer as inconclusive at all, needless to say. It probably depends upon whether you're interested in animal rights, and I'm pretty sure you aren't. His work seems to have some prosaic grassroots practical value (don't forget he's Australian) that you may be discounting. He's a professor of moral philosophy, and in the '70s he built a framework for the animal rights movement to: a) exist, and then b) for it to convince people that there are moral reasons for respecting animals, reasons that may be not unlike the ones on which your country or religion or legal system are founded. <br /><br />I've probably mentioned before that I have a terrible time with continental philosophy. Much of it's been deliberately made hard to understand and I've not got time for that. But I must be wrong, because who does have time?AJP Crownhttp://abadguide.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-8088546464550180872011-08-19T12:30:06.376+02:002011-08-19T12:30:06.376+02:00Confirming once more what I pointed out: when you ...Confirming once more what I pointed out: when you don't think much, you get tacky and can't or won't stop. <br /><br />I see myself vindicated not on the "urban/urbane" subject - about which I could not care less - but on my claim that moralizers tend to lose their self-control and turn personally nasty.<br /><br />I wonder, in a casual way, how much longer you are going to keep this up.Stuart Claytonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13707750452117583297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-18767359623660258992011-08-17T14:49:39.350+02:002011-08-17T14:49:39.350+02:00The reason I posted here is that LH closed the thr...The reason I posted here is that LH closed the thread.<br /><br />As I feared, Grumbly feels vindicated by what I had hoped was a compromise involving some acknowledgement on his part that the other side has a case. I just get tired of his reiterations of the same point, especially of course when I didn't think much of the original point.John Emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12058849885222086640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-40644739164531946712011-08-14T07:58:11.111+02:002011-08-14T07:58:11.111+02:00WTF is all this, all of a sudden, and here ??
Joh...WTF is all this, all of a sudden, and here ??<br /><br />John, you have recently started holding public tribunals at LH, informing the world as to what suits you about my contributions, and what doesn't. My reaction to that is modelled on Gable's: frankly, my dear, I don't give a shit. <br /><br />It makes me quite faint with vindicated delight (or do I mean "vindictive" ?) to see you doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, as quoted by Bathrobe from the WiPe on "troll":<br /><br /><i>someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.</i><br /><br />Both you and John fell victim to your own moralizing, just as I predicted ("moralizing is divisive") - in public outbursts unlikely to win you friends and influence others. <br /><br />I said I was willing to let it go, and you agreed to do the same. But you're not letting go, though I don't see what you hope to achieve by this backbiting. Perhaps you're associating with the wrong people, if that is what they appreciate ?<br /><br />I get the impression often that you think <i>ad hominem</i> tackiness is a convincing way to finesse the lack of arguments <i>ad rem</i>. But help is at hand. The next time you run low on arguments, just drop me a line and I'll send you some of mine that I've grown out of.Stuart Claytonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13707750452117583297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-44504537868986163772011-08-13T17:22:49.818+02:002011-08-13T17:22:49.818+02:00You're right about me. And Empty, and doubtle...You're right about me. And Empty, and doubtless a lot of other people. If it weren't for Stu, I probably wouldn't read the comments at LH - certainly not every day.<br /><br /> I don't really understand your problem, John: it must be stylistic, I can't believe you of all people would object to flippancy. I think we are all united in laughing at much of what goes on in the world as well as having other reactions like indignation or anger. When you say "I am among those who would be happy" etc you sound like the class bully, as did Cowan when he talked about trolls (ridiculous). And it's ironic coming from just the people who pleaded with Steve to let Nij & Read stick around. Stick to "I like your good stuff and not your bad stuff", then I can say "likewise".AJP Crownhttp://abadguide.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-83758509366778362692011-08-11T00:51:27.933+02:002011-08-11T00:51:27.933+02:00Grumbly, you took an ordinary phrase ("urban ...Grumbly, you took an ordinary phrase ("urban myth") and played dumb, like a high school sophomore. And I kindly elucidated it to you, you played dumber. <br /><br />It's often true that if you construe a commonly used phrase word by word you will get the wrong meaning. I mentioned "anti-Semitic" earlier in the thread. I explained the derivation of that particular phrase very well.<br /><br />Many of your jokes are annoying past one or two iterations. Don't beat things into the ground.<br /><br />I am among those at LH who would be just as happy if you didn't post there. (Fortunately, Steve is not, nor Crown, and I don't run the place.) <br /><br />Since everything requires elucidation for you, let me explain that this is not a good thing to say about someone. It means that the value of your good stuff is more or less negated by the annoyance of your bad stuff. I like your good stuff and not your bad stuff.John Emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12058849885222086640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-31789346129424702682011-04-25T04:22:21.793+02:002011-04-25T04:22:21.793+02:00If followers of the Buddha go barefoot, then there...If followers of the Buddha go barefoot, then there are no Buddhist shoe stores, and my analogy falls to the ground.Stuart Claytonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13707750452117583297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-2392023588713943262011-04-25T04:08:11.018+02:002011-04-25T04:08:11.018+02:00It may be better to go barefoot when following the...It may be better to go <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_footprint" rel="nofollow">barefoot</a> when following the Buddha.Øhttp://voidplay.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-48556342229010145352011-04-24T12:20:44.889+02:002011-04-24T12:20:44.889+02:00The shoe store metaphor illustrates the Buddhist p...The shoe store metaphor illustrates the Buddhist practice of renouncement in order to achieve nirvana. A Buddhist wants not to have something now and the rest later, but instead to defer all choice indefinitely. In this way he can spend eternity gloating over every precipitate action that he didn't take.Stuart Claytonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13707750452117583297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413079521947742490.post-60858565736804531382011-04-24T08:40:59.202+02:002011-04-24T08:40:59.202+02:00Hmmm. There does seem to be symmetry lurking here,...Hmmm. There does seem to be symmetry lurking here, empty, in the formally attenuated sense that to reject something is to select the complement. But I am assuming three things: that rejection is random, that selection is not random, and that the cardinality of the set-theoretic result makes a critical difference.<br /><br />If rejection and selection are both understood as random actions, then of course they are to that extent equivalent. But suppose that you are in a shoe store and select a pair of Nike tennis shoes to buy. In the usual sense of "select" you have not made a random choice, but we can ignore that for the moment. The crux is, once you walk out of the store in your Nikes, you have forfeited all the Adidas, Puma etc. brands that were on offer, not to mention those $800 Italian horse-leather business shoes in which you would have been the toast of the next Oberwolfach conference. <br /><br />In other words, you will have shod your wad on a single pair of shoes. You have to live with that cardinality 1 selection. In contrast, my approach is usually to enter the store, fret indecisively for 15 minutes over what's on offer, then walk out without buying anything. I have rejected selection itself, thereby saving money, and I still have the whole cardinality > 1 gamut to choose from. There is useful asymmetry in the fact that although you must deliberately select rejection, you can willfully reject selection.Stuart Claytonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13707750452117583297noreply@blogger.com