The use of Reason and reasonable argumentation, the reclaiming of the idea of Progress and the struggle against dogma. In this post-modern world, reinventing Enlightenment is of the utmost importance.

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

You "honest" again?


What does it take for a "historian" to change his mind about the Holocaust in a matter of a few days? A prison sentence, maybe?

Monday, February 27, 2006

God, religion, Islam


I'm completely against religious approaches on life. I consider that religious beliefs sprung from fear and not from love. Because we are mortal and can't make sense of life, we create this reassuring idea of God. We are so desperately afraid of the big unknown - death - that we turn to the idea of God.

It gives sense - meaning - to our life. However, this is an irrational and dogmatic meaning. There's nothing in life that objectively points to the existence of God, apart from the fact that so many people have faith on him.

It’s dogmatic because it rules out other interpretations of the World and of life. For instance, mine:

There’s no purpose in life rather than being alive. One day I will die and that will be it. I will become a non-existence. A nothing. Believers in God can’t accept this interpretation because it’s an inconceivable one. No purpose? You die and that’s it? For believers there’s more to life than life. Again, because they are afraid. I’m also afraid of the unknown, especially since nobody has ever returned to tell him what it is like. But, as long as I’m among the living I’ll do my best not only for me but also for my fellow brothers and sisters. I know, I’m being irrational but I have faith in Human kind. At least I have some evidence of its existence and, albeit Human kind seems so bound on its own destruction, being a member I must try to do my best.
And what is more, I just hope you are right and there is a God after all.

Of course, if we can’t prove that God exists, we cannot prove that he does not exist, either. Nevertheless, statistically, his existence is highly improbable. But why should this be a matter of such concern?

I will give you some reasons.

Those who don't believe in God are either fools to be left alone or, in a more extreme version, infidels that should be hunt down.

More people have been killed in the name of God than for anything else.

Now, one of the religions I abhor the most is Islam. Because not only it comes with moral precepts but also with a full judicial code, the Sharia.

The Sharia code implies several things, from which I've selected merely two.

First: The fate of Women.

Second: The fate of gays.

Interesting, is it not?

Thought of the day...

Cameron............................................ Data



Sunday, February 26, 2006

Freedom of Speech & terrorism


David Irving, the "historian", is serving a three year sentence in an Austrian jail for denying the Holocaust. And I completely agree. I think that Mr Irving, like Mr Hamza, is an intellectual terrorist and that terrorists should be locked up. Nevertheless, I've noticed lately that, probably due to my poor rule of the English language, everything I say is used against me in a variety of more or less fallacious ways. Therefore, to corroborate what I think, I'll let an intelligent woman do the talking:

"On the other hand, martyred poultry is infinitely more palatable than a martyred David Irving, chicken though the man most certainly is. Faced with the alarming, and to him staggeringly incomprehensible, prospect of a jail sentence, he immediately recanted. He was no Holocaust denier, he told the court. He might have been once and he was pleading guilty to that but he wasn't any more because he'd come across papers of Alfred Eichmann in 1991 and they'd changed his mind. His position was no longer the one he'd taken in 1989 when he'd made the speeches for which he was on trial. If anything proved him to be a bare-faced liar in the face of incontrovertible evidence, his defence did.

The judge and jury put him away for three years and immediately there was an outcry. First, his right to free speech had been transgressed; second, the incarceration would turn him into a martyr. The prevailing view was that the man was a pathetic buffoon and to jail him would give him a status that made him more dangerous than he had any right to be. Consigning him to obscurity would be a fitter punishment.

But how can this be right? He might be mad and he might be a buffoon, but Irving is an academic terrorist: a gifted historian who has chosen to record a perverted view of world events presumably to ferment racial and religious hatred. When did we start saying the best way to deal with fermenters of hatred was to ridicule them? Irving may look ridiculous now, but as a historian he knows only too well the power of the shadow of doubt he's chosen to cast."

So says Barbara Toner.

Wednesday, February 22, 2006










I wonder why?

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Enligtenment in danger


For denying that the Holocaust ever took place, for saying that there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz, "historian" David Irving was sentenced to three years imprisonment in Austria. Irving pleaded guilty saying that, since 1989, when he proclaimed his absurd "historical" sentences, he had learned a lot and no longer thought as he did then.

