'Godless Morality' by Richard Holloway - a comment

What interested me about Richard Holloway's book was the notion of 'ethical jazz'. The idea of treating morality as something that could be taught in a different way. It's a common idea amongst humanists and atheists of a certain ilk to consider either a good moral philosophical education, or a new kind of scientific approach (a la Sam Harris) to be the way to teach morality to a new generation of youngsters who don't accept the old religious texts as a ground for ethics. Richard Holloway's idea seems to be that it's a different kind of skill. I suspect MacIntyre might approve.

Roger Scruton - 'The Face of God' - mini review

Reading The Face Of God, I was not sure what to expect - reactionary justifications or bourgeois cliches. There was some of that, but actually he is a capable philosopher and there is lots of valuable writing and plenty of food for thought.
I agreed with many aspects of what he says about subjectivity not being reducible, and about the way in which the face has 'spiritual' qualities. However, I'm not sure I would share his notion of what spirituality means. I have written an essay on the concept of spirituality, but intend to clarify my writing further at some point soon.
He has interesting things to say about kisses, in particular, and as you'd expect, some reasonable passages about free will and other more typical philosophical material. However, I feel he is wrong about animals. He seems to protest too much the difference between us and animals. He accepts evolution, but won't allow that animals share any of the subjectivity of humans. Animal tears, are not, by his definitions, real tears. Hmm.
Also, interesting writing on the burqa, but it seemed to be at conflict with the positive things said about Venetian masks?
Finally, I thought there was some really good writing on the metaethics of rape, which he describes for example as an "existential assault"; an "annihilation of the subject".

I sometimes think I should be a film director...

...based on the quality of the dreams I have.

Sometimes, I wake up impressed by the depth and convincing nature of the characters. I even sometimes do the casting job, picking a good actor to play a part. Last night, featured one such face, I think it was Sean Bean, who played a guy who had become rich through a dodgy company called 'Teleclaims'. Furthermore, I am sometimes able to dream up superb locations: realistic and evocative. It is not my ability to get carried along by these dreams that surprises me. After all, it is in the nature of dreams to be an emotional journey, that connect with a person in a deep way, and I think everyone experiences high levels of emotion in their dreams sometimes.

No, what impresses me more on these occasions when my dreams seem so inspired is the little details. Attention to the wardrobe department, local accents, interesting names, great vocabulary in an engaging and thought-provoking dialogue, a complex, layered and yet apparently satisfying plot... that sort of thing.

Of course, by the time I am sufficiently awake to type these things down, the precision of my dream recall diminishes completely. Soon afterwards, the new consciousness of the waking room will wash away the film script in my mind.

And yet at other times I have the most blatantly obvious and unimaginative dreams. To the point where anyone with a merit in BTEC pop-psychology, (or anyone who once picked up a badly-written, female-marketed magazine article that oversimplifies Jungian conceptual theory), would be able to analyze the entirety of the dream in a split-second.

For example, a common recurring dream I have involves swimming across a long stretch of open water to an island that is populated by.... (wait for it!)...
... a woman I am highly attracted to.
So, what happens in these dreams?
Well, to put it simply, (because they are simple dreams) - sometimes I get there and sometimes I don't!
That's it.

Notes on Raymond Tallis' book 'In Defence of Wonder'

Plato: "Philosophy begins in wonder" (Theaetetus)

G.K. Chesterton:  “The world will never starve for want of wonders; but only for want of wonder.”

Ray Tallis seems a lovely chap. Look at him! See: 

He also sounds quite lovely - his educated tone and bourgeois accent are posh but not annoying.
(I saw him at the Cheltenham Literature Festival, Tuesday 9th October, 2012 and bought the book after.)
He describes himself as an 'optimistic atheist and humanist'.
His theme in the book is 'articulate wonder' and from there the importance of philosophy today.

