My view on politics

 I do not like “one person one vote” which seems to be the sacrosanct democratic principle.

Why? Because this way of choosing a leader will always result to the least common denominator or representative. Someone put it very nicely:  What is more important in any voting system - the means or the end? If the process leads to sub-optimal outcomes, should we still fight tooth and nail to preserve this process?

The only time we ask for everybody’s opinion an insist on it, is when we choose our leaders. Now leaving aside the gerrymandering and the many other possible political manoeuvring trying to beat the one person one vote system, why would we ask everybody, even those who have no idea what the idea of leadership is all about, to chose our leaders? In any other circumstances when a choice has to be made, be it building something, buying something, etc., we consult experts in the matter before we make a decision. So why pretend that everyone is an expert when it comes to leadership? 

My problem however is that there does not seem to be any reasonable alternative.

The only positive I can see with the system we have is that, hopefully, having more than one political party seeking election, they can keep each other in check when one is in the power seat. A very important factor indeed is the reporters, always questioning and investigating, keeping a close look at the politicians’ moves.

You might have guessed by now that my allegiance is to conservative principles. If one googles ‘conservatism’ one is bombarded by many, many descriptions of many kinds of conservatism. My description is short and to the point, I think. A conservative will if necessary, trim, make sure a tree is well fed and continues to provide for new circumstances. A liberal will uproot the tree and plant another one, for the same purpose.

I never judge the parties by their political names. Before I vote, I closely look at their leader, at his character, at his decisions records. Their platform has to be seriously consider. Because so many people will choose a candidate for so many idiosyncratic reasons, I always feel that my efforts are wasted.

Now on a more personal level. I had at least a dozen books on political matters, books I did my best to learn from for many years. Then one day, I gave them all away and promised myself not to discuss politics anymore. The reason was that I became too emotional, too argumentative, when it came to political matters. It was perhaps due to my lack of knowledge in the matter which made me see everything in black and white instead of shades of grey; I really don’t know.

Interest In Sciences

 

    I have always been interested in the advance of science, an interest I still very much have today. I always found the basics physics fascinating and still do. I try to keep in touch with the latest development in the natural sciences, especially Theoretical Physics and the latest advances in Photonics and Electronics.

Here are a few examples at random; there are so many to chose from.

The coming of quantum computers is pretty exciting.

What about the ability of measuring how long it takes an electron to revolve around its nucleus? Pretty amazing, I would say.

If you are fascinated by space and time as I am, here is a fascinating example on that subject..

One of the main problems in science today is uniting General Relativity and quantum mechanics. There are different approaches to solve the problem.

One is called Superstring Theory which leads to M Theory.

Another one is called Quantum Loop.

A third one is called twistor theory.

Again another is Quantum Group Theory.

The one that I find really interesting is the Non-commutative geometry which is rich in many conceptual possibilities. One such possibility is the idea that the fundamental level of physical reality can be non-local. On that  level there can be no time and no space in their usual sense. How cool is that? (contact me if you are curious about the details).

This is not the place to get over-excited about this subject, something I obviously could do.

     I also developed a great interest in the philosophy of science, the philosophy of mathematics (what is the nature of), the whole question of religion in relation to natural sciences. I keep deepening my knowledge of theology and apologetics. I have no hesitation to mention that the author I admire the most in theology is the holy and genius man called Cardinal Ratzinger who became Pope Benedict XVI, 1927-2022

I have 62 books written by him and a few about him on my shelves.

 

Objective Truth

 If there is no objective truth then whatever a person says is true. This leads to contradictions.

When there is a contradiction, one statement must be false and the other must be true.

John, for instance, is either at home or he is not. If someone says John is at home and another person says John is not home, only one of these statements can be true. Similarly, it is either right or wrong to date your professor who is already married.

Protagoras, a Greek philosopher of the 4th century BC, maintained "man is the measure of all things." Protagoras is saying each individual determines what is true, and nobody else. If I am the "measure", then I determine what is true; I determine what is right and wrong.