Guess what Mr Irving; in 1989 there was already lots of evidence for the Holocaust. Actually, evidence for the Holocaust dates back to the late forties, you had just to read the files of the Nuremberg trial. Instead you chose not to. You chose to deny the Holocaust. Serves you right this sentence, Mr Irving, I hope you enjoy your time in an Austrian prison.

Meanwhile, some wancker or other immediately came to Irving's rescue. You see, some arseholes dare to say something like this: "We have to re-think Freedom of Speech. If we allow the publishing of cartoons offensive to the prophet Mohamed, then this jail sentence should have not been passed."

Can you believe it? Some people have the nerve to compare a proven fact (The Holocaust) with a matter of faith (the divinity or not of prophets). It’s been sixty years since the Nuremberg Trial. If someone told me, twenty years ago, that anyone could deny the Holocaust and that would be ok, I would dismiss such an utterance as an irrationality. As it seems, today irrationality is taking the upper hand. Apparently, not only in Iran, but also in the West.

Sunday, February 19, 2006

It drags on and on...


When will this shit stop?

Saturday, February 18, 2006

May the force...


Be with the quail...

Jarhead...


Welcome to the quail...

If you want blood...


You quail it...

Friday, February 17, 2006

Moral dilemma

What shall I do when I read something like this? Fuck it, I've got better things to do on a Friday.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

The path to Fascism- Take II


As you all know, in Italy the president thinks of himself as being similar to Christ. What you don’t know is that in the same country, apparently, Christ’s image belongs in the school room.

It's "educational" so they say.

In public, republican schools, in Italy, the image of Christ has an "educational value". Those who don’t like it, i.e. atheists, agnostics and the followers of all other religions can go a file a complain to the Devil.

This is not a joke. It’s a rule of Law.


Now, I ask you, is Italy going down the Fascist path again or what?

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Want a fag? Have some vichy...


In a year or so a photo like this will become a memory of a long gone time, when people socialized round a few pints, in a traditional English pub, while they had a fag. I can remember when English pubs used to smell of old fashioned beer and cigarette smoke. Those days will be over soon. No more ashtrays in pubs.

This is fine. A nice measure. As someone said: “I don’t mind that I can no longer have a fag with me pint when I go to the pub. It’s ok, ‘cause pretty soon they’ll only be serving mineral water in pubs.”

Indeed. A great measure. I just hope that, somewhere in the future, they don’t barge into my house, paid for with my own money, shouting: “You are under arrest! It’s illegal to smoke indoors!”

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Dangers of web-journals



There’s a growing debate in the United States and other Western countries about privacy and privacy rights. Basically, this has to do with the so called war on terror. Western governments say that our e-mails, our phone conversations and so on, could/should be under scrutiny. They claim that’s the best way to fight terrorists. Security agencies could/should, be allowed to eavesdrop on our personal lives.

This is a powerful argument, although a fallacious one. It reads pretty much like this: if you don’t have anything to hide, then you shouldn’t mind that we listen to your conversations and read your mail.

It’s a fallacious argument because everyone has something to hide, including governments. If anything else, one might be a political opponent of the government and one might not be pleased if one’s political strategies are under scrutiny from the very same government.

The problem is that neo-cons will resort to another deadly argument: people, namely bloguers and other web surfers, just can’t wait to tell the world about themselves and their lives. They literally put themselves on display before a live audience. Now this has several dangers, as you can read here.

But the greatest danger is that our right to privacy will one day end.

Loose cannon


The Daily Show with Jon Steward said it best:
On Monday night one of the show's correspondents, Rob Corddry, introduced as a "vice-presidential firearms mishap analyst," said that "according to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush," and "everyone believed there were quail in the brush," and "while the quail turned out to be a 78-year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he would still have shot Mr. Whittington in the face."

(there was a bit of double-posting and plagiarism on this post, apologies all 'round...)

The Love bug...



It's Valentine's day! The day for all lovers and sweet hearts of the World! But...is it? Well, some people might be in for a suprise, especially if they receive e-cards today....

