#if one wants to read a famous-in-the-field philosopher of logic

[alianoralacanta]

I am taking a logic course (first-year university level) and requested a good follow-up book or two for the coursebook (which is the most basic logic course possible without being condescending - seriously, if you want to learn logic, even if you've never done so before, Marianne Talbot's A Romp In The Foothills Of Logic is an excellent choice). One of the books I got appears to meet that brief quite well (it was the sort of logic book that starts with, "There is no original material in this book, except perhaps by mistake"). It was an introduction to logic, but it appears to go quite a bit further and deeper than the Talbot book. The other one… was Wittgenstein's Tractacus Logico-Philosophicus. Seriously?!? Most universities I am aware of don't study Wittgenstein until third year. It's one of the most complex books on logic ever written. It's the sort of book where the translator's explanatory notes are over a quarter of the length of the entire book. I emphatically do not recommend that book to anyone who hasn't got a completely secure grasp of logic before starting.

[peach-astrology]

Jupiter in the houses

Jupiter in the first house:

1)Gives good advice,has a broad outlook and is quite lucky.

2)You have an optimistic outlook on life,and you give the impression of being cheerful,confident.You can cry at night,but try to do something again during the day.You are very strong personalities!

3)With bad aspects,it can be too trusting,careless and frivolous.

4)It is easy for this person to adapt to any place and society(but look at Mercury)Religion,culture,and philosophical generalizations will attract people,and they will want to master them.They will probably insert foreign words or quotes from various authors into their speech.

5)He is endowed with administrative abilities and is able to take power leading positions in the fields of politics,business and pedagogy.May be successful as a banker,doctor,judge,theologian,lawyer,or major government official.

Jupiter in the second house:

1)He wants to buy clothes of famous brands,fine furniture,comfortable cars,luxury apartments,etc.Such people don’t like to deny themselves anything.

2)The harmonious aspects of Jupiter attract financial luck.The work of the subject will be adequately paid,and investments will pay off well.

3)The bad aspects of Jupiter make a person wasteful and frivolous.He needs to realize that you can’t spend the last money on candy and that you need to earn only in an honest way.

4)You are very generous and can help your parents financially in the future.Financial well-being is very important.

5)He speaks very calmly,logically and pragmatically.

Jupiter in the third house:

1)Their circle of acquaintances is large,and they easily start relationships with a variety of people.A person can maintain foreign contacts and have many friends and well-wishers abroad.

2)He will make a very good teacher.Not only does he have a broad outlook,but he is also very respectful of other people's opinions.He is not stubborn and likes to constantly learn and develop.

3)The harmonious aspects of Jupiter will tell you about the easy and fast assimilation of educational material.The information you need to study will always be available to you.Others will provide such a person with good books.

4)The more Jupiter is facetted,the greater the intellectual potential of a person and the wider the opportunities for his development.

5)Stressful aspects may indicate congestion.A person wants to know everything at once.Their schedule is very unstable and it is difficult for them to study on schedule.

Jupiter in the fourth house:

1)Their parents were attentive to their studies.Perhaps such a child started reading or speaking early.

2)He likes to take care of his house.Quite hospitable,although it requires personal space.

3)It may indicate that a person will have several properties in the future.

4)These people tend to learn yoga,meditation,and other practices.They like to learn new things about foreign cultures.They like to watch travel blogs.

5)With bad aspects,serious scandals with parents,a tendency to frivolous behavior and waste of family wealth are possible.

Jupiter in the fifth house:

1)Indicates that the person will be a good parent.They understand children well,can have a lot of fun with them,but at the same time educate and spend a lot of time studying.Their children will be active and smart.

2)With bad aspects,a person can lead a debauched lifestyle and be frivolous.

3)People trust and are attracted to you.You give off good energy.You can often be appointed as a manager or director in a company.Be more confident in yourself and show all the strength of the Leo,just do not be too stubborn please.

4)This position is good in sports,because a person has competitiveness.He doesn't want to cheat,because he wants to be honest with himself first of all.Such a person,if desired,can train for days and nights.

5)When bad aspects with Venus can indicate a womanizer.

Jupiter in the sixth house:

1)With good aspects,a person easily recovers and has a good physical shape.With bad aspects,a person can often get seriouslyill,they often come across bad doctors or common diseases(colds)pass harder than others.

2)A mixture of creative freedom and discipline.Such people understand that inspiration comes when they want to.They perform their work conscientiously,can work in their specialty,and have good relations with their boss and colleagues.

3)The sixth house is responsible for pets,so most likely you are a good host,you can often walk with them or teach new abilities.Even cats near you become calmer and more well-mannered.

4)Your weak point is your hips.Please always look at your feet!5)Also,such people often overexert themselves,they strive to do everything in a short time.But they have good and influential bosses.They can work in one of the well-known companies.They respect statuses at work(but not in life)

5)Also,such people often overexert themselves,they strive to do everything in a short time.But they have good and influential bosses.They can work in one of the well-known companies.They respect statuses at work(but not in life)

Jupiter in the seventh house:

1)Oh,I hope your Venus is okay,because this Jupiter position is one of the best for marriage.It's like saying,"You'll be happy with him,baby,be brave"

2)Fair,friendly and caring person in communication.You like to listen to people's different points of view.You can even have smart friends who help with your homework.

3)Sometimes it points to a person "from dirt to princes".They can be much richer and more influential than their parents(if Mars is ok)

4)You are attracted to socially active people.You often support your partner in their endeavors and strongly inspire,rarely jealous.

5)Your karma is playing tricks on you.If you have offended a person,then with a hundred percent probability in a few days you will have just a terrible day.If you have done a good deed,then your finances can grow and luck will be on your side.

Jupiter in the eighth house:

1)As a child,such a person could do many things hastily.With age,such a person becomes more and more calm and risks little(especially money)

2)Such a person most often faces shocking situations in his life.Unlike ordinary people,he knows what to do and how to behave in difficult situations.

3)Sometimes indicates occult abilities.If there are favorable aspects,then be careful with the words that you say.Your insults can come back to you in the form of illnesses or other serious problems.Better not hold a grudge for your own good.

4)Good aspects create a kind of shield around the person,he is safe in any difficult situations.Bad aspects give even more problems to a person,and in what areas of life?You need to look at the planets that form the aspects.

5)8th house is responsible for the inheritance,so you will most likely receive it from your distant relatives,or from the person from whom you didn’t expect.

Jupiter in the ninth house:

1)Such a person may have several educations,or he will not learn in his native language.

2)Negative aspects indicate high self-esteem and lack of seriousness.

3)Very tolerant and versatile person.You can discuss literally everything with him.he may not read much,but he knows a lot.HOW?

4)Their family could be deeply religious or their religion was very important to them.The person himself rarely denies religion,but can change it if he rethinks his beliefs.

5)Just like religion,philosophy is important to them.Such a person gives good advice,he knows how to listen and has a good life experience.He has a lot to tell and listen to.

Jupiter in the tenth house:

1)A person sees his self-development in work.It can reveal his best qualities and inspire.They may have good working conditions, such as frequent bonuses or a lucrative contract.Sometimes indicates that their work is related to travel.

2)Most likely they will be successful after 30 years(due to the influence of Saturn,aka the 10th house)

3)Bad aspects point to the difficult relations with the authorities.A person can be too independent and listen to the opinions of others.Luck is not on their side.

4)Good aspects indicate a person's ability to communicate with colleagues.He has good business partners,has connections abroad and is constantly expanding his circle of acquaintances.Most likely,they were supported in their endeavors by their father or mother.Such a person becomes part of the team,often helps others(in a good way)

5)Air signs are most lucky in intellectual,research,and scientific activities.Fire signs are better to realize themselves in a profession that is associated with public activities or public performances.The main thing for Water and Earth signs is to show a creative streak,develop entrepreneurial inclinations,and the field of activity is not particularly important,they can achieve success in anything.

Jupiter in the eleventh house:

1)You have good friends who will help you with advice or financial assistance.You are sociable and have several groups of friends(but look at the house)

2)You can be inspired by other people through socializing, walking, or posting with other people's thoughts.If you want to get inspired, go to Pinterest or Tumblr.At the same time,you have a good imagination,you do not copy the others, but only get inspired by small things.for example, a color palette or atmosphere.

3)When the bad aspects of the person becomes materialistic.He looks for benefits even in friends and family.Their feelings become drier and angrier.

4)Such a person can become a successful programmer,politician,diplomat or administrator.He may be interested in space exploration,astronomy,and astrology.He likes the aesthetics of space and stars,he is ready to admire them for hours.

5)Good aspects give a person a friendly energy.People want to meet them,pay attention to them.Their money is reliable and sometimes grows.

Jupiter in the twelfth house:

1)He always feels that he is being underestimated.Whatever such a person does,his merits don't become public.He has low self-esteem.

2)A wonderful aspect for an astrologer,fortune teller or clairvoyant.A person literally feels the cards or energy of a person.They notice the signs of fate.

3)Bad aspects indicate a weak immune system.A person can catch a cold from a light breeze.It is necessary to monitor the level of vitamins and water levels in the body.

4)Good aspects indicate good friendships.Friends respect and appreciate a person's empathy and often ask for advice.Most likely,such a person has been friends for years and very rarely changes his environment.

5)A person gets tired of communicating with people and periodically needs to be alone with himself to restore his energy level.I really recommend that you make a playlist for a bad mood,because you will cry and your emotions will be released.Your condition will improve and you may be inspired.

[judgestarling]

Driving Professor Sydney Brenner

One of my scientific idols, Sydney Brenner (1927–2019), who helped determine the nature of the genetic code—he discovered two termination codons—who co-discovered mRNA, and who shared the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2002 for deciphering the sequence of events leading to the development of a multicellular organism from a fertilized egg into an adult nematode, died on April 5, 2019. He was 92. In my only face-to-face (actually face-to-back) conversation with him, many years ago, I told him that his cigarettes will kill him. And, indeed, they did… at 92.

I met Professor Brenner in 2002 when he was awarded the Dan David Prize in Israel, had a brief correspondence with him via email in 2013, and throughout my entire scientific life, I devoured his papers and commentaries.

The Dan David Prize is a weird institution. It is governed by my former employer, Tel Aviv University, and the Dan David Foundation, a somewhat secretive private charity that supports a variety of academic causes, with a heavy emphasis on archeology. Every year the Dan David Prize grants three awards of $1 million each for outstanding achievements in three categories: Past, Present, and Future. Each year, an academic committee decides the specific topics for each of the categories to be recognized the following year. (The selected fields for 2019, for instance, were Past: Macrohistory, Present: Defending Democracy, and Future: Combating Climate Change).

Prize laureates have to donate 10% of their prize money to doctoral scholarships for outstanding Ph.D. students and postdoctoral scholarships for outstanding researchers in their own field from Israel and around the world.

The first awards ceremony took place at Tel Aviv University on May 2002. The theme for the first Future prize was Life Sciences and the prize was split among three laureates: Sydney Brenner, John Sulston, Robert Waterston. (Seven month later, in December 2002, we learned that that Brenner and Sulston were awarded the Nobel Prize together with H. Robert Horvitz for “for their discoveries concerning genetic regulation of organ development and programmed cell death.”)

As expected, the novelty of the million-dollar prizes attracted a lot of attention from the Israeli press. Most of the journalists, however, focused on John Sulston, who had the courage to insist that some scholarships be awarded to Palestinian scholars.  

In 2002, I was the “Gordon Professor of Life Sciences” at Tel Aviv University—a grand title accompanied by no endowment—but in May 2002, for two days, I had an even more impressive title, I was Sydney Brenner’s chauffeur. His assigned chauffeur for the series of lectures and ceremonies simply stood him up, and I volunteered to drive him from the hotel to the University for his scientific lecture to faculty and students. Professor Brenner was not very impressed with my miniature Honda, but he was happy that I did not raised any objections to his chain smoking in my car. My ride with him constituted the first and last time that I enjoyed the traffic congestion in Tel Aviv, as it meant having a long conversation with Prof. Brenner.

Brenner first asked me if I knew Francis Crick. I told him that Crick was a scientific hero of mine, but that I think that his “reverse learning theory of dreams” was an unworthy detour. 

“That’s what I think too,” he replied, “but since Crick was always right in the past, I’ll withhold judgement. People didn’t believe his tRNA, his selfish DNA, and his Central Dogma, but he was always right. I have the nagging feeling that his theory on dreams will also turn out to be true” (1).

“And what about Jim Watson,” I asked.

“Don’t want to talk about that racist arse,” was his quick reply.

When we arrived at the place where he was supposed to give his first talk, I asked him about the slides. 

“I’ll be careful,” I said, “I promise not to drop the slide tray.”

“What slides?” he muttered and rushed to the podium.

He then proceeded to deliver one of the most fascinating lectures I’ve ever listened to. No slides, no notes, just a stream of consciousness by a feverish brilliant mind, who demolished every logical distortion, every sign of mental laziness, and every methodological shortcut.

Genomics? “Enormous factories for generating billions of data points that are a poor substitute for thinking.”

All other -omics? “Forget about them. It’s biochemistry, stupid.”

Universities? “Places where students can Xerox themselves to death” (2)

The human genome project? “A billion-dollar generator of junk-DNA sequences.”

He then proceeded to tell us how he reached the conclusion that sequencing the human genome in its entirety is not the only way to gain insight into the workings of human genetics.

It was the middle 1980s and several people, including Robert Sinsheimer and Renato Dulbecco started pushing for the establishment of a mega project to sequence the human genome. Given the speed of the sequencing technology at the time, a major stumbling block was finding people who would be willing to do such a seemingly boring and tedious task as sequencing the genome. Walter Gilbert advocated a large center, highly integrated, and organized along industrial lines. Sydney Brenner half-jokingly suggested establishing “a penal colony where sentences consisting of large-scale sequencing projects would be carried out.” 