He identifies some mysteries to wonder about fairly early on:

*'Why is there something rather than nothing?' (often attributed to Leibniz)
*The fundamental stuff of the world (goes back to the earliest Greek philosophers from Thales onwards).
*The nature of living matter.
*The unity and multiplicity of consciousness
*Past, present and future
*Karl Popper said that knowledge is the 'greatest miracle of the universe'.
*The 'million-petalled flower of being here'. (Philip Larkin)
*Mathematics: "the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and that there is no rational explanation for it." - (Eugene Wigner)

He attacks what he calls the simplistic naturalism of 'Darwinitis', though I need to read more on this part, to see how he substantiates this critique.

He talks of how some people focus on only certain kinds of thing as mysterious because they are of dubious status in our knowledge. For example, ESP. Tallis argues that ESP, even if it exists, is no more amazing than SP (i.e. ordinary sensory perception).

Why the need to write about wonder?
Because in our life there are many 'enemies of wonder', and one needs to learn to combat these.

Generally the main enemies of wonder are:
Elation
Boredom
Fear
Despair

Some are inescapable:
(certain circumstances, such as being a POW, might make wonder frivolous.)
Some honourable:
(e.g. being too busy helping others)
Some are due to the choices we make
(e.g. spending too much time online or too much time working - Tallis refers to "the habit of rush" and the "treadmill of pastimes".)

On the other hand, there are several 'friends of wonder':
Philosophy
Art
Science

Philosophy has had a hard time of it lately. What with scientists such as Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking questioning its social utility, there's no WONDER (sorry) that Tallis is concerned to establish the importance of all those mysteries above. What he needs to do further is to argue how important philosophy is, rather than science, in dealing with them. I am inclined to think that those in the 'experimental philosophy' movement are not fully grasping the value that philosophy has in delineating such things as what can not be known. 'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent' (Wittgenstein).

Thankfully, art speaks for itself, in all those thousands of words. So on to science. Tallis doesn't respond in kind by attacking science, but rather praises it, but with a slight sense of caution about its omniscience and total magisterial dominance.

Thomas Carlyle talks of "That progress of Science, which is to destroy Wonder, and in its stead substitute Mensuration and Numeration", A lot of people today still see science in that way: as somehow opposed to awe and worshipful attitudes. I am enthusiastic about promoting the social value of science, i.e. its personal benefits, and not just the way it is a method for gaining more reliable information. Scientific methodology puts us in a certain relationship with the world, which teaches us a lot of things. In the practice of science there are ethical values and virtues. Within this methodology you learn to share ideas, to work together, to respect what nature does, to pay attention to details, to be persistent, and to think laterally and creatively.

I think this aspect of Dawkins' writing is much overlooked by the general populace who don't actually read his work. When he is at his most polemic talking about atheism, you can forget that Dawkins actually has a sensitive and intelligent grasp of what science really is, and isn't merely a positivist with a hatred of metaphysics. He is at his best when he elucidates a modern biological discovery and waxes lyrical about it. Those who have lost a love of learning - perhaps in their teenage years in the drudgery of school - can be encouraged to regain their curiosity if they are taken out of their intellectual comfort zone, or if they are made aware of the frailty of their most basic presuppositions. A good scientific explanation can also do this.

"There is an anaesthetic of familiarity, a sedative of ordinariness which dulls the senses and hides the wonder of existence. For those of us not gifted in poetry, it is at least worth while from time to time making an effort to shake off the anaesthetic. What is the best way of countering the sluggish habituation brought about by our gradual crawl from babyhood? We can't actually fly to another planet. But we can recapture that sense of having just tumbled out to life on a new world by looking at our own world in unfamiliar ways." 
"The feeling of awed wonder that science can give us is one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable. It is a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest that music and poetry can deliver." 
— Richard Dawkins (Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder) 

I do thoroughly agree, although the way he writes that last paragraph, I also question whether he protests too much? After all much of the practice of science is tedious, repetitive, and frustrating. Years and years may be spent working on a misguided hypothesis, only for another to show the experiments were flawed or had already been established. A lot of science is also highly abstract and mathematical, and some goes beyond the intellect of the large part of humanity. As something of a digression, I am also reminded of his lack of 'success' with Michael Persinger's 'God Helmet' and the nagging question I was left with after reading about his findings. Which was: 'What if our different minds are simply differently constructed (either by nature or nurture or more likely both) so that some people 'get' religion and some people don't. For example, there may be some kind of difference in our temporal lobes that affects our ability to understand aspects of reality. Thus something such as spiritual experience or religious faith might be something that comes naturally to some but is a foreign mystery to others.