Monday, February 13, 2006

On the road to enrichement

Breaking news.

May you rot in Hell...


Christians of the World…Unite!

The blasphemous Berlusconi has offended you all! He now says he is “just like Jesus”. This sacrilegious deed cannot go without punishment. The heretic Berlusconi mocks your most sacred beliefs.

Christians of the Word! Unite! Take to the streets and make your righteous anger and exasperation reverberate throughout all corners of the Globe! Make the heathen Berlusconi pay for his foul feat; Show him that nobody scorns at the consecrated image of your treasured Christ. Christians of the World, show no mercy, show the World just how you deal with offence…

Miracle! Jesus is back!


Do you know why here, at back to enlightenment, we are all sick of politics? Why we are gradually turning away from political debate or political analysis?

Why increasingly we turn to Poetry, to Philosophy, to Friendship for real inspiration and guidance?

You do not? Well, it is because international politics, in general, turned into a tragic and pathetic comedy. Do not believe me? Ok, go and check what the new Jesus has to say about it…

Tought of the day...


Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.











Napoleon Bonaparte

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Great Are The Myths


Great Are The Myths

by Walt Whitman

GREAT are the myths--I too delight in them;
Great are Adam and Eve--I too look back and accept them;
Great the risen and fallen nations, and their poets, women, sages,
inventors, rulers, warriors, and priests.
Great is Liberty! great is Equality! I am their follower;
Helmsmen of nations, choose your craft! where you sail, I sail,
I weather it out with you, or sink with you.

Great is Youth--equally great is Old Age--great are the Day
and Night;
Great is Wealth--great is Poverty--great is Expression--great
is Silence.

Youth, large, lusty, loving--Youth, full of grace, force,
fascination!
Do you know that Old Age may come after you, with equal grace, force,
fascination?

Day, full-blown and splendid--Day of the immense sun, action,
ambition, laughter,
The Night follows close, with millions of suns, and sleep, and
restoring darkness.

Wealth, with the flush hand, fine clothes, hospitality;
But then the Soul's wealth, which is candor, knowledge, pride,
enfolding love;
(Who goes for men and women showing Poverty richer than wealth?)

Expression of speech! in what is written or said, forget not that
Silence is also expressive,
That anguish as hot as the hottest, and contempt as cold as the
coldest, may be without words.

Great is the Earth, and the way it became what it is;
Do you imagine it has stopt at this? the increase abandon'd?
Understand then that it goes as far onward from this,
as this is from the times when it lay in covering waters and gases,
before man had appear'd.

Great is the quality of Truth in man;
The quality of truth in man supports itself through all changes,
It is inevitably in the man--he and it are in love, and never leave
each other.

The truth in man is no dictum, it is vital as eyesight;
If there be any Soul, there is truth--if there be man or woman
there is truth--if there be physical or moral, there is truth;
If there be equilibrium or volition, there is truth--if there
be things at all upon the earth, there is truth.

O truth of the earth! I am determin'd to press my way toward you;
Sound your voice! I scale mountains, or dive in the sea after you.

Great is Language--it is the mightiest of the sciences,
It is the fulness, color, form, diversity of the earth, and of men
and women, and of all qualities and processes;
It is greater than wealth--it is greater than buildings, ships,
religions, paintings, music.

Great is the English speech--what speech is so great as the English?
Great is the English brood--what brood has so vast a destiny as the
English?
It is the mother of the brood that must rule the earth with the new
rule;
The new rule shall rule as the Soul rules, and as the love, justice,
equality in the Soul rule.

Great is Law--great are the few old land-marks of the law,
They are the same in all times, and shall not be disturb'd.

Great is Justice!
Justice is not settled by legislators and laws--it is in the Soul;
It cannot be varied by statutes, any more than love, pride, the
attraction of gravity, can;
It is immutable--it does not depend on majorities--majorities or what
not, come at last before the same passionless and exact
tribunal.

For justice are the grand natural lawyers, and perfect judges--is it
in their Souls;
It is well assorted--they have not studied for nothing--the great
includes the less;
They rule on the highest grounds--they oversee all eras, states,
administrations.