The prospect of becoming involved in an industrial project did not appeal to Brenner. There must be a way to get results without sequencing every piece of junk in the human genome. He came up with two alternatives: sequencing the human exome, i.e., about the 1% of the human genome that was known to perform a selected-effect function, or find a Readers Digest version of the human genome that could be sequenced faster and more cheaply than the human genome, yet would be as scientifically meaningful and rewarding.

Someone—Sydney Brenner did not remember whom—suggested he look into a paper published in the late 1960s in American Naturalist.

“What, I’ll find my answer in a nudie magazine?” said Brenner, playing on the difference between “naturalist” and “naturist.”

And there it was, in a paper by Ralph Hinegardner (Evolution of cellular DNA content in teleost fishes. 1968. Am. Nat. 102:517-523) at the end of Table 1: Tetraodon fluviatilis (green pufferfish) with 0.40 picograms DNA. 

A congeneric species with a smaller genome was subsequently found, Tetraodon nigroviridis (green spotted pufferfish) with 0.35 picograms. For reasons that most probably concerned availability of tissues, Brenner’s choice was another pufferfish, the famous, poisonous, and exorbitantly expensive Japanese delicacy, the fugu (Fugu rubripes) (3). 

In 1993, he reported the initial characterization of the fugu genome (Brenner S, Elgar G, Sanford R, Macrae A, Venkatesh B, Aparicio S. 1993. Characterization of the pufferfish (Fugu) genome as a compact model vertebrate genome. Nature 366:265–268). He found that the fugu haploid genome was 7.5 times smaller than the human genome of which more that 90% was unique. The fugu genome had a similar gene repertoire as the human genome, and according to Brenner and colleagues, “it is the best model genome for the discovery of human genes.”   

Sadly, his suggestion to completely sequence Fugu and only sequence the human exome did not convince the granting agencies, which at this point in time were desperate to find the next “moonshot,” the next big project, that could be sold to the masses as a cure-all for all humanity’s ailments (4). 

A partial fugu genome was published in 2002 with Sydney Brenner as the last author one year after the publication of the human genome. The genome of Tetraodon nigroviridis was published in 2004, three years after the first draft of the human genome. Brenner was not an author on this paper.

After Brenner’s lecture in 2002, I started reading everything Professor Brenner had ever written… with one exception—a seventy-four page methodology paper (Barnett L, Brenner S, Crick FHC, Shulman RG, Watts-Tobin RJ. 1967. Phase-shift and other mutants in the first part of the rII B cistron of bacteriophage T4. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 252:487-560) that Francis Crick predicted no one will read. As far as I am concerned, Crick was right again.

The second time I communicated with Prof. Brenner was eleven years later.

In 2013, as I was fighting the obscene conclusions by the equally obscene ENCODE Project, I discovered that the accepted historical narrative according to which the term “junk DNA” was coined in 1972 by Susumu Ohno as part of his work on the role of gene and genome duplication was inaccurate (see here). The term was used in the literature at least 12 years before Ohno used it. The trail of clues led me to Cambridge in the late 1950s, and following a suggestion by Tim Hunt, another Nobel Prize Laureate, who used the term “junk DNA” independently of Ohno, I contacted Dr. Brenner.

Dr. Brenner was very generous in his answer

October 7, 2013

Dear Dr. Graur

I can confirm that we were using the idea of junk in the genome in the sixties in Cambridge. Indeed in the late fifties we were very much concerned with this big puzzle: Analyses of the nucleotide composition of bacteria showed that the ratios of AT to GC varied in different bacteria from 1:3 to 3:1, whereas the composition of ribosomal RNA (which we thought at the time was the information intermediate) was constant. One possibility was that the coding information only occupied a small fraction of the DNA the rest being junk. [Noboru] Sueoka killed this idea when he showed that the composition of the DNA could be measured by equilibrium sedimentation and that when he sheared the DNA to smaller sizes separation of two kinds of DNA did not occur and the composition was maintained down to small pieces. It was the discovery of messenger and understanding the degeneracy of the code that solved this problem.

All through the sixties we were concerned with the problem of the C paradox in higher organisms. DNA contents varied over enormous amounts which had no relation to biological properties. The development of  CoT analysis by Roy Britten revealed that this could be explained by the fact that "single copy" DNA represented only a minor fraction of the DNA and that large and variable fractions could be represented by repetitive DNA with different annealing rates.

We also had to contend with the fact that the heterogeneous RNA in animal cells (which was the messenger) had a very high molecular weight suggesting that the genes of higher organisms were very large - of course we did not know that there were introns at the time. It was very natural to use the term junk to describe this useless DNA and I was using in Cambridge in the sixties and I gave lectures on this in the Woods Hole Physiology course in 1968 and 1969, where incidentally I read the papers which showed the small DNA content of the puffer fish. Of course we had a lot of difficulty to explain to people why this useless DNA was being maintained and had not already disappeared. This type of “logic” is still part of the psychology of most people and especially of the ENCODE gang.

My distinction between two kinds of rubbish - junk and garbage - which you quoted in your paper, came much later when I discovered that most languages made a distinction between the rubbish you keep and the rubbish you throw away.

I was interested very much in your [ENCODE] paper (could you send me a copy please) and I am still working on the problem.

I think the key is to understand that there are two processes going on in our genomes. One is change in the DNA by mutation or transposition and other is its fixation. I think that the assumption that selection does not work for neutral changes and that they can only be fixed by random drift is wrong. The big driver for fixation of neutral changes is linkage to selected genes - the hitchhiking effect.

You may also be amused by the story that when micro RNAs were discovered somebody wrote to me demanding that I withdraw a statement I had made that 97% of the human genome was junk. I replied saying I was willing to change this figure to 96.8% And another one: when asked what the function of all this extra DNA was our reply was it was there to maintain the viscosity of the nucleus.

Thank you for being so patient.

Sydney Brenner

In December, I got permission to quote his email

I feel most remiss in not replying to your letter more promptly. You are welcome to quote from the letter.

Sydney

Sadly, that’s where the correspondence ended. My follow-up emails went unanswered and his colleague in Singapore, Dr. Byrappa Venkatesh, wrote to inform me that Prof. Brenner “has not been well,” and may not have seen my emails.

Notes

(1) Crick’s publication on the reverse theory of dreams has been cited over a thousand times in the literature, but did not prove popular with psychologists. It did, however, reinforce modern post-Freudian ideas that dreams are meaningless, and the paper by Crick and Graeme Mitchison on reverse learning contributed to the marginalization of dreams in clinical psychological practice.

(2) Brenner was known for his legendary love of wordplay. For example, he instructed students to “neurox” (copy from paper to brain) rather than Xerox (copy from paper to paper. He also invented “Occam’s broom” to complement “Occam’s razor.” The function of Occam’s broom was “to sweep under the carpet what one must in order to leave your hypotheses consistent.” 

(3) In 2013, Tetraodon fluviatilis and Tetraodon nigroviridis were found to be misclassified, and were subsumed into genus Dichotomyctere. As expected, molecular biologists didn’t give a shit about the proper biological nomenclature; since 2014 the name Dichotomyctere nigroviridis was only used 30 times, whereas the invalid name Tetraodon nigroviridis was used more than 4,000 times. The genus Fugu is actually a minor synonym of the valid name Takifugu. The valid name in this case fared better than Dichotomyctere. In the last 10 years, Fugu has been used 3,960 times, while Takifugu was used 9,430 times. 

(4) All subsequent wasteful and boastful megaprojects from ENCODE to the Brain Project can be traced to the decision to reject Brenner’s proposal. And as we all know, the Human Genome Project has indeed eradicated all disease, ended world hunger, stopped global warming, and put an end to the use of Comic Sans in PowerPoint presentations.

[beinglibertarian]

Before You Go To University: Logic

Editor’s note: This is the first installment of a new Being Libertarian series curated to help anyone who is beginning their journey through university. As Jordan Peterson alludes to in many of his lectures, the university can help a person read great books, absorb great thought, and develop their unique human ability to speak, argue, and articulate. But often we face a situation where rather than being taught how to critically think, students are instead being shown one-sided arguments, or being told what to think. This series intends to prepare future and current students so that they can move forward confidently into their university experience, one that will open their minds and challenge their presuppositions armed with critical thought, logic and reason.

Part 1: Logic

Libertarians and conservatives are becoming increasingly disenfranchised with universities. We tend to be fiscally-prudent, and universities aren’t necessarily geared toward vocational training and as such it’s potentially a bad monetary investment. They’re further viewed as propaganda machines for leftist thought.

Logic and truth can trump propaganda and so we wish to begin this series by delving into how logic operates and further suggest that universities tend to offer excellent classes on logic and critical thinking and would highly recommend this being your first selection of classes.

Logic is the path to truth. It’s developing an exactness with arguments to know that we’ve arrived at the destination of truth. Computer programming works with logic because it can’t permit any ambiguity or false implications. It’s the most useful thing any human being can learn, because we have to think every single day of our lives and ensuring we aren’t drawing false conclusions in politics, religion, with a business proposal, with a customer service agent, with health advice, with a loved one’s suggestions, is paramount.

We can arrive at truth by what philosophers call an argument. This is not an angry exchange, it’s a series of statements that are supposed to lead to some higher truth. If you want to prove that your cell phone company has given you an incorrect charge, you have to give them an argument as to why this is so, some sort of proof or justification, and knowing that your justification necessarily implies the conclusion is the business of logic.

An argument can go wrong in one of two ways, either the structure is bad or the content is bad. A bridge can have a perfect design, but if the government decides to cut corners and use jelly rather than concrete, that is, if the content was poor, it will be useless. Conversely, a bridge can be made of diamonds, but if the design is poor and the bridge is disconnected, the bridge is useless.

1. Validity

Step one is to ensure the structure is valid:

If P then Q.

It is the case that P.

Therefore: Q.

This is a valid argument. It’s saying that if premise one and premise two are correct, the conclusion has to be true. It doesn’t care about political bias, religious or atheistic passions, the authority someone has in a field, someone’s ethics or upbringing, and certainly not a person’s feelings or capability of handling offense, logic is logic and none of these are relevant, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

P and Q can stand for literally any sentence:

If it is raining then I will wear my coat.

It is the case that it is raining.

Therefore: I will wear my coat.

If I am from Toronto then I am from Canada.

It is the case that I am from Toronto.

Therefore: I am from Canada.

If I am a Greek god, then I drive a Honda.

It is the case that I am a Greek god.

Therefore: I drive a Honda.

These are all valid arguments. Their structure is good. The content might be terrible, perhaps it’s wrong to say that all Greek gods drive Hondas, but when someone says an argument is valid they’re only saying that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true; they aren’t committing to the premises being true.

A valid argument, first and foremost, means that the premises generate the conclusion. Most of us have an intuitive sense of how logic works, or when violations of it arise.

The most splendid example of this in recent memory was Jordan Peterson’s famous interview with Cathy Newman. She continually interpreted him to be saying things he wasn’t actually saying, and he continually had to point out why his premises didn’t generate the conclusions she was drawing. Her deductions were illogical.

Newman: “What’s in it for the woman?” (a question about Peterson’s call for men to take responsibility for their lives)

Peterson: “Well, what sort of partner do you want? Do you want an overgrown child or do you want someone to contend with that’s going to help you?”

Newman: “So you’re saying women have some sort of duty to help fix the crisis of masculinity?”

Nothing of what Peterson had said generates the conclusion that she drew. It could be the case that Peterson believes this, her conclusion may or may not be correct, but the reason why she drew it is incorrect.

There are other examples to consider:

If P then Q

It is not the case that P

Therefore: It is not the case that Q

This would be an example of an invalid argument.

If I am from Toronto then I am from Canada.

It is not the case that I am from Toronto.

Therefore: It is not the case that I am from Canada.

This is clearly false. I could be from another part of Canada. Yet, if some ethical, religious, political passion is brought into the equation, some people might find an argument that takes this form to be a good argument and fall prey to propaganda.

This happens informally. Anytime a murder takes place with a gun there are those sure to get angry with the gun and claim, “If only they didn’t have a gun everyone would still be alive!” To put this in the terms of logic:

If person A didn’t own a gun, then person B would be alive. (If P then Q)

Person A does own a gun (Not P)

Therefore: Person B is dead.

This isn’t necessarily true; the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.

Another example:

If P then Q.

It is the case that Q.

Therefore, it is the case that P.

Consider the accusation that some Democrat is a communist:

If someone is a communist then they support socialized medicine.

It is the case that politician X supports socialized medicine.

Therefore, it is the case that politician X is a communist.

These premises might be entirely true, but they don’t generate the conclusion. When in office, Margaret Thatcher came to support Britain’s national health service and she was certainly not a communist, even though all communists support nationalized health service.

Another example:

If P then Q

It is not the case that Q

Therefore: It is not the case that P

This is a valid argument.

If I am from Toronto, then I am from Canada.

It is not the case that I am from Canada.

Therefore: It is not the case that I am from Toronto.

This is a valid conclusion. It might not be true even though the argument is valid – validity is only saying that if the premises are true then the conclusion follows.

2. Soundness

Not only should an argument be valid but it should also be sound. This is the next stage in logical arguments – our path to truth. This is the idea that not only is the structure of the argument valid, but the content is also true.

If I am a Greek god then I drive a Honda.

It is the case that I am a Greek god.

Therefore, it is the case that I drive a Honda.

This argument is valid and but it’s still remarkably awful (although, the conclusion might be true, I could drive a Honda, you can hold true beliefs and have terrible reasons for doing so).

If I am from Toronto then I am from Canada. It Is the case that I am from Toronto.

Therefore, it is the case that I live in Canada.

This argument is both valid and the conclusion is true. When teaching logic, I always ask my students if this means that the argument is sound.

The answer is no, further this is not even a sound argument. From this clue, you can logically deduce something about me. If it’s not a sound argument and both the conclusion is true while the structure is valid, then you know one of the premises has to be false. Given that the truth of premise one -Toronto is part of Canada, you can logically deduce I’m from somewhere else in Canada other than Toronto.