Pub Gardens and other pleasures

Pub gardens, spring flowers,
Night music, small hours.

Hilly landscapes, long hikes,
Country lanes, pedal bikes.

Summer evenings, drunken chat,
Fresh rivers, a new hat.

Going camping, cut grass,
Crispy bacon, cute ass!

Autumn leaves, bonfire smoke,
Stunning clouds, a great joke.

Blown-out candles, donkeys' ears,
Nieces dancing, local beers.

Getting logs in, winter chill,
Friends laughing, free will!

Nostalgia for times past,
Renewed hope: let it last.

The Wonders of Life - Prof. Brian Cox on 'What is Life?'

Prof. Brian Cox, the University of Manchester's premier scientific celebrity, has started presenting a new television series. The first episode tackles the question: 'What is life?' He is on typical form here: amiable, goofy, clear and earnest, and I for one am delighted to have him back on our screens.

The first thing you might notice is that the program asks a question that is ostensibly not a question about particle physics, (Prof Cox's subject of academic expertise). It would appear to most to be a question of biology, and might also exercise the mind of philosophers used to being asked to hone a definition of a complex or abstract term in the manner of a Socratic dialogue.

What interested me in particular was the way in which he reduced these kind of questions down to something explainable in scientific terms. It was an overtly reductionist approach.

In my opinion this episode succeeded greatly, with some great explanations of the notion of cascades of proton gradients and a coherent thread running through it.

Notes on talk at Cheltenham Lit Festival Oct 2012

Positive psychology was given a dubious boost when David Cameron started a talking about measuring the national happiness rather than GNP. It has been commonplace for some time for academics to refer to the Kingdom of Bhutan as an example of somewhere that is a wonderful contrast from the shallow horrors of the capitalist system. It makes sense politically for a man of Cameron's calibre seeking to further his supposed reputation as a 'compassionate conservative' to talk of such things. It is debatable, however, whether the state should care about happiness anyway, except in as far as it's useful. Such questions reach to the heart of what you think a government is supposed to do.

Re; The teaching of emotional skills and character traits:
Apparently this goes on in Birmingham, for example?
Can you really teach 'resilience skills'? Is resilience really a skill?
Is altruism or stoicism something that can be taught?
There is talk of 'emotional innoculation' - no evidence, but it fits the zeitgeist nicely, I suppose.
CBT might be an example of something close that actually has clinical data.
Other than this, surely traditionalists would argue for such things to be learned at the university of life, and not for curriculum time to be spent on them.
It is debatable whether 'thinking skills' even exist.

The so-called 'happiness research' has been done by economists. The data is quite thin.
Seligman - seems to have an oversimplified approach.

Teaching someone to have a sense of the worth of all human beings is of course to be encouraged as one of the basic principles of ethics. Teaching all people to have good self-esteem can be a dubious practice, particularly when combined with a certain disregard for 'what other people say'. I have too often heard people saying 'I don't care what anyone thinks' in circumstances where you think to yourself: 'this person really should care more about what people are saying to them'! Maintaining self-esteem when you are a wretch involves lying to yourself, and learning to ignore any kind of sense of guilt or shame. The fear is that people are being convinced that they are the most wonderful people ever whilst they are doing horrible things.

Richard Bentall: 'most of the work of the world is done by unhappy people'.
People who are unhappy change the world.
We aren't here to be happy! - (I'm not sure if he meant this as a metaphysical claim)

Oliver James - talked of the importance of parenting over the first 6 years - it sets the 'electrochemical thermostat.'
He argues genes are really not that important, and emphasises the plasticity of the brain - especially when young.
Sexual abuse - studies show 5% less hippocampus development.

Further reading: M Young : Rise of the Meritocracy.