In many ways this is the Age of Protagoras. In today's moral climate individuals decide for themselves what is true, and then they decide what the right thing to do is. Our laws function in this manner, and now our schools more and more.

An objective truth or good does not appear to exist any longer; it's only what is "true for me," and what is "right for me.

Objective truth serves to establish norms of moral behaviour whereby a person can say what is right and wrong.

Man is not the measure of all things. Objective truth is the measure.

Objective truth refers to information or statements that correspond to reality independent of individual perspectives, emotions, or biases. It remains constant regardless of who observes or interprets it. The concept finds its roots in logic and empirical evidence, emphasizing the necessity of verifiable and repeatable facts. 

In philosophy, the idea of truth as objective is straightforward: some things will always be true and other will always be false, irrespective of our beliefs or opinions. Our personal convictions have no bearing on the facts of the world around us. That which is true remains true, even if we stop believing it or cease to exist altogether.

Most people, in their daily lives, implicitly act as though they believe in objective truth. We assume that our clothes will still be in the closet in the morning, even though we stopped thinking about them during the night. We expect our keys to be where we left them, even if we don’t actively believe this at the moment. These assumptions are rooted in the idea that things happen independently of our beliefs.

Scientific research also operates under the assumption of objective, independent truths. Scientists make predictions based on theories and then test those predictions. If the tests succeed or fail, it doesn’t matter how many researchers believe in the outcome—the results stand on their own. This process relies on the existence of objective truths that remain unaffected by our subjective beliefs.

While there are logical and pragmatic reasons for assuming that truth is objective, some skeptics challenge this position. Nevertheless, our daily functioning depends on the idea that certain things are objectively true, regardless of our individual perspectives.  So, whether we’re discussing the height of Mount Everest or the length of a banana, objective truth remains a fundamental concept in our understanding of reality.

Common Sense Principles Of Discussion

 

         Effective and civil discussion is absolutely essential in reestablishing science on its firm foundation. Since discussion has

in recent times become less and less clearly centered on its purpose — which is to get to the truth — we find we have

developed bad habits of discussion. Indeed it often happens that, despite our good intentions, discussions degenerate

into incivility. It is our hope that the following thoughts will help restore the right emphasis and civility in conversation.

l) The aim of discussion is to arrive at a precise statement of a problem and a true answer. It is profitable if progress in achieving this goal is made even if there is not ultimate success.

2) The first step in critical thinking must be to state a problem clearly in the form A is B, or at least that A is not B.

Many disagreements arise from not being clear about what problem is to be solved.

3) lf you are speaking to someone who has more education and knowledge in the field under discussion, give deference

to him. This means that conversation will not equally split with each person speaking 50 % of the time. Clearly, the

one who has more knowledge will necessarily have to spend more time relating it.

a)

The receiver of knowledge should not resent the giver merely because the giver gives more, i.e. speaks more. Indeed,

like the receiver of a wonderful material gift, the spiritual gift of knowledge should be received with sincere appreciation. Few who receive a gift of gold will respond with accusations of unfairness about the inequity involved of them not being able to respond in kind. Rather, most will receive it with great thanks and enthusiasm as lottery winners do. Since the spiritual gift of knowledge is literally infinitely more valuable, the gratitude of the receiver of knowledge

should be immense.

b) One essential way of showing gratitude to the giver, which is also an exercise of justice, is to remember his gift and acknowledge him to others. Remembering is key in the process of finding and verifying trustworthy sources, for one needs to remember who has given what to be able to note whose information is reliable.

The giver should always act and respond charitably to the receiver, never using his knowledge as a club to assert superiority. Instead, the giver should remember that his own knowledge is ultimately itself a gift. Even first hand knowledge is not our own, for it ultimately comes from the external world, which in turn is from God.

c)

Both sides should be grateful for the opportunity for discussion, because, if nothing else, it is an opportunity to be present to your fellowman, through the exercise of the highest human power: the intellect. After all, you are conversing with a being made in the very image of God and in that very conversing you are manifesting and seeing manifested that image, which is man’s intellectual power. Beyond this, the receiver should be thankful for the new understanding he receives and the giver for the new perspective opened up to his own mind by carefully answering the points made

by the receiver. For each party, it is the opportunity to serve his fellowman.