Provided someone hasn’t committed an egregious logical error in drawing conclusions, most political debates surround the truth of some premise, which generally requires evidential or scientific reasoning however, philosophy can weigh in on whether or not a premise is sound as well.

We do this by assuming a premise is true, and if we find a contradiction we know there is an error. A leftist might argue that equality of outcome is a good thing as it diminishes poverty. If this can be shown to have the logical implication of increasing poverty then a contradiction has been found and the initial assumption must therefore be false.

It’s never the case that we have P and Not P, as the truth of P implies the falsehood of Not P, and the truth of Not P, implies the falsehood of P. Logic might not be able to say whether it’s true or false that Dante wrote the Divine Comedy, history must do that, but logic can definitely say it’s false to claim that Dante both did and did not write the Divine Comedy.

3. Cogency

The third level of argumentation is when not only is the structure valid, and the premises are true, but it’s also the case that the premises are known to be true.

If the starting point of the argument is something the audience doesn’t agree with or is only potentially true, then the entire argument is worthless.

The abortion debate has two interesting premises. One side will contend that women should have the right to do what they want with their bodies. The other side will contend that it’s immoral to take a human life. The idea that women have the right to do what they want with their bodies, extending to an abortion, implies the unborn don’t have a right to do what they want with their bodies. The idea that it’s immoral to take a human life carries with it the notion that the unborn are human lives. I doubt either side would generally agree to the other’s premise and as a result, their arguments don’t go anywhere.

These are the three levels of argumentation. Validity, soundness, and cogency. If all three of these have been checked off, an argument must be agreed to. Logic is the most calloused of all fields.

Students recognizing the failures of logic is incredibly important. It will help them in all fields of study. It is the most effective safeguard against propaganda.

  The post Before You Go To University: Logic appeared first on Being Libertarian.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2IEZdD5 via IFTTT

[philosophicalconservatism]

Do you have recommendations for beginners getting into philosophy?

‘I’ll assume here that you mean Philosophy proper and not Political Philosophy? In that case i would recommend you begin first of all with the Dialogues Of Plato and The Republic. Western Philosophy begins in Ancient Greece, and its most seminal figure is the thinker  Socrates. Socrates himself taught orally and we only know of his teachings through the writings of his students, the most important of which was Plato. Plato originally aspired to be a dramatist until he met Socrates and was captivated by the field of Philosophy. Thus Plato in his writings presents Socrates'  ideas in the form of short plays or dramatic dialogues in which Socrates is the star and communicates his philosophical ideas during intense debates with various other personalities on important topics. You can start with the easier dialogues: Meno, Gorgias, Euthyphro and move on to the rest.

Now Plato went on to found his own school called the Academy, which is considered to be the first university in the history of the Western world; and his most important student was the Philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle, one of the most influential men that have ever lived,  was a jack of all trades who explored and wrote on many subjects. Now none of the fields of modern human academic study had been separated off yet. Physics, Biology, Psychology, Logic, Grammar  etc. were all simply called “Philosophy” at the Academy  (Infact as late as the 18th century science was still referred to as “Natural Philosophy” in the Western world. Isaac Newton’s famous work on gravity was a work of “Natural Philosophy ”).  Of course Aristotle also wrote on “pure Philosophy”, and is most known for this today. Works you may want to tackle from his library are Metaphysics, The Politics and  The Nichomachean Ethics.  

After this comes the Roman period of  Philosophy which was not too eventful when it comes to original ideas. You can just find a book or reference work  to provide you with a general summary of it (although you should check out the writings of Marcus Aurelius  and Boethius). Next is the Philosophy of the Middle Ages (the era of Scholasticism) which revolved primarily around an elaboration and defense of the Christian faith using philosophical reasoning. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas are the most important writers of that era. Beyond them you might want to again, just read summaries of, and commentaries on the period unless you eventually decide to become a serious student of Philosophy. The final period before the modern era is Renassiance Philosophy. It is the most ignored period in the entire discipline (perhaps justifiably).  Again, find some reference work on it.

The modern era of Philosophy begins in the 1600’s with the Frenchman Rene Descartes. His work Discourse On Method is required reading for a basic knowledge of Modern Philosophy. Other important and accessible works are John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding, and  Bishop George Berkeley’s Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous. The German Immanuel Kant becomes the most crucial figure in Philosophy after Descartes passes from the scene, but he is influenced by another , the Englishman named David Hume. With Hume and especially Kant, the language in Philosophy starts to become rather difficult for the average reader to parse, and the texts start to become voluminous . You should acquaint yourself with the authors by reading a little of the text, but read summaries and commentaries to get a real grasp of their ideas.  

So that will give you a good start.  

[verjigorm]

Logical Fallacies Handlist

Fallacies are statements that might sound reasonable or superficially true but are actually flawed or dishonest. When readers detect them, these logical fallacies backfire by making the audience think the writer is (a) unintelligent or (b) deceptive. It is important to avoid them in your own arguments, and it is also important to be able to spot them in others' arguments so a false line of reasoning won't fool you. Think of this as intellectual kung-fu: the vital art of self-defense in a debate. For extra impact, learn both the Latin terms and the English equivalents.

In general, one useful way to organize fallacies is by category. We have below fallacies of relevance, component fallacies, fallacies of ambiguity, and fallacies of omission. We will discuss each type in turn. The last point to discuss is Occam's Razor.

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE: These fallacies appeal to evidence or examples that are not relevant to the argument at hand.

Appeal to Force (Argumentum Ad Baculum or the "Might-Makes-Right" Fallacy): This argument uses force, the threat of force, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion. It commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or rational arguments fail to convince a reader. If the debate is about whether or not 2+2=4, an opponent's argument that he will smash your nose in if you don't agree with his claim doesn't change the truth of an issue. Logically, this consideration has nothing to do with the points under consideration. The fallacy is not limited to threats of violence, however. The fallacy includes threats of any unpleasant backlash--financial, professional, and so on.

Example: "Superintendent, you should cut the school budget by $16,000. I need not remind you that past school boards have fired superintendents who cannot keep down costs." While intimidation may force the superintendent to conform, it does not convince him that the choice to cut the budget was the most beneficial for the school or community. Lobbyists use this method when they remind legislators that they represent so many thousand votes in the legislators' constituencies and threaten to throw the politician out of office if he doesn't vote the way they want. Teachers use this method if they state that students should hold the same political or philosophical position as the teachers or risk failing the class. Note that it is isn't a logical fallacy, however, to assert that students must fulfill certain requirements in the course or risk failing the class! 

Genetic Fallacy: The genetic fallacy is the claim that an idea, product, or person must be untrustworthy because of its racial, geographic, or ethnic origin. "That car can't possibly be any good! It was made in Japan!" Or, "Why should I listen to her argument? She comes from California, and we all know those people are flakes." Or, "Ha! I'm not reading that book. It was published in Tennessee, and we know all Tennessee folk are hillbillies and rednecks!" This type of fallacy is closely related to the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem or personal attack, appearing immediately below.

Personal Attack (Argumentum Ad Hominem, literally, "argument toward the man." Also called "Poisoning the Well"): Attacking or praising the people who make an argument, rather than discussing the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself. The statement "2+2=4" is true regardless if it is stated by criminals, congressmen, or pastors. There are two subcategories:

Abusive: To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with atheists, Christians, Muslims, communists, capitalists, the John Birch Society, Catholics, anti-Catholics, racists, anti-racists, feminists, misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious. This persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to evidence or logic concerning the issue at hand. This is similar to the genetic fallacy, and only an anti-intellectual would argue otherwise.

Circumstantial: To argue that an opponent should accept or reject an argument because of circumstances in his or her life. If one's adversary is a clergyman, suggesting that he should accept a particular argument because not to do so would be incompatible with the scriptures is such a fallacy. To argue that, because the reader is a Republican or Democrat, she must vote for a specific measure is likewise a circumstantial fallacy. The opponent's special circumstances have no control over the truth or untruth of a specific contention. The speaker or writer must find additional evidence beyond that to make a strong case. This is also similar to the genetic fallacy in some ways. If you are a college student who wants to learn rational thought, you simply must avoid circumstantial fallacies.

Argumentum ad Populum (Literally "Argument to the People"): Using an appeal to popular assent, often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument. It is a favorite device with the propagandist, the demagogue, and the advertiser. An example of this type of argument is Shakespeare's version of Mark Antony's funeral oration for Julius Caesar. There are three basic approaches:

Bandwagon Approach: “Everybody is doing it.” This argumentum ad populum asserts that, since the majority of people believes an argument or chooses a particular course of action, the argument must be true, or the course of action must be followed, or the decision must be the best choice. For instance, “85% of consumers purchase IBM computers rather than Macintosh; all those people can’t be wrong. IBM must make the best computers.” Popular acceptance of any argument does not prove it to be valid, nor does popular use of any product necessarily prove it is the best one. After all, 85% of people may once have thought planet earth was flat, but that majority's belief didn't mean the earth really was flat when they believed it! Keep this in mind, and remember that everybody should avoid this type of logical fallacy.

Patriotic Approach: "Draping oneself in the flag." This argument asserts that a certain stance is true or correct because it is somehow patriotic, and that those who disagree are unpatriotic. It overlaps with pathos and argumentum ad hominem to a certain extent. The best way to spot it is to look for emotionally charged terms like Americanism, rugged individualism, motherhood, patriotism, godless communism, etc. A true American would never use this approach. And a truly free man will exercise his American right to drink beer, since beer belongs in this great country of ours.This approach is unworthy of a good citizen.

Snob Approach: This type of argumentum ad populum doesn’t assert “everybody is doing it,” but rather that “all the best people are doing it.” For instance, “Any true intellectual would recognize the necessity for studying logical fallacies.” The implication is that anyone who fails to recognize the truth of the author’s assertion is not an intellectual, and thus the reader had best recognize that necessity.

In all three of these examples, the rhetorician does not supply evidence that an argument is true; he merely makes assertions about people who agree or disagree with the argument. For Christian students in religious schools like Carson-Newman, we might add a fourth category, "Covering Oneself in the Cross." This argument asserts that a certain political or denominational stance is true or correct because it is somehow "Christian," and that anyone who disagrees is behaving in an "un-Christian" or "godless" manner. (It is similar to the patriotic approach except it substitutes a gloss of piety instead of patriotism.) Examples include the various "Christian Voting Guides" that appear near election time, many of them published by non-Church related organizations with hidden financial/political agendas, or the stereotypical crooked used-car salesman who keeps a pair of bibles on his dashboard in order to win the trust of those he would fleece. Keep in mind Moliere's question in Tartuffe: "Is not a face quite different than a mask?" Is not the appearance of Christianity quite different than actual Christianity? Christians should beware of such manipulation since they are especially vulnerable to it. 

Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum Ad Traditionem; aka Argumentum Ad Antiquitatem): This line of thought asserts that a premise must be true because people have always believed it or done it. For example, "We know the earth is flat because generations have thought that for centuries!" Alternatively, the appeal to tradition might conclude that the premise has always worked in the past and will thus always work in the future: “Jefferson City has kept its urban growth boundary at six miles for the past thirty years. That has been good enough for thirty years, so why should we change it now? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Such an argument is appealing in that it seems to be common sense, but it ignores important questions. Might an alternative policy work even better than the old one? Are there drawbacks to that long-standing policy? Are circumstances changing from the way they were thirty years ago? Has new evidence emerged that might throw that long-standing policy into doubt?

Appeal to Improper Authority (Argumentum Ad Verecundium, literally "argument from that which is improper"): An appeal to an improper authority, such as a famous person or a source that may not be reliable or who might not know anything about the topic. This fallacy attempts to capitalize upon feelings of respect or familiarity with a famous individual. It is not fallacious to refer to an admitted authority if the individual’s expertise is within a strict field of knowledge. On the other hand, to cite Einstein to settle an argument about education or economics is fallacious. To cite Darwin, an authority on biology, on religious matters is fallacious. To cite Cardinal Spellman on legal problems is fallacious. The worst offenders usually involve movie stars and psychic hotlines. A subcategory is the Appeal to Biased Authority. In this sort of appeal, the authority is one who actually is knowledgeable on the matter, but one who may have professional or personal motivations that render his professional judgment suspect: for instance, "To determine whether fraternities are beneficial to this campus, we interviewed all the frat presidents." Or again, "To find out whether or not sludge-mining really is endangering the Tuskogee salamander's breeding grounds, we interviewed the owners of the sludge-mines, who declared there is no problem." Indeed, it is important to get "both viewpoints" on an argument, but basing a substantial part of your argument on a source that has personal, professional, or financial interests at stake may lead to biased arguments. As Upton Sinclair once stated, "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Sinclair is pointing out that even a knowledgeable authority might not be entirely rational on a topic when he has economic incentives that bias his thinking.

Appeal to Emotion (Argumentum Ad Misericordiam, literally, "argument from pity"): An emotional appeal concerning what should be a logical issue during a debate. While pathos generally works to reinforce a reader’s sense of duty or outrage at some abuse, if a writer tries to use emotion merely for the sake of getting the reader to accept what should be a logical conclusion, the argument is a fallacy. For example, in the 1880s, prosecutors in a Virginia court presented overwhelming proof that a boy was guilty of murdering his parents with an ax. The defense presented a "not-guilty" plea for on the grounds that the boy was now an orphan, with no one to look after his interests if the court was not lenient. This appeal to emotion obviously seems misplaced, and the argument is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he did the crime.

Argument from Adverse Consequences: Asserting that an argument must be false because the implications of it being true would create negative results. For instance, “The medical tests show that Grandma has advanced cancer. However, that can’t be true because then she would die! I refuse to believe it!” The argument is illogical because truth and falsity are not contingent based upon how much we like or dislike the consequences of that truth. Grandma, indeed, might have cancer, in spite of how negative that fact may be or how cruelly it may affect us.