The perfect judge fears nothing--he could go front to front before
God;
Before the perfect judge all shall stand back--life and death shall
stand back--heaven and hell shall stand back.

Great is Life, real and mystical, wherever and whoever;
Great is Death--sure as life holds all parts together, Death holds
all parts together.

Has Life much purport?--Ah, Death has the greatest purport.

Thought of the day...


Fine words and an insinuating appearance are seldom associated with true virtue.

Things that are done, it is needless to speak about...things that are past, it is needless to blame.

The superior man is satisfied and composed; the mean man is always full of distress.


Confucius

Saturday, February 11, 2006

The crown & veil


The following words I picked in a website, where the role of women in Islam is depicted in a very favourable light. Hitherto, my source is extremely disputable. Anyway, this are the words:

"The Islam's respect to the women is crowned with the Hijab, the veil, considered by a lot of anti-Muslims a symbol of women's oppression and servitude. God ordered Muslim women to wear the veil (to cover the whole of their body except their face and their hands) to protect them..The Qur'an makes it clear through many verses that the veil obligatory and not an option for Muslim women (as some misleading information state)."O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (jalabib) close round them (when they go abroad)..."The Qur'an also shows how essential the veil is for modesty. Modesty is prescribed to protect women from molestation. Thus, the only purpose of the veil in Islam is protection. The Islamic veil is not a sign of man's authority over the woman, nor is it a sign of the woman's subjection to the man, on the contrary it shows respect and care for the woman. "

Right. See this? You know what this is? It's a fallacie, that's what.

Women need to be modest for their protection... Protection from whom?

The veil is not a sign of subjection to the man... Of course not, if one is ordered to hide one's face and body, this person it not subjected at all. This person is a very defiant person.

For Allah’s sake!..

Friday, February 10, 2006

Democracy & Enlightenment


By the end of the 19th Century Nietzsche proclaimed: “there are no truths, merely interpretations”. He also asserted: “everything is fair and unfair and in both cases justifiable.” In two single strokes Nietzsche thought he had managed to throw Enlightenment values into the trash bin of history. Fortunately, not everybody believed in what he was saying and many realised that although his “proclamations” had some value they were still fallacies.

In the first case, if the sentence is to be true, i.e. “there are no truths” then the sentence would contradict itself because there would be the “truth” of non-existing truths. It follows that the sentence is false, there are “truths”. Of course how we interpret them is a different matter altogether. In the second case, Nietzsche is also in the wrong: nothing can be one thing and its opposite at the same time; there cannot be a “night-day” any more than there can be a “living-death”, unless we are talking about fiction novels like “1984” or horror movies like “Zombies”.

However, Nietzsche’s proclamations brought relativism into the search for truth and they made us aware that, sometimes, “arguments” can be used to justify the unjustifiable. Relativism is a useful tool if used with moderation. By accepting that there are different ways by which the world can be perceived and different interpretations to where “truth” actually lies, not only we think critically but in addition with tolerance. The problem about relativism is when it becomes the absolute value, i.e. “there are no truths”. True enough that there are no absolute “truths”. Concepts, because they are a product of the human mind, change in time and from human to human.



Take the concept of Democracy as an example: in Ancient Greece it meant something quite different from what it means today. For one thing women and slaves were excluded from democratic process. For another, the scale on which Democracy was set into practise (small city state) meant that most of citizens had their say; by active participation they influenced the entire democratic process.

Today, Democracy is different in many ways, but I shall stick to these two aspects. In most western democratic states women can vote and slavery has long been abolished, curiously, as a result of the putting to practice Enlightenment values. In modern Democracy citizens no longer have a direct participation in the “making” of Democracy; how could that happen if now we have democracies with millions of citizens instead of the handful there were in the city states of Ancient Greece?

In modern democracies, citizens, by voting, delegate power to a small number of people for a given period of time. What this illustrates is that the concept of Democracy changes in time. And what is more it changes in space: European democracies are quite different from US Democracy; Democracy in Portugal is somewhat different to Spanish Democracy and so on. Should we infer then, since we cannot accurately define Democracy, it does not exist? Not even the most stubborn of post modernist thinkers, such as Derrida or Foucault, would dare to claim it; it would be a completely absurd utterance.