Letter To A Physicist

 

This letter was an answer to a physicist who asserted that science has priority, not philosophy.

        There is ’science’ then there is the ’scientific method’; you do not seem to acknowledge their differences. Knowledge, prediction (even if mathematical) is science as much as philosophy is science. The philosophical a priori that one need to do ’science=knowledge’ can make all the difference in how I view the usefulness or nature of the ’scientific method’, a method based on logic, therefore philosophy.

For example, if I assume philosophically (you might say scientifically, having your experimental goal in mind) that ’all there is’ is, or can be, mathematically accessible or understandable. That assumption is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.

The Scientific Method measures and counts, If I assume that all I care and worry about can be measured and counted so far so good. We are all witnesses to how far that Scientific Method has taken us.

I do not for an instant doubt or question the utility, the grandeur of the Scientific Method. Far from me the thought. But in the realm of Knowledge (Science if you will) it is only part of the story.

In the realm of Knowledge science is limited

BRAIN DEATH

 This an introduction to an article from the National Library of Medicine.

The article can be found here: Brain death and true patient care - PMC (nih.gov)

Summary: Though legally accepted and widely practiced, the “brain death” standard for the determination of death has remained a controversial issue, especially in view of the occurrence of “chronic brain death” survivors. This paper critically re-evaluates the clinical test-criteria for “brain death,” taking into account what is known about the neuro-critical care of severe brain injury. The medical evidence, together with the understanding of the moral role of the physician toward the patient present before him or her, indicate that an alternative approach should be offered to the deeply comatose patient.

Importance of Philosophical History.

 

The following from a Gilson Reader illustrates quite well I think the point I was trying to make to my brother which is: “ a philosophy or philosopher can only be understood in the context of the history of philosophy.”

 By  turning the concrete into a mosaic of clear ideas, the mathematical method of Descartes raised difficulties whose solution was sought throughout the whole of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; in the nineteenth century it led in the end to despair—despair of philosophy itself.

How can the domain of pure thought ever be in touch with the domain of pure extension when the property of substances is to be mutually exclusive? This is what Descartes does not tell us. He allows us a thought (not a soul), and extension (not a body): he is unable to account for the union of soul and body.

 

. . . The occasionalism of Malebranche, the pre-established harmony of Leibniz, the parallelism of Spinoza are so many metaphysical “epicycles to solve an ill-stated problem by rescuing, with the aid of complementary devices, the very principle which make the problem insoluble.

 

Again:

What is the most striking difference between the Greek notion of the deity and the notion of God common to practically all the seventeenth-century philosophers? The best answer we can imagine is that, apart from Anaximander, who in a rather cryptic statement said that “the first principle of all things is infinite,” no known Greek philosopher ever posited an infinite being as the cause of all that which is, whereas Descartes, Leibniz, Malebranche, and practically all the other metaphysicians of the seventeenth century conceived of God as the primary cause of all that which is, and they did so on the strength of he principle hat, if there is a God, He must needs be an infinite being. The remark applies even to the only one among these philosophers who was not a Christian, namely Spinoza. God, Spinoza says, ”is a being absolutely indefinite, that is a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence.” What can be the cause for this radical change in perspective? The only answer we can imagine is that this cause is to be found in the theological speculation which starting from the biblical notion of a

Creator of all beings, led the men of the middle ages to conceive infinity as a positive conception of being.

 

Again:

. . . Even Spinoza cannot be fully accounted for without taking into account the speculation of the middle ages. To overlook what happened to philosophy in the thirteenth century is to deprive the history of Wetsern thought of its continuity and, by the same token, its intelligibility.