Argument from Personal Incredulity: Asserting that opponent’s argument must be false because you personally don’t understand it or can’t follow its technicalities. For instance, one person might assert, “I don’t understand that engineer’s argument about how airplanes can fly. Therefore, I cannot believe that airplanes are able to fly.” Au contraire, that speaker’s own mental limitations do not limit the physical world—so airplanes may very well be able to fly in spite of a person's inability to understand how they work. One person’s comprehension is not relevant to the truth of a matter.

COMPONENT FALLACIES: Component fallacies are errors in inductive and deductive reasoning or in syllogistic terms that fail to overlap.

Begging the Question (also called Petitio Principii, this term is sometimes used interchangeably with Circular Reasoning): If writers assume as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove, they engage in the fallacy of begging the question. The most common form of this fallacy is when the first claim is initially loaded with the very conclusion one has yet to prove. For instance, suppose a particular student group states, "Useless courses like English 101 should be dropped from the college's curriculum." The members of the student group then immediately move on in the argument, illustrating that spending money on a useless course is something nobody wants. Yes, we all agree that spending money on useless courses is a bad thing. However, those students never did prove that English 101 was itself a useless course--they merely "begged the question" and moved on to the next "safe" part of the argument, skipping over the part that's the real controversy, the heart of the matter, the most important component. Begging the question is often hidden in the form of a complex question (see below).

Circular Reasoning is closely related to begging the question. Often the writers using this fallacy word take one idea and phrase it in two statements. The assertions differ sufficiently to obscure the fact that that the same proposition occurs as both a premise and a conclusion. The speaker or author then tries to "prove" his or her assertion by merely repeating it in different words. Richard Whately wrote in Elements of Logic (London 1826): “To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be on the whole, advantageous to the state; for it is highly conducive to the interest of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments.” Obviously the premise is not logically irrelevant to the conclusion, for if the premise is true the conclusion must also be true. It is, however, logically irrelevant in proving the conclusion. In the example, the author is repeating the same point in different words, and then attempting to "prove" the first assertion with the second one. A more complex but equally fallacious type of circular reasoning is to create a circular chain of reasoning like this one: "God exists." "How do you know that God exists?" "The Bible says so." "Why should I believe the Bible?" "Because it's the inspired word of God."

The so-called "final proof" relies on unproven evidence set forth initially as the subject of debate. Basically, the argument goes in an endless circle, with each step of the argument relying on a previous one, which in turn relies on the first argument yet to be proven. Surely God deserves a more intelligible argument than the circular reasoning proposed in this example!

Hasty Generalization (Dicto Simpliciter, also called “Jumping to Conclusions,” "Converse Accident"): Mistaken use of inductive reasoning when there are too few samples to prove a point. Example: "Susan failed Biology 101. Herman failed Biology 101. Egbert failed Biology 101. I therefore conclude that most students who take Biology 101 will fail it." In understanding and characterizing general situations, a logician cannot normally examine every single example. However, the examples used in inductive reasoning should be typical of the problem or situation at hand. Maybe Susan, Herman, and Egbert are exceptionally poor students. Maybe they were sick and missed too many lectures that term to pass. If a logician wants to make the case that most students will fail Biology 101, she should (a) get a very large sample--at least one larger than three--or (b) if that isn't possible, she will need to go out of his way to prove to the reader that her three samples are somehow representative of the norm. If a logician considers only exceptional or dramatic cases and generalizes a rule that fits these alone, the author commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.

One common type of hasty generalization is the Fallacy of Accident. This error occurs when one applies a general rule to a particular case when accidental circumstances render the general rule inapplicable. For example, in Plato’s Republic, Plato finds an exception to the general rule that one should return what one has borrowed: “Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and asks for them when he is not in his right mind. Ought I to give the weapons back to him? No one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so. . . .” What is true in general may not be true universally and without qualification. So remember, generalizations are bad. All of them. Every single last one. Except, of course, for those that are not.

Another common example of this fallacy is the misleading statistic. Suppose an individual argues that women must be incompetent drivers, and he points out that last Tuesday at the Department of Motor Vehicles, 50% of the women who took the driving test failed. That would seem to be compelling evidence from the way the statistic is set forth. However, if only two women took the test that day, the results would be far less clear-cut. Incidentally, the cartoon Dilbert makes much of an incompetent manager who cannot perceive misleading statistics. He does a statistical study of when employees call in sick and cannot come to work during the five-day work week. He becomes furious to learn that 40% of office "sick-days" occur on Mondays (20%) and Fridays (20%)--just in time to create a three-day weekend. Suspecting fraud, he decides to punish his workers. The irony, of course, is that these two days compose 40% of a five day work week, so the numbers are completely average. Similar nonsense emerges when parents or teachers complain that "50% of students perform at or below the national average on standardized tests in mathematics and verbal aptitude." Of course they do! The very nature of an average implies that! 

False Cause: This fallacy establishes a cause/effect relationship that does not exist. There are various Latin names for various analyses of the fallacy. The two most common include these types:

Non Causa Pro Causa (Literally, "Not the cause for a cause"): A general, catch-all category for mistaking a false cause of an event for the real cause.

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (Literally: "After this, therefore because of this"): This type of false cause occurs when the writer mistakenly assumes that, because the first event preceded the second event, it must mean the first event caused the later one. Sometimes it does, but sometimes it doesn't. It is the honest writer's job to establish clearly that connection rather than merely assert it exists. Example: "A black cat crossed my path at noon. An hour later, my mother had a heart-attack. Because the first event occurred earlier, it must have caused the bad luck later." This is how superstitions begin.

The most common examples are arguments that viewing a particular movie or show, or listening to a particular type of music “caused” the listener to perform an antisocial act--to snort coke, shoot classmates, or take up a life of crime. These may be potential suspects for the cause, but the mere fact that an individual did these acts and subsequently behaved in a certain way does not yet conclusively rule out other causes. Perhaps the listener had an abusive home-life or school-life, suffered from a chemical imbalance leading to depression and paranoia, or made a bad choice in his companions. Other potential causes must be examined before asserting that only one event or circumstance alone earlier in time caused a event or behavior later. For more information, see correlation and causation. 

Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignorantio Elenchi): This fallacy occurs when a rhetorician adapts an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion and directs it to prove a different conclusion. For example, when a particular proposal for housing legislation is under consideration, a legislator may argue that decent housing for all people is desirable. Everyone, presumably, will agree. However, the question at hand concerns a particular measure. The question really isn't, "Is it good to have decent housing?" The question really is, "Will this particular measure actually provide it or is there a better alternative?" This type of fallacy is a common one in student papers when students use a shared assumption--such as the fact that decent housing is a desirable thing to have--and then spend the bulk of their essays focused on that fact rather than the real question at issue. It's similar to begging the question, above.

One of the most common forms of Ignorantio Elenchi is the "Red Herring." A red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue to some side-point; for instance, “Senator Jones should not be held accountable for cheating on his income tax. After all, there are other senators who have done far worse things.” Another example: “I should not pay a fine for reckless driving. There are many other people on the street who are dangerous criminals and rapists, and the police should be chasing them, not harassing a decent tax-paying citizen like me.” Certainly, worse criminals do exist, but that it is another issue! The questions at hand are (1) did the speaker drive recklessly, and (2) should he pay a fine for it?

Another similar example of the red herring is the fallacy known as Tu Quoque (Latin for "And you too!"), which asserts that the advice or argument must be false simply because the person presenting the advice doesn't consistently follow it herself. For instance, "Susan the yoga instructor claims that a low-fat diet and exercise are good for you--but I saw her last week pigging out on Oreos, so her argument must be a load of hogwash." Or, "Reverend Jeremias claims that theft is wrong, but how can theft be wrong if Jeremias himself admits he stole objects when he was a child?" Or "Thomas Jefferson made many arguments about equality and liberty for all Americans, but he himself kept slaves, so we can dismiss any thoughts he had on those topics."

Straw Man Argument: A subtype of the red herring, this fallacy includes any lame attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side. Such an approach is building a straw man argument. The name comes from the idea of a boxer or fighter who meticulously fashions a false opponent out of straw, like a scarecrow, and then easily knocks it over in the ring before his admiring audience. His "victory" is a hollow mockery, of course, because the straw-stuffed opponent is incapable of fighting back. When a writer makes a cartoon-like caricature of the opposing argument, ignoring the real or subtle points of contention, and then proceeds to knock down each "fake" point one-by-one, he has created a straw man argument.

For instance, one speaker might be engaged in a debate concerning welfare. The opponent argues, "Tennessee should increase funding to unemployed single mothers during the first year after childbirth because they need sufficient money to provide medical care for their newborn children." The second speaker retorts, "My opponent believes that some parasites who don't work should get a free ride from the tax money of hard-working honest citizens. I'll show you why he's wrong . . ." In this example, the second speaker is engaging in a straw man strategy, distorting the opposition's statement about medical care for newborn children into an oversimplified form so he can more easily appear to "win." However, the second speaker is only defeating a dummy-argument rather than honestly engaging in the real nuances of the debate.

Non Sequitur (literally, "It does not follow"): A non sequitur is any argument that does not follow from the previous statements. Usually what happened is that the writer leaped from A to B and then jumped to D, leaving out step C of an argument she thought through in her head, but did not put down on paper. The phrase is applicable in general to any type of logical fallacy, but logicians use the term particularly in reference to syllogistic errors such as the undistributed middle term, non causa pro causa, and ignorantio elenchi. A common example would be an argument along these lines: "Giving up our nuclear arsenal in the 1980's weakened the United States' military. Giving up nuclear weaponry also weakened China in the 1990s. For this reason, it is wrong to try to outlaw pistols and rifles in the United States today." There's obviously a step or two missing here.

The "Slippery Slope" Fallacy (also called "The Camel's Nose Fallacy") is a non sequitur in which the speaker argues that, once the first step is undertaken, a second or third step will inevitably follow, much like the way one step on a slippery incline will cause a person to fall and slide all the way to the bottom. It is also called "the Camel's Nose Fallacy" because of the image of a sheik who let his camel stick its nose into his tent on a cold night. The idea is that the sheik is afraid to let the camel stick its nose into the tent because once the beast sticks in its nose, it will inevitably stick in its head, and then its neck, and eventually its whole body. However, this sort of thinking does not allow for any possibility of stopping the process. It simply assumes that, once the nose is in, the rest must follow--that the sheik can't stop the progression once it has begun--and thus the argument is a logical fallacy. For instance, if one were to argue, "If we allow the government to infringe upon our right to privacy on the Internet, it will then feel free to infringe upon our privacy on the telephone. After that, FBI agents will be reading our mail. Then they will be placing cameras in our houses. We must not let any governmental agency interfere with our Internet communications, or privacy will completely vanish in the United States." Such thinking is fallacious; no logical proof has been provided yet that infringement in one area will necessarily lead to infringement in another, no more than a person buying a single can of Coca-Cola in a grocery store would indicate the person will inevitably go on to buy every item available in the store, helpless to stop herself. So remember to avoid the slippery slope fallacy; once you use one, you may find yourself using more and more logical fallacies.

Either/Or Fallacy (also called "the Black-and-White Fallacy," "Excluded Middle," "False Dilemma," or "False Dichotomy"): This fallacy occurs when a writer builds an argument upon the assumption that there are only two choices or possible outcomes when actually there are several. Outcomes are seldom so simple. This fallacy most frequently appears in connection to sweeping generalizations: “Either we must ban X or the American way of life will collapse.” "We go to war with Canada, or else Canada will eventually grow in population and overwhelm the United States." "Either you drink Burpsy Cola, or you will have no friends and no social life." Either you must avoid either/or fallacies, or everyone will think you are foolish.

Faulty Analogy: Relying only on comparisons to prove a point rather than arguing deductively and inductively. For example, “education is like cake; a small amount tastes sweet, but eat too much and your teeth will rot out. Likewise, more than two years of education is bad for a student.” The analogy is only acceptable to the degree a reader thinks that education is similar to cake. As you can see, faulty analogies are like flimsy wood, and just as no carpenter would build a house out of flimsy wood, no writer should ever construct an argument out of flimsy material.

Undistributed Middle Term: A specific type of error in deductive reasoning in which the minor premise and the major premise of a syllogism might or might not overlap. Consider these two examples: (1) “All reptiles are cold-blooded. All snakes are reptiles. All snakes are cold-blooded.” In the first example, the middle term “snakes” fits in the categories of both “reptile” and “things-that-are-cold-blooded.” (2) “All snails are cold-blooded. All snakes are cold-blooded. All snails are snakes.” In the second example, the middle term of “snakes” does not fit into the categories of both “things-that-are-cold-blooded” and “snails.” Sometimes, equivocation (see below) leads to an undistributed middle term.

Contradictory Premises (also known as a logical paradox): Establishing a premise in such a way that it contradicts another, earlier premise. For instance, "If God can do anything, he can make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it." The first premise establishes a deity that has the irresistible capacity to move other objects. The second premise establishes an immovable object impervious to any movement. If the first object capable of moving anything exists, by definition, the immovable object cannot exist, and vice-versa.

Closely related is the fallacy of Special Pleading, in which the writer creates a universal principle, then insists that principle does not for some reason apply to the issue at hand. For instance, “Everything must have a source or creator. Therefore God must exist and he must have created the world. What? Who created God? Well, God is eternal and unchanging--He has no source or creator.” In such an assertion, either God must have His own source or creator, or else the universal principle of everything having a source or creator must be set aside—the person making the argument can’t have it both ways.

FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY: These errors occur with ambiguous words or phrases, the meanings of which shift and change in the course of discussion. Such more or less subtle changes can render arguments fallacious.

Equivocation: Using a word in a different way than the author used it in the original premise, or changing definitions halfway through a discussion. When we use the same word or phrase in different senses within one line of argument, we commit the fallacy of equivocation. Consider this example: “Plato says the end of a thing is its perfection; I say that death is the end of life; hence, death is the perfection of life.” Here the word end means "goal" in Plato's usage, but it means "last event" or "termination" in the author's second usage. Clearly, the speaker is twisting Plato's meaning of the word to draw a very different conclusion. Compare with amphiboly, below.

