Actually the horror had to be shown. We cannot accept this action of terror, nor allow those who not only carry it out go free but we must reflect and see where the source of the evil comes from. I for one do not want such evil in my country. I for one would like to see the death penalty brought back for such acts of cowardice of murder. Time punishment fitted the crime. Time as the EDL said [who I disagree with to some degree] to understand decent people have had enough. To be blunt I would say you would put down animals if they behaved like this. To call these murdering cowards animals though is to insult animals. Despicable.
It may be admitted that, so far as scientific knowledge is concerned, a body of suitably chosen experts may be in the best position to command all the best knowledge available… [Yet] scientific knowledge is not the sum of all knowledge… [A] little reflection will show that there is … the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place. It is with respect to this that practically every individual has some advantage over all others in that he possesses unique information of which beneficial use might be made, but of which use can be made only if the decisions depending on it are left to him or are made with his active cooperation.
Indeed science is finding new things and scientists therefore propose new theories to be looked at and comprehended. In life we look towards science and our own traditions for sustainability of our lives. How we live our life is a prerequisite towards making sense of our lives as we, if we are lucky, get older, and maybe wiser.
DM: To believe is just what we think are the facts now. To think is to revise. So all belief is ephemeral even though the content may be similar to what we thought was the case a moment ago.
ME: If what we thought/believed is similar [that is nothing of any substance has changed] each and every time over a period of ages then that belief can not be said to be ephemeral can it?
DM: Yes, it can as the belief is not the content but the current feeling that it is true.
It always involves revision. So past content is not relevant but current feeling is. The content need not change when I see a meme as false. The feeling it is true does have to change.
ME: What if both the content and the feeling remain the same?
DM: Like the air we breathe in, I would still say it was a fresh belief.
ME: How can it be a fresh belief?
DM: The same way that we can take in fresh air.
Do you want to say that air we breathe in is not fresh, as the content is the same?
My thesis is that we spend belief about as fast as we use up the oxygen from the air we breathe in, so we need to breathe and make fresh assumptions automatically. To think is to assume freshly, even though it retains content about as much as a movie/film frame does from one belief to the next.
ME: Ah, fresh not new. A fresh look might not involve a new look at something. The difference between a quick thought and a detailed thought about the content of an issue. To take a fresh look at things. I do that often. Then more often than not I believe as I did about the content. Thus the truth and fact of it as I understand and comprehend the content I still believe in remains the same. I might of course form a new belief from the old, or dispel with the old belief I once held; as one can of course change ones mind about what one thinks. I have done that in my comprehension of Christian thought; and indeed political thought. A fresh look at a belief [or anything else for that matter] does not assume that anything different will come from that fresh look.
Some will ask how can one not see or understand differently after taking a fresh look at the content of an issue or proposition. They are expectant of a change of view or belief but are disappointed or confused when a change does not occur in the other persons viewpoint.
DM: It soon occurred to me that the five senses renew and revise beliefs about as often as we breathe in air. This is roughly the idea I retain today.
If I go out to fetch the paper, I recreate beliefs with my five senses, even though I have made the journey many times. I do not recall beliefs but look to make fresh ones.
Indeed, revision does not mean amendment or change but it is a test of sorts.
I do not think it matters very much what we believe but it does matter if we do immoral things.
ME: Does not our moral action arise from what we believe?
DM: Saint Augustine is right that what we do is a matter of will rather than of mere belief. The Stoics saw that too. Augustine used this against his master, the ancient Plato [some 800 years earlier] on sin, that it could be wilful thus we can sin even if we know it is wrong. That was mistaken in my view. Realising a thing is immoral is to not to want to do it, as Plato held, despite having the physical ability to do it.
ME: Does doing what we will also relate, at times at least, to what we believe?
DM: Belief is just what we think the facts are.
What we will is what we want. Beliefs are usually just a means there thus David Hume says reason is and ought to be only the slave of the passions.
ME: So what we believe does indeed also relate to what we will. Though not always it seems as the two can be separate entities.
DM: Yes, but it cannot utterly replace it, our will is what we want rather than what we think is the case but if we think an apple is rotten we will not want it. I might want to beat my girlfriend up but if I believe she has just puled a gun to defend herself I may lie that I did not mean what I said when I told her I would punch her nose. Facts can change the will, for we never attempt anything that we see as futile but no set of facts logically implies a certain action. Thus science will forever remain value free but no scientist is ever value free as a person.
ME: Yes I agree. Our belief will never replace our will. Facts can alter how we think about an issue or person and of course a fact can affect our belief. Indeed there can never a value free person – could artificial intelligence be a value free intelligence?
We all bring our values to the table of life. Thus I am saddened when normally peaceful minded men promote warfare. I understand self-defence but to wage war. Sad.
With thanks to David McDonagh.
More than a million struggling British families are spending at least a third of their income on housing costs, a think-tank has revealed.
Just another reason why the mantra of home ownership was only for those with good enough wages and not for all, unless one went into debt via mortgage payments.
Now those people who might have been able to have credit to have a mortgage are having to find rented accommodation in a rent market where greed is prominent. Thanks Maggie and daft boy blue Dave.
There was a time when guest houses were the only way a single person [and young couples] could have their own room, and it was just a room, no on-suite or tea making facilities. Breakfast and dinner was provided at a set time. Which may or may not have been included in the rent. Houses and flats were out of their reach. Thats why there were hundreds if not thousands of “To Let” and “Vacancy” signs in windows of houses. It seems we have come full circle.
This is one of the reasons social housing came about. To accommodate the low waged couples, not often the single person, to have an affordable place to live. An ideology I know. Are we heading back to the so called glorious Victorian and Edwardian times when there was a family living in two rooms, with families living in one room, sharing the facilities of kitchen and bathroom with other tenants? Those lucky enough [lucky?] did have some cooking and washing facilities in their own abode.
Overcrowded, squalor despite good intentions on the part of the tenant, and the fear of being unable to fully feed children or worse of being homeless. Do we really want to go back to the “good” old days?
The Archbishop said the debt crisis is a symptom of a deeper malaise. The roots lie in the “moral disarmament” of the last quarter century. A `get-rich-quick’ culture of “stupid consumption” and “deranged indebtment” has corrupted public life. Children have been brought up to wallow in self-gratification.“This is common to the whole of Western Europe. It goes back to the core issues of moral philosophy, of what we are as human beings. It is here that we must search for a way out of the impasse,” he said.
Well what’s new? From Thatcher the Cameron saying greed wins forget decency, honesty, fairness and truth in the UK we could have the same thing happening here.
Religion is something personal that should be kept away from a state education system. Those that argue the point that parents should have the right to send their child to a school based on their faith and beliefs, must consider the population around them and other parents, who do not belong to the particular faith of the school or no faith at all. In order to achieve community integration and promote tolerance and diversity in Britain, it’s important that an unbiased education is provided to all children, which a faith school is unable to provide as they are indoctrinatory Hand, 2003. Faith schools have created segregation among communities, cultures and different religious groups and a continued promotion of faith schools will create more problems than it aims to solve.
Private funded and private choice would be a more sensible thing to counter faith schools. Faith schools should not be funded by taxation from the general public.
Among those who seek and obtain high office are people characterised by a complete absence of empathy or scruples, who will take money or instructions from any corporation or billionaire who offers them, and then defend those interests against the current and future prospects of humanity.
This has always been so and is even more prevalent nowadays. It seems as if it has become an accepted norm. That is the more worrying issue.