Democracy is self-evident and the fact that we cannot present a complete, absolute definition makes no difference. In a Democratic State there is no official religion, people can go where they please, talk to whom they please about what they please or not; it is only asked of them they do it under the rule of Law. Therefore, they cannot preach hate, they cannot preach violence. Or should not, at least.

But Democracy is not static. We, the people, must work to improve Democray. The totalitarian temptation is strong in all of us, and we must fight it off, sometimes on a daily basis.

Ever since the Renaissance, throughout the Enlightenment and to date, we can trail a path of progress in western societies. This progress was acheived and consolidated because a body of values emerged in the Enlightenmet. Those values were absent in other parts of the World, namely the islamic world. And because of that our society is more open, tolerant - "better" - than islamic-based societies.

However, the issue at stake here is a return to elemental values, a turn from post-modern relativism. There are “truths” that are better than others: The values of Enlightenment are better. Freedom, Democracy, Equality, Fraternity, Tolerance - must prevail. These are not merely empty words, they are values, and they are better than other values.

In the given example of Democracy, the issue, instead of being “we cannot say what it is” or “it doesn’t work well” or “I do not care because they will do as they please” must be: “How do we make it better?”

Thought of the week...


I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.


Martin Luther King Jr

Friday, February 03, 2006

All hot about cartoons

The big news in the global media is the row over the Danish cartoons poking fun at Islam. I have so far not seen the pics of shame and to be honest I am not that curious. From what I heard it seems rather banal banter and I can predict confidently that on seeing the cartoons I won’t be shocked. But then again, I am not a Muslim, why should I be shocked? Here lies an important point, for atheist Europeans they may seem innocuous but it is obvious they are not if you are of a Muslim faith.

The protests began not with the first publication of the cartoons as illustration to a book on Islam, but only when they were reprinted in a newspaper soon after. Following the scandal, all over Europe the liberal and conservative press hoisted the flag of freedom of speech and once again reprinted the cartoons, even giving them first page coverage. For their European readers in pics in themselves were a non-event, what mattered was the scandal - the cavalier disregard of what the culturally distant other, the Muslims might feel; always done in the noble name of freedom. It was the abuse that sold newspapers.

It is freedom of speech to have the means to draw these cartoons and publish them. It is insult to repeatedly publish them, over and over again, once you know they might offend. Over a score of days the Middle East has shown its outrage in the streets. The voices of discontentment are not the usual suspects- i.e. Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine. This time anger runs from North Africa to the friendly Arabs of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The Muslim faithful have understood the affront.

If this was a battle over the ills of religion I might even have supported the provocation, but done for the sake of dividing the world in religious hatred, it does us no good.

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Thought of the night...


Because philosophy arises from awe, a philosopher is bound in his way to be a lover of myths and poetic fables. Poets and philosophers are alike in being big with wonder.
Thomas Aquinas

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Blogued out


Our society is so embedded with individualism that often isn’t easy to find people with whom one can talk, debate, share information and be creative. Bloguing changes all that.

There are several reasons why I think bloguing is important but I will give only two.

Firstly, in the blogosphere we get access to real information, and not the crap mainstream media feeds us. In the blogosphere not only we get relevant information ignored by mainstream media, but also analysis; relevant insights to what mainstream media sells as innocuous, "innocent" events. In addition, bloguing subverts the traditional relations between producers and audiences, because the bloguer is simultaneously audience and producer. This alone is an extremely relevant fact, that was absent from life until just a few years.

Secondly, I’m a natural born explorer. The blogosphere is important because I can meet so many different people and acquire so many different “takes” on such a variety of issues.

Yesterday, again embarking on a journey where no bloguer had gone before, from Penis and Vaginas Amplifiers to Cat food & Louis the brain Killer, I came across with Rebecca's Pocket.

Although I disagree with some of what this bloguer has to say, I think her words on Bloguing Ethics should be read.

Thought of the day...


I'll come no more behind your scenes, David; for the silk stockings and white bosoms of your actresses excite my amorous propensities. Samuel Johnson