Amphiboly (from the Greek word "indeterminate"): This fallacy is similar to equivocation. Here, the ambiguity results from grammatical construction. A statement may be true according to one interpretation of how each word functions in a sentence and false according to another. When a premise works with an interpretation that is true, but the conclusion uses the secondary "false" interpretation, we have the fallacy of amphiboly on our hands. In the command, "Save soap and waste paper," the amphibolous use of "waste" results in the problem of determining whether "waste" functions as a verb or as an adjective.

Composition: This fallacy is a result of reasoning from the properties of the parts of the whole to the properties of the whole itself--it is an inductive error. Such an argument might hold that, because every individual part of a large tractor is lightweight, the entire machine also must be lightweight. This fallacy is similar to Hasty Generalization (see above), but it focuses on parts of a single whole rather than using too few examples to create a categorical generalization. Also compare it with Division (see below).

Division: This fallacy is the reverse of composition. It is the misapplication of deductive reasoning. One fallacy of division argues falsely that what is true of the whole must be true of individual parts. Such an argument notes that, "Microtech is a company with great influence in the California legislature. Egbert Smith works at Microtech. He must have great influence in the California legislature." This is not necessarily true. Egbert might work as a graveyard shift security guard or as the copy-machine repairman at Microtech--positions requiring little interaction with the California legislature. Another fallacy of division attributes the properties of the whole to the individual member of the whole: "Sunsurf is a company that sells environmentally safe products. Susan Jones is a worker at Sunsurf. She must be an environmentally minded individual." (Perhaps she is motivated by money alone?)

Fallacy of Reification (Also called “Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness” by Alfred North Whitehead): The fallacy of treating a word or an idea as equivalent to the actual thing represented by that word or idea, or the fallacy of treating an abstraction or process as equivalent to a concrete object or thing. In the first case, we might imagine a reformer trying to eliminate illicit lust by banning all mention of extra-marital affairs or certain sexual acts in publications. The problem is that eliminating the words for these deeds is not the same as eliminating the deeds themselves. In the second case, we might imagine a person or declaring “a war on poverty.” In this case, the fallacy comes from the fact that “war” implies a concrete struggle with another concrete entity which can surrender or be exterminated. “Poverty,” however is an abstraction that cannot surrender or sign peace treaties, cannot be shot or bombed, etc. Reification of the concept merely muddles the issue of what policies to follow and leads to sloppy thinking about the best way to handle a problem. It is closely related to and overlaps with faulty analogy and equivocation.

FALLACIES OF OMISSION: These errors occur because the logician leaves out necessary material in an argument or misdirects others from missing information.

Stacking the Deck: In this fallacy, the speaker "stacks the deck" in her favor by ignoring examples that disprove the point and listing only those examples that support her case. This fallacy is closely related to hasty generalization, but the term usually implies deliberate deception rather than an accidental logical error. Contrast it with the straw man argument.

‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy: Attempting to stack the deck specifically by defining terms in such a narrow or unrealistic manner as to exclude or omit relevant examples from a sample. For instance, suppose speaker #1 asserts, “The Scottish national character is brave and patriotic. No Scottish soldier has ever fled the field of battle in the face of the enemy.” Speaker #2 objects, “Ah, but what about Lucas MacDurgan? He fled from German troops in World War I.” Speaker #1 retorts, “Well, obviously he doesn't count as a true Scotsman because he did not live up to Scottish ideals, thus he forfeited his Scottish identity.” By this fallacious reasoning, any individual who would serve as evidence contradicting the first speaker’s assertion is conveniently and automatically dismissed from consideration. We commonly see this fallacy when a company asserts that it cannot be blamed for one of its particularly unsafe or shoddy products because that particular one doesn't live up to its normally high standards, and thus shouldn't “count” against its fine reputation. Likewise, defenders of Christianity as a positive historical influence in their zeal might argue the atrocities of the eight Crusades do not “count” in an argument because the Crusaders weren't living up to Christian ideals, and thus aren't really Christians, etc. So, remember this fallacy. Philosophers and logicians never use it, and anyone who does use it by definition is not really a philosopher or logician.

Argument from the Negative: Arguing from the negative asserts that, since one position is untenable, the opposite stance must be true. This fallacy is often used interchangeably with Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (listed below) and the either/or fallacy (listed above). For instance, one might mistakenly argue that, since the Newtonian theory of mathematics is not one hundred percent accurate, Einstein’s theory of relativity must be true. Perhaps not. Perhaps the theories of quantum mechanics are more accurate, and Einstein’s theory is flawed. Perhaps they are all wrong. Disproving an opponent’s argument does not necessarily mean your own argument must be true automatically, no more than disproving your opponent's assertion that 2+2=5 would automatically mean your argument that 2+2=7 must be the correct one. Keeping this mind, students should remember that arguments from the negative are bad, arguments from the positive must automatically be good.

Appeal to a Lack of Evidence (Argumentum Ad Ignorantium, literally "Argument from Ignorance"): Appealing to a lack of information to prove a point, or arguing that, since the opposition cannot disprove a claim, the opposite stance must be true. An example of such an argument is the assertion that ghosts must exist because no one has been able to prove that they do not exist. Logicians know this is a logical fallacy because no competing argument has yet revealed itself.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (Argumentum Ad Speculum): Trying to prove something in the real world by using imaginary examples alone, or asserting that, if hypothetically X had occurred, Y would have been the result. For instance, suppose an individual asserts that if Einstein had been aborted in utero, the world would never have learned about relativity, or that if Monet had been trained as a butcher rather than going to college, the impressionistic movement would have never influenced modern art. Such hypotheses are misleading lines of argument because it is often possible that some other individual would have solved the relativistic equations or introduced an impressionistic art style. The speculation might make an interesting thought-experiment, but it is simply useless when it comes to actually proving anything about the real world. A common example is the idea that one "owes" her success to another individual who taught her. For instance, "You owe me part of your increased salary. If I hadn't taught you how to recognize logical fallacies, you would be flipping hamburgers at McDonald's for minimum wages right now instead of taking in hundreds of thousands of dollars as a lawyer." Perhaps. But perhaps the audience would have learned about logical fallacies elsewhere, so the hypothetical situation described is meaningless.

Complex Question (Also called the "Loaded Question"): Phrasing a question or statement in such as way as to imply another unproven statement is true without evidence or discussion. This fallacy often overlaps with begging the question (above), since it also presupposes a definite answer to a previous, unstated question. For instance, if I were to ask you “Have you stopped taking drugs yet?” my hidden supposition is that you have been taking drugs. Such a question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no answer. It is not a simple question but consists of several questions rolled into one. In this case the unstated question is, “Have you taken drugs in the past?” followed by, “If you have taken drugs in the past, have you stopped taking them now?” In cross-examination, a lawyer might ask a flustered witness, “Where did you hide the evidence?” or "when did you stop beating your wife?" The intelligent procedure when faced with such a question is to analyze its component parts. If one answers or discusses the prior, implicit question first, the explicit question may dissolve. 

Complex questions appear in written argument frequently. A student might write, “Why is private development of resources so much more efficient than any public control?” The rhetorical question leads directly into his next argument. However, an observant reader may disagree, recognizing the prior, implicit question remains unaddressed. That question is, of course, whether private development of resources really is more efficient in all cases, a point which the author is skipping entirely and merely assuming to be true without discussion. 

To master logic more fully, become familiar with the tool of Occam's Razor.

[freudycat]

bertrand russell is like b-russell sprouts but better(?)

Hey! Wow, for the first time in a while I don’t think I’m late while updating. Yay!!! Congratulations, self!!

Anyways, today we’ll be talking about Bertrand Russell. Russell is kind of a hard name to make puns about, but I’m sure I’ll be able to Russell up a few. Hehe. For real, though, Russell is a pretty cool guy - I mean he made major contributions in fields ranging from mathematics to philosophy! 

Umm, so basically, he used ~ logic ~ to try and orient himself as a philosopher. He believed that it was the philosopher’s job to discover the logically ideal language. Ie, Russell believed that general facts, facts that are generally true, as the phrase might imply LOL, are necessary. As for negative facts, facts which affirm a “negative” statement (like “apples are not oranges”), Russell ~ famously ~ was conflicted on if they were needed to understand the world. 

But even beyond that, he was wanting to know if it was even possible to know anything. Russell basically combined his scientific knowledge with his “humanities(?)” knowledge to answer this.

First, he developed his theory of logical atomism. Basically, all truths are based upon “logical atoms”, which are all basic true facts. Using these basic true facts, we can then build a larger “molecule”/conclusion. I’m big sad because I thought I could escape from influences from chemistry at least outside of school but n o p e . Anyways, our inferences are basically “logical constructions”. 

This logical atomism also has a methodological view, which recommends ~ analysis ~, which is where analytical philosophy probably got its name from. Yay for my brilliant analyses. But, this process basically constitutes attempts to define or reconstruct complex ideas into simpler ones. 

This is important, since this helps us realize that the “common facts” that we believe to be indivisible are actually inferences reached through understanding a bunch of more basic facts. We can build logical constructions through “sensibilia”, which is the fAnCy word for “our own senses”. 

Thus, we adopt “the S U P R E M E maxim in scientific philosophizing” (emphasis added hehe). Basically, we should always try to break down these logical constructions. Anything that can’t be further broken down is called an “ontological atom”. Ontology describes traits that are fundamental to something; ie, “roundness” is ontological to balls, since a ball wouldn’t be a ball if it wasn’t round. Going along that logic, an “ontological atom” is something that is the most basic concept possible. Ontological atoms are also logically independent of one another. 

In this context, Russell makes his ~ famous ~ distinctions between two kinds of knowledge of truths: direct, infallible truths vs indirect, open to error truths. The “direct” kind of truth is capable of being known directly through facts of sensation and logic. On the other hand, the “indirect” kind of truth is derived from the more “direct” truths. 

Basically, Russell wanted to really Rus-sell the necessity of the “scientific method” in philosophy. Hehehe. He hoped that by encouraging this logic, philosophers would exhibit the underlying “logical form” of natural-language statements. The statement’s logical form would then help resolve problems associated with the a m b i g u i t y of language. 

That’s basically all I could understand without going too much into calculus it! Thanks for reading!

[squaleboy]

Success as a Fragile Construction

For I have a single definition of success: you look in the mirror every evening, and wonder if you disappoint the person you were at 18, right before the age when people start getting corrupted by life. Let him or her be the only judge; not your reputation, not your wealth, not your standing in the community, not the decorations on your lapel. If you do not feel ashamed, you are successful. All other definitions of success are modern constructions; fragile modern constructions.

The Ancient Greeks’ main definition of success was to have had a heroic death. But as we live in a less martial world, even in Lebanon, we can adapt our definition of success as having taken a heroic route for the benefits of the collective, as narrowly or broadly defined collective as you wish. So long as all you do is not all for you: secret societies used to have a rule for uomo d’onore: you do something for yourself and something for other members. And virtue is inseparable from courage. Like the courage to do something unpopular. Take risks for the benefit of others; it doesn’t have to be humanity, it can be helping say Beirut Madinati or the local municipality. The more micro, the less abstract, the better.

Success requires absence of fragility. I’ve seen billionaires terrified of journalists, wealthy people who felt crushed because their brother in law got very rich, academics with Nobel who were scared of comments on the web. The higher you go, the worse the fall. For almost all people I’ve met, external success came with increased fragility and a heightened state of insecurity. The worst are those “former something” types with 4 page CVs who, after leaving office, and addicted to the attention of servile bureaucrats, find themselves discarded: as if you went home one evening to discover that someone suddenly emptied your house of all its furniture.

But self-respect is robust –that’s the approach of the Stoic school, which incidentally was a Phoenician movement. (If someone wonders who are the Stoics I’d say Buddhists with an attitude problem, imagine someone both very Lebanese and Buddhist). I’ve seen robust people in my village Amioun who were proud of being local citizens involved in their tribe; they go to bed proud and wake up happy. Or Russian mathematicians who, during the difficult post-Soviet transition period, were proud of making $200 a month and do work that is appreciated by twenty people –and considered that showing one’s decorations –or accepting awards –were a sign of weakness and lack of confidence in one’s contributions. And, believe it or not, some wealthy people are robust –but you just don’t hear about them because they are not socialites, live next door, and drink Arak baladi not Veuve Cliquot.

Personal History

Now a bit of my own history. Don’t tell anyone, but all the stuff you think comes from deep philosophical reflection is dressed up: it all comes from an ineradicable gambling instinct –just imagine a compulsive gambler playing high priest. People don’t like to believe it: my education came from trading and risk taking with some help from school.

I was lucky to have a background closer to that of a classical Mediterranean or a Medieval European than a modern citizen. For I was born in a library –my parents had an account at Librarie Antoine in Bab Ed Driss and a big library. They bought more books than they could read so they were happy someone was reading the books for them. Also my father knew every erudite person in Lebanon, particularly historians. So we often had Jesuit priests at dinner and because of their multidisciplinary erudition they were the only role models for me: my idea of education is to have professors just to eat with them and ask them questions. So I valued erudition over intelligence –and still do. I initially wanted to be a writer and philosopher; one needs to read tons of books for that –you had no edge if your knowledge was limited to the Lebanese Baccalaureat program. So I skipped school most days and, starting at age 14, started reading voraciously. Later I discovered an inability to concentrate on subjects others imposed on me. I separated school for credentials and reading for one’s edification.

First Break

I drifted a bit, with no focus, and remained on page 8 of the Great Lebanese Novel until the age of 23 (my novel was advancing at a rate of one page per year). Then I got a break on the day when at Wharton I accidentally discovered probability theory and became obsessed with it. But, as I said it did not come from lofty philosophizing and scientific hunger, only from the thrills and hormonal flush one gets while taking risks in the markets. A friend had told me about complex financial derivatives and I decided to make a career in them. It was a combination of trading and complex mathematics. The field was new and uncharted. But they were very, very difficult mathematically.

Greed and fear are teachers. I was like people with addictions who have a below average intelligence but were capable of the most ingenious tricks to procure their drugs. When there was risk on the line, suddenly a second brain in me manifested itself and these theorems became interesting. When there is fire, you will run faster than in any competition. Then I became dumb again when there was no real action. Furthermore, as a trader the mathematics we used was adapted to our problem, like a glove, unlike academics with a theory looking for some application. Applying math to practical problems was another business altogether; it meant a deep understanding of the problem before putting the equations on it. So I found getting a doctorate after 12 years in quantitative finance much, much easier than getting simpler degrees.

I discovered along the way that the economists and social scientists were almost always applying the wrong math to the problems, what became later the theme of The Black Swan. Their statistical tools were not just wrong, they were outrageously wrong –they still are. Their methods underestimated “tail events”, those rare but consequential jumps. They were too arrogant to accept it. This discovery allowed me to achieve financial independence in my twenties, after the crash of 1987.

So I felt I had something to say in the way we used probability, and how we think about, and manage uncertainty. Probability is the logic of science and philosophy; it touches on many subjects: theology, philosophy, psychology, science, and the more mundane risk engineering –incidentally probability was born in the Levant in the 8th Century as 3elm el musadafat, used to decrypt messages. So the past thirty years for me have been flaneuring across subjects, bothering people along the way, pulling pranks on people who take themselves seriously. You take a medical paper and ask some scientist full of himself how he interprets the “p-value”; the author will be terrorized.

The International Association of Name Droppers

The second break came to me when the crisis of 2008 happened and felt vindicated and made another bundle putting my neck on the line. But fame came with the crisis and I discovered that I hated fame, famous people, caviar, champagne, complicated food, expensive wine and, mostly wine commentators. I like mezze with local Arak baladi, including squid in its ink (sabbidej), no less no more, and wealthy people tend to have their preferences dictated by a system meant to milk them. My own preferences became obvious to me when after a dinner in a Michelin 3 stars with stuffy and boring rich people, I stopped by Nick’s pizza for a $6.95 dish and I haven’t had a Michelin meal since, or anything with complex names. I am particularly allergic to people who like themselves to be surrounded by famous people, the IAND (International Association of Name Droppers). So, after about a year in the limelight I went back to the seclusion of my library (in Amioun or near NY), and started a new career as a researcher doing technical work. When I read my bio I always feel it is that of another person: it describes what I did not what I am doing and would like to do.

On Advice and Skin in the Game

I am just describing my life. I hesitate to give advice because every major single piece of advice I was given turned out to be wrong and I am glad I didn’t follow them. I was told to focus and I never did. I was told to never procrastinate and I waited 20 years for The Black Swan and it sold 3 million copies. I was told to avoid putting fictional characters in my books and I did put in Nero Tulip and Fat Tony because I got bored otherwise. I was told to not insult the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal; the more I insulted them the nicer they were to me and the more they solicited Op-Eds. I was told to avoid lifting weights for a back pain and became a weightlifter: never had a back problem since.

If I had to relive my life I would be even more stubborn and uncompromising than I have been.

One should never do anything without skin in the game. If you give advice, you need to be exposed to losses from it. It is an extension to the silver rule. So I will tell you what tricks I employ.

• Do not read the newspapers, or follow the news in any way or form. To be convinced, try reading last years’ newspaper. It doesn’t mean ignore the news; it means that you go from the events to the news, not the other way around.

• If something is nonsense, you say it and say it loud. You will be harmed a little but will be antifragile — in the long run people who need to trust you will trust you.

When I was still an obscure author, I walked out of a studio Bloomberg Radio during an interview because the interviewer was saying nonsense. Three years later Bloomberg Magazine did a cover story on me. Every economist on the planet hates me (except of course those of AUB).

I’ve suffered two smear campaigns, and encouraged by the most courageous Lebanese ever since Hannibal, Ralph Nader, I took reputational risks by exposing large evil corporations such as Monsanto, and suffered a smear campaign for it.

Treat the doorman with a bit more respect than the big boss.

If something is boring, avoid it –save taxes and visits to the mother in law. Why? Because your biology is the best nonsense detector; use it to navigate your life.

The No-Nos

There are a lot of such rules in my books, so for now let me finish with a few maxims. The following are no-nos:

Muscles without strength,

friendship without trust,

opinion without risk,

change without aesthetics,

age without values,

food without nourishment,

power without fairness,

facts without rigor,

degrees without erudition,

militarism without fortitude,

progress without civilization,

complication without depth,

fluency without content,

and, most of all, religion without tolerance.

[johnchiarello]

Philosophy 2

Philosophy- 2

 Blog- www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com

The blog is my main site- on some sites if you click the link it gives a ‘warning’- if that happens- simply type the address in or search on google- the site is safe- the most up to date posts are on the Blog.

Site- https://ccoutreach87.com/

Facebook- https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks

Youtube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg?view_as=subscriber

Other sites- https://ccoutreach87.com/links-to-my-sites-updated-10-2018/  

Cloud links- https://ccoutreach87.com/cloud-links-12-2018/

Youtube Playlist- https://ccoutreach87.com/youtube-playlist/

  [Links to all my sites at the bottom of this post]

 NOTE- Every so often some of my sites think I am Spam- or a Bot- I am not. My name is John Chiarello and I post original content [all videos and text are by me]. I do share my past posts from my other sites- but it is not spam- Thank you- John.

  THE 5TH ELEMENT.

 Ok- let’s talk philosophy today- the last post on this subject I traced what we normally refer to as the beginning of Greek philosophy- a man by the name of Thales- 6th century BCE.

 We said that Thales had an idea that water was the principle element- water seemed to have the ability to move [motion] by itself- so Walla- maybe water is the principle thing.

 He was what we refer to as a Monist.

 Monists believed that there was one principle element- responsible for all other things.

 Now- the pre Socratic philosophers debated about this- some said it was air- others earth- some said fire- as a matter of fact- some said all 4 of these elements were responsible for existence.

 Now- some sought a 5th element- some yet to be discovered thing that would explain it all.

 A man by the name of Anaximander described it as ‘the boundless’- something that has no origin- he said it was ‘both unborn- and immortal’ ahh- you can already see the attributes of God in this [boundless- what Theologians call omnipresent- God having no limits- he is everywhere [but not everything- get to that in a moment] and ‘unborn’ that is he himself has no beginning].

 Ok- this 5th element [some called it Ether- or Aether- a sort of wave theory- that light travels along this ether- this idea lasted till the day of Einstein- who showed us that Ether does not exist [in this way] but that light itself is made up of particles- photons- this was one of the major breakthroughs of modern physics].

 A few years ago the movie ‘the 5th Element’- Bruce Willis- hit on this theme- sort of like the ‘God particle’- that is they were in search for some type of being that was eternal – self existent.

 The term Quintessence [quint- 5] came to be defined as this 5th element- and today we use the word Quintessential to describe the pure essence of a thing- the perfect embodiment of something.

 Over time the Greek thinkers would arrive at the idea that yes indeed- there was one main thing- Monism- that could be the source of all other things.

It is interesting to note that the Jewish prophets- and wisdom literature- which predates these guys- already started from the standpoint of Monotheism- one God.

 Now- Monism is not Monotheism.

 Monism is really a form of what we call Pantheism [in the study of religion].

 Pantheism says that God is ‘everything’- some eastern religions hold to this concept.

 The Christian view is that God is separate from creation- that he is indeed the original source of creation- but not the creation itself.

 The Geek philosophers even described this 5th element as ‘The One’- see- they were getting close.

 In today’s debates- some espouse an idea that there was no beginning point- that the universe is either eternal [something Einstein disproved with the Big Bang theory] or that there is a sort of infinite regress- that there is no one starting point- but that there have been a never ending [or beginning] series of ‘big bangs’ that go on forever.

 This defies the laws of logic- and math.

 Math?

Yeah- many of the great physicists were also great mathematicians [like Einstein- and Max Plank- who was first a mathematician].

 If there was no beginning point- mathematically it doesn’t ‘work’.

 You would never be able to arrive at the present time- if there was no starting point to measure from [I know this might sound strange- but this is indeed a proof- that there had to be a starting point].

 What these thinkers show us is that even thru the ancient field of Philosophy- you still arrive at some type of ‘thing’ that is responsible for all other things.

 Some Christians reject the Big Bang theory- but in my view it gave the Christian apologist the greatest tool to argue for the existence of God.

 For many centuries it was believed that the universe was eternal- and if that was true- then indeed you did not have to have an outside source that was responsible for it.

 But Einstein showed us that there was a beginning point- that the universe is in a continual expansion mode- and if it is getting ‘bigger’ by the second- then yes- it did have a starting point.

 Many today think that it ‘popped’ into existence on its own- this is both scientifically and logically impossible- it violates the law of Cause and Effect [every effect has to have a cause also ‘out of nothing- nothing comes’].

 There was a famous Christian who abandoned the faith- Bertrand Russell- he said ‘if everything has to have a cause- then God must have one too- and if God needs a cause- then why not see the universe as the cause’.

Tough Russell was a good man- he made a mistake here.

The laws of logic do not say that everything has to have a cause- but every effect has to have one.

 In essence- somewhere along the line- going back to the beginning- there must be an initial cause- that has no beginning- Anaximander’s Boundless One.

 Ok- I won’t do too many of these posts in a row- because as you can see- this takes time- and you lose people along the way.

 But- over the next few weeks I’ll slip a post like this in- it helps when dealing with those who have sincere objections to the faith- and it also debunks some common misconceptions.

  MY SITES

Active sites-

www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com  [Main site]

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks  

https://www.facebook.com/ccoutreach1/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel&eid=ARCo7sBBI_1fHMUwrHJbFUGf73C6FmpZxtgTcWET2gVwpdHCKmXSGxs6wyeA-qGCnbsr2ILaXqpd4ACt  [my page]

https://ccoutreach87.com/

https://plus.google.com/108013627259688810902/posts

http://johnchiarello.tumblr.com/

http://ccoutreach.over-blog.com/

https://ccoutreach87.jimdo.com/

http://ccoutreach87.webstarts.com/__blog.html?r=20171009095200

http://ccoutreach87-1.mozello.com/

https://ccoutreach87.site123.me/

http://ccoutreach87.wixsite.com/mysite

https://corpusoutreach.weebly.com/

http://ccoutreach87.strikingly.com/

https://medium.com/@johnchiarello

https://johnchiarello.webs.com/

https://vk.com/id533663718

  Link sharing sites-

https://twitter.com/ccoutreach87

https://www.pinterest.com/ccoutreach87/

https://www.reddit.com/user/ccoutreach87

https://mix.com/jchiarello

https://trello.com/b/swhF9Vr8/ccoutreach87com

https://ok.ru/profile/589985645111

 http://corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com/p/one-link_18.html [Link to past teaching]

 Inactive- work in progress

http://ccoutreach87.webs.com/

https://sites.google.com/yahoo.com/ccoutreach87/home

http://johnchiarello.doodlekit.com/

http://corpus-christijohnchiarello.simplesite.com/

https://spark.adobe.com/page/6INKwX1tFT7WA/

 Video sites [Can download my videos free of charge]

All Youtube videos-  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg/videos?view_as=subscriber

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxWXKfaFDZrfNUzloSqg8Kg?view_as=subscriber beta

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYlLmUkKiB6VoWE9CB1UQew?view_as=subscriber ccoutreach87

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg?view_as=subscriber classic

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ccoutreach87/

https://vimeo.com/user85764413

https://www.dailymotion.com/ccoutreach87/videos

https://bit.tube/ccoutreach87

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/jsS961GkXUSn/

https://d.tube/c/ccoutreach  

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1QJ3MSF6ZqJpYS9Vzeg9ni5dP-yMcj3A7?usp=sharing

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMg0G_aInmCi8XUC-C

https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZ1sXP7ZardKGRUxFByiFYi667jeup7MD1Sy

https://mega.nz/#F!7WQCSIJR!-4v9-zUQRq4MIQbBfI2n4A  

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/d43nhtrgysqg493/AAAlCszxZXJoRtk8UudtuR9ma?dl=0

https://ln.sync.com/dl/3e1f4c5e0/tcnm9p32-xiwe4nbu-zjbkitqj-4fvemf6m

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMg0MwmUCJ1XM3q9ui  [Upload- unzipped- all teaching videos to 12-18 here]

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5/videos?lst=1779330793%3A1779330793%3A1546906912  [My Facebook videos]

https://www.instagram.com/john.chiarello/channel/

https://icedrive.net/dashboard/#/cloud

 I no longer upload videos to this site- but there are many links to download here as well-

https://ccoutreach87.com/

Cloud sites- https://ccoutreach87.com/cloud-links-12-2018/

 Note- Please do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on-  Copy text- download video links- make complete copies of my books/studies and posts- everything is copyrighted by me- I give permission for all to copy and share as much as you like- I just ask that nothing be sold. We live in an online world- yet- there is only one internet- meaning if it ever goes down- the only access to the teachings are what others have copied or downloaded- so feel free to copy and download as much as you want- it’s all free-

 Note- I have many web sites- at times some question whether I’m a ‘bot’ because I do post a lot.

I am not a ‘bot’- I’m John- so please- if you are on the verge of deleting something- my contact email is ccoutreach87@gmail.com - contact me first- thank you- John

[oilsteven80-blog]

Facing the “Horror of Time”

NOVEMBER 24, 2018

ONE OF THE MOST common prejudices we historians of philosophy encounter is the notion that philosophy is somehow incompatible with religious belief. Religion is based on faith, philosophy on reason; religion is rigorously imposed doctrine, philosophy is open-ended inquiry; religion is about believing what you’re told, philosophy about figuring things out for yourself. A moment’s reflection will show you that it must be a little more complicated than that. After all, nearly all philosophers in history — famous and obscure, ancient and modern, Western and non-Western, male and female — have been religious believers. No surprise there, given that nearly all humans in recorded history have been religious believers. So to believe in a fundamental opposition between religion and philosophy, or faith and reason, is to assume that nearly the entire history of philosophy has consisted of people rising above or setting aside their own deeply held spiritual convictions.

In fact, the reverse is true. Religion has always been a significant factor in shaping philosophical development and progress. It is only one such factor, of course. Christian theology shaped Aquinas’s metaphysics in much the same way that, say, ideas about family relations in ancient China shaped Confucius’s ethics, or the effects of the Industrial Revolution shaped Marx’s economic theory. Furthermore, many thinkers have reflected on the relationship between religious authority and philosophical reasoning. Aquinas himself is a famous example because of his attempt to explain how revealed truth supplements the deliverances of natural reason. But the question has arisen in other cultures too. Just take the ancient Indian Mimamsa school, which developed an entire epistemology and philosophy of language to buttress their claim that the Vedas are an authoritative source of knowledge. Or take the 17th-century Ethiopian philosopher Zera Yacob, who tested his religious beliefs to discover whether they would hold up under rational scrutiny.

In short, then, we should see religion not as incompatible with philosophy, but to the contrary, as providing a context in which philosophical reflection has typically been undertaken. One can say this while wondering whether certain religious ideologies, though not religion in general, have inhibited or altogether suppressed the urge to philosophize. One of the best examples comes from the cultural context that produced the aforementioned Aquinas. Around the time of his death, two rounds of condemnations were issued in an attempt to rein in the freewheeling explorations being conducted at Aquinas’s home institution, the University of Paris (he was almost certainly one of the targets). Then again, the fact that Aquinas, and after him brilliant and influential philosophers like Duns Scotus, worked in this very time and place shows just how intractable the censor’s task is. Good philosophers are, apparently, hard to keep down. Indeed, some have plausibly proposed that these and other condemnations of philosophy have unintentionally given rise to ingenuity and innovation.

Another cultural context often imagined to have restricted the free exercise of reason is one that is far larger in its chronological and geographical span: the whole religion of Islam. Again, a moment’s brief reflection should show how preposterous this is. Islam arose in the seventh century and quickly spread over a territory that dwarfed Western Europe; today the Islamic world stretches even further than it did then, with Muslim populations dominating countries from Malaysia and Indonesia in the East to Morocco in the West. Is it really credible that there has been a uniform attitude toward philosophy, or reason in general, across one and a half millennia of Islamic history and cultures strewn over half the globe? Obviously not, yet one frequently hears that Islam in its very essence is somehow opposed to rational reflection, is to blame for the failure of all these cultures to experience the Enlightenment (as if the Enlightenment happened in Europe just by default, so that its failure to occur elsewhere needs explanation), and so on.

One way to rebut such charges is to sift through the historical record and produce examples of rationalism within Islamic culture. This is the project undertaken by Souleymane Bachir Diagne in Open to Reason: Muslim Philosophers in Conversation with the Western Tradition, a monograph first published in French in 2008 and now translated into English by Jonathan Adjemian. Like most general publications on philosophy in the Islamic world, he focuses mostly on the “medieval” period — in the Islamic context, one might say “classical” or “formative” — roughly the ninth to 12th centuries CE. Insofar as his task is simply to offer us examples of rationalist thinkers, it is an easy one. For as it turns out, Muslims and also Jews and Christians living in the “medieval” Islamic world were much more given to rationalist philosophy and much freer to explore ideas wherever they might lead than were their contemporaries in Christian Europe. Both in the Latin West and Byzantium, sophisticated and valuable philosophy was certainly done, but condemnations were a potential threat and occasional reality. By contrast, and again in stark opposition to what has somehow become popular belief, there was no systematic political suppression of philosophers in the medieval Islamic world.

Diagne moves through what will, for those who know something about the field, be a fairly familiar cast of characters. We hear about the Greek-Arabic translators, disquiet with the fruits of their work in the shape of an attack on Greek logic from a grammarian named al-Sirafi, the towering achievement of Avicenna, al-Ghazali’s critical response to Avicenna, and so on. The most rationalist of the rationalist philosophers (and also a Muslim jurist — so both very religious and very rationalist), the 12th-century Andalusian commentator Averroes, receives due attention for his bold claim that philosophy is obligatory for any Muslim who is capable of this form of intellectual work. All of this is deftly sketched, but ultimately very familiar from other introductions to the topic. Admittedly, some of Diagne’s choices are more surprising. For example, his treatment of Avicenna revolves around a very unusual work from the latter’s corpus, which, as Diagne admits, is “not one of his major works,” and in fact of disputed authenticity. Entitled The Book of Ascent, the text offers an allegorical reading of a story about the Prophet Muhammad’s visitation from an angel and “night journey” to Jerusalem. Given Diagne’s interest in the relation between philosophy and religious discourse, it makes sense for him to focus on this work. But one does come away from the chapter without any sense of why Avicenna became the towering figure of this whole philosophical tradition.

A weakness of the book is something I have already mentioned, namely that its focus is restricted to the first few centuries of philosophy in the Islamic world. After a glancing reference to a couple of post-classical thinkers (Suhrawardi and Mulla Sadra), Diagne leaps ahead by about 700 years to discuss more recent philosophers like Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Muhammad Iqbal, and Ali Abdel Razek. These chapters are very welcome, since modern figures are usually left out of histories of philosophy in the Islamic world. But I wonder whether Diagne would approach the book this way were he writing it now, with the same yawning historical gap at its center. Even in the decade since the original French version was published, there has been an explosion of scholarly interest in later philosophy written in Arabic and Persian. This work has shown that philosophical concepts and arguments, especially taken from Avicenna, became a standard part of the intellectual equipment of theologians and mystics from North Africa all the way to Central Asia. In fact, to mention a tradition which Diagne knows well but does not discuss in this book, philosophical theology and mysticism also penetrated into West Africa and was practiced at places like Timbuktu. The thousands of manuscripts from this culture have hardly been studied, but even their titles give us a glimpse of the vibrant intellectual culture there. The same can be said about the Ottoman Empire or about India during its period of Islamic rule.

We know, then, that generally speaking Islam has no more precluded the pursuit of philosophy than Christianity did in Europe or, for that matter, than paganism did in ancient Greece. What we don’t yet know is all the details. As I’ve said, we need to realize that philosophy in the Islamic world has never been just one thing, any more than Islamic culture has been just one thing. It involved Aristotelians and theologians, mystics and scientists, and Jews and Christians as well as Muslims. Diagne ends with an impassioned plea that resonates well with this observation. Following Abduh, he emphasizes that Islam itself has changed with the world around it, and argues that Muslims should be open to this change. Denouncing the fundamentalists who have a “horror of time,” and want to return to the set of beliefs and practices they claim to find among the earliest generations of Islam, Diagne encourages believers to “adapt […] tradition to the changes that are arriving” as history moves forward. They should, in other words, do what philosophers too have always done: think new thoughts within the context into which they were born.

¤

Peter Adamson is professor of Late Ancient and Arabic Philosophy at the LMU in Munich and produces the podcast A History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps.

Source: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/facing-the-horror-of-time/

[foursprouthappiness-blog]

What’s It’s Like To Be An INFJ, In Other Words, A Living Paradox

New Post has been published on http://foursprout.com/happiness/whats-its-like-to-be-an-infj-in-other-words-a-living-paradox/

What’s It’s Like To Be An INFJ, In Other Words, A Living Paradox

Mohammed Metri

If you’re at all into learning more about personality types, you’ve probably run across descriptions of the INFJ before. INFJs are touted as the rarest personality type of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, but what does it actually mean to be an INFJ? INFJs are often labeled as “The Protector,” “The Empath,” “The Advocate” and “The Counselor.” This type stands for “Introversion (I), Intuition (N), Feeling (F), Judgment (J).” Although INFJs make up only 1-2% of the population, keep in mind that you’re likely to “run into” an INFJ more often in creative communities (whether virtually or in real life) because that’s where they tend to congregate to share ideas.

As someone who has consistently tested as INFJ since the age of eighteen and has interacted with more than a few INFJs in the mental health advocate community, I wanted to share some insights about this interesting personality type and how they work. Keep in mind that INFJs share a few of these traits with other like-minded personality types such as INTJ, ENFP, INFP and ENFJ, but the ways in which they manifest can vary by personality type. In an INFJ, these traits tend to be embodied in more extreme ways:

1. They are complex but they have integrity.

Like a living, breathing Walt Whitman cliché, INFJs contain multitudes. Developing a friendship or relationship with an INFJ is like slowly peeling away an onion. You think you know them, but you turn around and they’re revealing another facet of their personality that doesn’t seem to align with their more cookie-cutter image. You may see a scholarly and reserved INFJ get down on a dance floor with alarming ease, or a normally demure and quiet INFJ serve a savage clapback to someone who’s pissed them off. They can be both the class comedian and the highest achieving student. There isn’t a ‘box’ that contains their seemingly contradictory characteristics.

This is not because INFJs are duplicitous; in fact, they tend to be extremely genuine and authentic, veering on the edge of perhaps being too honest at times (unless they’re a narcissist, in which case, anyone of any personality type can be). Rather, it’s because INFJs have many layers to their personality that sometimes even they haven’t worked out! It can take years to get to know an INFJ; not because they’re deliberately hiding parts of themselves, but because they tend to take their time trusting people and revealing different facets of themselves along the way.

2. Although they are natural loners, they tend to get mistaken for extroverts; they love people, adapt well to social situations and can be the life of the party.

INFJs can be incredibly vivacious, humorous, fun-loving and energetic, especially with those they feel comfortable with. They definitely have a wild side which can shock those who stereotype them as button-down academics. However, just like any other introvert, they also need enormous amounts of time to recharge from being around others. Being alone for long periods of time is necessary for them to detox from social interactions and to reflect on their lives.

INFJs love disappearing inward, exploring deep philosophical questions and inventing things. Even a simple walk in the neighborhood can turn into a full-on imaginative fantasy scenario for them; there’s nothing they love more than taking refuge in their own minds. They can spend days pondering hypothetical scenarios or coming up with ideas. INFJs have such rich inner lives that they can imagine new worlds and new methods in the blink of an eye; being creative comes easily to these types. They are also lovers of research and learning. Their intellectual complexity and imagination make them ideal candidates for careers that challenge them to create in some capacity or engage in innovation.

3. They’re incredibly compassionate, but it’s wise not to mess with them.

INFJs are often among the world’s changemakers. Famous INFJs are said to include Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa and Oprah – you get the picture. Their compassion for others drives their need to help the world and save it. But sometimes, INFJs also bear a remarkable ability to save themselves from toxic situations.

To put this ability into context, remember that INFJs are natural targets for toxic predators like malignant narcissists, who assume these sensitive types will succumb to their bullying behaviors. INFJs make up a large portion of survivor communities that are healing from violations like narcissistic abuse.

Yet what predators forget is that INFJs appear to be lambs, but they’re really lions. They are extremely compassionate, but they will defend themselves and others fiercely when they feel that their rights are being violated. If you’ve read anything about an INFJ, you’ve probably heard of the infamous “INFJ Door Slam.” This is what happens when these normally warm, gentle individuals meet with someone who causes them to ‘flip their switch’ so to speak.

The INFJ door slam is not a malignant trait; it’s a protective measure taken against chronic bullying and injustice.  It often occurs after numerous transgressions have already taken place (for example, when an INFJ meets someone who consistently talks down to them and treats them with contempt). In this type of scenario, the INFJ finally recognizes his or her worth and boundaries. They face emotional overwhelm and they need to retreat – stat. In a flash, you see them depart and probably never hear from them again. Or, if they’re in the mood, they’ll serve you with an epic manifesto of your wrongdoings before leaving forever (after all, they do tend to be excellent communicators!).

Outwardly, INFJs may not be as overly bold and aggressive as other personality types, but when they bring the reckoning, they bring it with full force. You’ll never see an INFJ coming – and perhaps that’s a good thing, because they do tend to be on the front lines of massive social change.

4. They are extremely loyal and devoted, but they don’t like authority.

Don’t mess with the ones they love, either. INFJs hold a special place in their hearts for those they connect with and they will remember those who had their back during hard times. That’s why, if they see someone being bullied or oppressed, especially someone they’ve bonded with, they will defend them with a righteous sense of devotion.

INFJs make loyal dating partners, friends, spouses, employees and parents, and their loyalty extends to social change too. They are the harbingers of revolution and the defenders of the outcasts, the bully victims, and the outliers. It’s because they themselves know what it’s like to not belong, so they seek to create refuge and safety for those like them.

However, the INFJ’s loyalty doesn’t necessarily extend to authority figures unless that authority figure is someone they admire and respect. Because they are naturally independent, strong-willed individuals with a high degree of intuition, they rely on their own sense of intuition to pave their path. They can sense when someone is working without integrity, and it makes them viscerally sick. They can be stubborn and hard-nosed at times when it comes to bending to someone else’s will especially if it contradicts the strong moral values they hold dear.

In many cases, especially in circumstances where there is oppression or injustice, this can be a good thing. INFJs are idealists who work to bring justice into the world and sometimes going against authority is the perfect way to do so. However, INFJs must also learn how to balance their faith in their inner authority with the ability to respect other perspectives. They could also benefit from letting themselves off the hook once in a while; their high standards of moral perfection are likely to falter under mental duress and human folly. While their intuition does bring them to great places, sometimes their way is not always the best way. The INFJ is still flawed and their high expectations of themselves and others could stand some reevaluation at times.

5. They are both scientific and driven by emotion.

The INFJ is an enigma in that he or she is not entirely driven by hard facts nor hot-headed emotion. They are a paradoxical package of both research and poetry, science and spirituality, intuition and statistics, art and dissertations. They are what I would call the “intellectual artists” of society, merging imagination and knowledge. Able to see the big picture as well as the finer details, they are motivated by a need to serve others while also cultivating the potential of every individual. They can reach masses of people with their message but they can also change individual lives because they know how to connect one-to-one. This is perhaps what also make them great researchers, counselors, scientists, writers and teachers. They flourish in fields where they can be both creative and logical, individualistic and people-focused.

The magic is that while INFJs make for great orators and can inspire people with their words, they are also very practical and know how to bring about tangible results. Their mission always has a purpose of improving the state of society in some way. They practice what they preach and they help motivate people to live their best lives not just by words but by living example. When it comes to persuasive arguments, they’ll bring the receipts but they’ll also appeal to your pathos. Their ability to both stir emotion in others and also appeal to their rational side is  what makes them great leaders and catalysts for radical change.

6. They are highly intuitive, but have a tendency not to trust themselves.

A fully empowered INFJ is someone who can take one look at a situation, follow their instincts and say, “I just know.” INFJs know years ahead of time when the person you’re dating is conniving, even when they present a false mask. They know how to read the energy of a room, even in a room full of people they’re meeting for the first time. They know when someone is putting on a front. They can sense the aggression beneath someone’s niceties. The INFJ’s uncanny intuition is something other more seemingly “rational” personality types might dismiss, but in many cases, they really do know and they turn out to be right.

This is because an INFJ’s intuition can catch on quickly to the nuances of every situation. They can see through the facades of others and they can sense when someone is not being authentic. However, because they’ve been gaslighted for so long by a society that does not always appreciate their gifts and label them oversensitive, they’ve also learned to distrust their intuition and second-guess themselves, often. A challenge for the INFJ is re-learning how to fully trust in their inner voice while also making space for the constructive feedback of others.

The Big Picture

Being an INFJ is not easy, but INFJs can find a sense of community with others like them and those who appreciate their traits. Distancing oneself from toxic people and cultivating genuine relationships is key. When INFJs are supported and are able to grow in environments where their gifts are nurtured and seen, they can thrive and become incredibly revolutionary changemakers in society.

[dorianpchgrx-blog]

Annotated Bibliography

This bibliography can seem quite broad because it assesses different lines of questioning within my project. I took the liberty to add titles and connecting notes to the different items so that the logic chain is more clear to the reader.

Music psychology and philosophy

1) Emotion and Meaning in Music Meyer, L. B. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 1956.

This is the core of my research, Meyer’s stance is so elegant that it still makes for the authority in the field.

He begins by dismissing previous debates on the subject. Meyer argues that the two different ways the brain forms thoughts (phenomenological and reflective) are two sides of the same psychological process, so they are not contradictory (as we previously debated about) but complementary.

What is elegant about his work is that he presents a modern theory of emotion and applies it to music. His central thesis states that emotion is stimulated when a desire is prevented. Emotion in music lies in the structural building of tension and release, so in that sense, it can be universal.

This new way of redefining music certainly impacts on how I perceive it. It also changes how I think about how my brain works and that was unexpected.

2) Music and Emotion: Theory and Research Juslin, P. N., and Sloboda J. A. (Eds.) Series in affective science, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Music and Emotion: Theory and Research is the modern update of Meyer's work. It presents how Meyer reflected in different works during the years, what other authors with similar objectives wrote, and confirms its authority. It expands and challenges the knowledge of the 50s with modern experiments.

The book seeks a wider perspective by presenting approaches in different fields (philosophy, musicology, psychology, anthropology, biology...) delivered in chapters written by one expert in each field. There are so many different points in those approaches that I certainly could have used each chapter as a different source in my bibliography.

Juslin and Sloboda helped me have a wider point of view on what is written on music and emotion, which work stands out the most, and where are we researching now. They address criticisms that were very welcome for this bibliography.

3) The Language of Music Cooke, D. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959.

Deryck Cooke attempted to do exactly what I wanted my research to conclude on. His thesis is that composers have used similar musical parameters to express similar emotions, so we can deduct a language, a lexicon, a dictionary of music. His assumption is that no matter the instrumentation, the emotions expressed stay the same, thus, we can link expressed emotions with text in vocal works with their associated melodies in instrumental versions. He bases the lexicon expressivity in tonality, each interval of the scale has an associated meaning.

However, Cooke's method is heavily based on extramusical aspects, it does not consider a potential emotional quality inherent in music. It does not take into consideration the musical context around those intervals he talks about, which can completely modify their meaning. Additionally, music significance may not be as fixed as language significance.

4) Analysing Popular Music: Theory, Method and Practice Tagg, P. Popular Music, Vol. 2, Theory and Method (1982), pp. 37-67 Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Within the same range of ideas than Cooke’s (i.e. decode music with language theories), Philip Tagg brings the term of "musemes" to label musical parameters used to express specific emotions. He raises two methods to test musemes effective reality: by confirming that the emotion and meaning expressed have been exactly identically comprehended by two different listeners (inter-subjective comparison); by comparing every association between the musical parameters studied and its meaning expressed in extra-musical ways (inter-objective comparison).

Same criticisms can be applied to both Cooke and Tagg approaches. However, reading about their theories and their limits taught me a better understanding of what music really is and isn’t. It changed my mind about the possibility of building a lexicon of music.

Along with the philosophical approach, I wanted to know what science had recently found on the subject of music in the brain.

Music and neurology

5) Music, the food of neuroscience? Zatorre, R. Nature 434, 312-315 (17 March 2005). Available from: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7031/full/434312a.html

Zatorre made me realize that the neurological approach is by no means less complex than the philosophical approach. We know which parts of the brain are associated with musical skills but we don't know how they work essentially. The article also taught me that music recognition was surprisingly innate, this is important to identify the importance of music to humans.

Evidence of psychological mood changes and physiological changes caused by music are mentioned. One hypothesis to what brain responses can explain those effects is that we tend to imitate the behaviour of the music we listen to. To scientists, it is surprising to see how deep human's response to music is compared to how little it is useful to survival.

6) Exploring the Musical Brain Leutwyler, K. Scientific American, a division of Nature America, Inc. (22 January 2001). Available from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exploring-the-musical-bra/

The difficulty with the lack of research on the subject is that many articles relate the same piece of information between each other. I will focus on the differences.

Leutwyler assesses the importance of music and how deep it is implemented in nature. In the human world, music seems to predates farming, but it also exists in the animal realm as well (e.g. birds, whale), thus it is not an ability specifically human but rather an intricate part of life. What is most surprising is that animals share a lot of musical preferences with humans.

This article also relays the famous assumption that dissonance seems unpleasant and consonance seems pleasant with scientific evidence.

Leutwyler ends by presenting the debate about music purpose between S. Pinker who thinks that music is nothing more than an "auditory cheesecake", an accident in speech evolution, and D.J. Levitin who believes that something that has such profound effect on emotions must have an important purpose. Levitin best suggestion is that music is an aspect of our cognitive tendency to make order out of disorder.

7) Music And The Brain Weinberger, N. M. Scientific American, a division of Nature America, Inc. (1 September 2006). Available from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/music-and-the-brain-2006-09/

Weinberger's article seems to be the continuation of Leutwyler's article, as it begins with the debate between Pinker and Levitin.

Here we have the first occurrence of what has been widely researched on recently: Brain damaged patients seems to unexpectedly recover long lost brain functions thanks to music, suggesting that music runs even more deeply than others cognitive skills.

The article then presents the path of music from the ear to the brain, which is what I primarily started my research on. Weinberger studies confirm philosophical intuitions, such as we interpret tones differently according to context.

Supported by many studies, the article goes on about how musicians are better at playing and listening to music than non-musicians. However, I think this is an expected result of cognitive training and as we can't conclude on musicians having better brains than non-musicians.

Those neurological approaches draw a map of what music can expect to produce in the brain of the audience, supported by scientific evidence. We even have a new line of questioning about how old is music and what is its purpose.

Thoughts on film scoring

8) Sound Design is the New Score Kulezic-Wilson, D. Music, Sound, and the Moving Image, Vol.2, Issue 2, 127-131, 2008. Liverpool University Press. Available from: http://online.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/doi/abs/10.3828/msmi.2.2.5

The content of this article develops the approach of my master course on a quite different topic than previously covered yet very relevant to my project. Kulezic’s main idea is to get out of the traditional way of making music for films which have become too predictable and too heavily sentimental and lean progressively into sound design which is much more suggestive and discrete. The article illustrates with a range of examples from directors Aronofsky (for a hip-hop inspired editing style) and Gus Van Sant (for using musique concrète instead of traditional music).

My research with Meyer's book taught me the distinction between music that gives meaning via itself and music that gives meaning via extra-musical references. I believe that in film scoring, music always uses the latter. In that regard, this article suggests using the very powerful denotative and connotative potency of sound design to express extra-musical meaning.

9) In The Blink of an Eye: A Perspective on Film Editing Murch, W. Silman-James Press, 2001

I believe it is an essential part of the composer’s job to understand film mechanics, especially editing.

Water Murch provides a hierarchy of importance of factors in editing decisions, emotion being the most important factor. What is so stunning about his work is that he allies editing with technology and neurology, albeit keeping a very easy to read style of writing. It doesn't feel like he is imposing manifestos, he writes like he shares orally his personal finding so that we can actually follow his train of thoughts.

One of his most insightful findings is that the moment we naturally blink is a great moment to cut, because the action of blinking is a consequence of the way we comprehend the world.

Walter Murch is also the inventor of the term of sound design. Those reasons are why I couldn't avoid to put him in my bibliography.

Research specific to the live project

10) Stress Recovery during Exposure to Nature Sound and Environmental Noise Alvarsson, J. J., Wiens, S., and Nilsson M. E. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7(3), 1036-1046. Available from: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/3/1036/htm

Linking the power of sound denotation with supporting scientific evidence, this study proves that nature sound helps recover from psychological stress better than a noisy environment. The study also assesses previous research in the area which focused on the effect of nature visuals. Conclusions are that the idea and projections of nature relieve human beings.

There is a part of my live project where I wish the audience to be relieved from stress as much as possible and I was looking for the best way to emulate it. I plan on using nature sounds and visuals to achieve such results.

11) A Comprehensive Review of the Psychological Effects Of Brainwave Entertainment Huang, T. L., and Charyton, C. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine; Aliso Viejo Vol. 14, Iss. 5,  (Sep/Oct 2008): 38-50. Available from: http://www.machineswww.mindmodulations.com/resources/STUDY-ComprehensiveEntrainment.pdf

Still with the objective to find the best way to relax an audience, this article gathers various studies rigorously selected which suggest that brainwave entertainment (BWE) benefits people suffering from a list of different negative disorders such as stress, anxiety, mood and behavioural problems.

BWE consists of presenting auditory or visual repetitive stimulation - such as a pulsing tones or lights - to the patient whose brainwave will resonate with the frequency. Brainwave frequencies are associated with states of alertness, it goes gradually from delta frequencies (1-4 Hz) associated with deep sleep, to high beta frequencies (20-32 Hz) associated with intensity or anxiety, going through alpha frequencies (8-12 Hz) which are associated with conscious calmness.

I could use this therapeutic tool to lower the audience's brainwave frequencies and thus progressively ease them down. Now I just have to found speakers that goes below 20 Hz.

12) The efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy Shedler, J. American Psychologist, 65(2), 98-109, 2010. Available from: http://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2010-02208-012.html

This article gathers empirical findings that support the efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy. I wish my live project to be based as much as possible on scientifically supported methods. This is why the first part of the narrative structure of my live project follows the psychodynamic psychotherapy.

Like in therapy, we would begin by focusing on expressing emotions and labelling feelings, before exploring the attempts of the mind to flee unpleasant thoughts and feelings. The goal is to identify recurring themes and patterns of avoidance. We would talk about how past experiences and interpersonal relations could be themes and causes of patterns.

We may have to skip the part of the therapy where it focuses on the relationship between the patient and the therapist as it would take a widely different form in the live show.

Once negative thoughts are externalized, we would then encourage the positive thoughts, which is the second part of the live project.

13) Differential effects of mindful breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, and loving-kindness meditation on decentering and negative reactions to repetitive thoughts Feldman, G., Greeson, J., and Senville, J. Behaviour Research and Therapy Vol.48, Issue 10, October 2010, 1002-1011. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005796710001324

The second part of the live project would consist of proposing the audience to engage in stress-reducing methods accompanied by sounds and visuals. This article compares a well-known method (mindful breathing) with two alternative stress management techniques (progressive muscle relaxation and loving-kindness meditation) and provides further evidence towards the superior efficiency of the first method.

The objective of mindful breathing is to clear the mind of repetitive thoughts in observing internal sensations caused by breathing without controlling or judging them.

The article also gives us the notion of decentering which will be the main theme of the second part of the narrative structure of my project. The idea of decentering resides in learning to view thoughts as events in the mind rather than necessarily being reflections of reality or accurate self-view.

[nataliehegert]

I have a favorite drinking game with some very simple rules. It can be played with any alcoholic beverage, and there’s no score keeping, or turn taking. At its best, it’s a game played rather loose and fast, with a large party of inebriated and irreverent participants. Essentially, it’s a toasting game: you raise your glass and propose a toast, and, as long as the toast meets the requirements of the game, everyone clinks glasses and takes a drink. The rules are so simple, in fact, that you get drunk very fast.

The rules are this: you toast to dead white men. Any dead white man will do—he doesn’t necessarily need to be heroic or worthy of saluting—just as long as he’s dead, white, and male.

The beauty of the game is that you never run out of dead white men.

You start with politicians maybe, work through musicians, composers, authors, movie stars, comedians, explorers, photographers, painters, popes and presidents, kings and dictators and despots, and on and on and on. As the game continues someone will inevitably lose track and slip, raising a glass to someone who’s not dead yet, or someone who’s not white or is not a man. The trick is not to drink when someone inevitably yells out “Jimi Hendrix!” Those inevitable interludes, however, make the game fun, and add a small challenge to the gameplay, which otherwise will proceed at an alarming rate.

People often protest the playing of Dead White Men, finding it offensive. “Let’s toast to all women,” someone might insist. Indeed, you wouldn’t necessarily “run out” of prominent women or people of color to drink to. There are many famous women throughout history. There are many great and worthy people of color through the ages. But that is not the point. Dead White Men is not a righteous game, but it is instructive in its insidiousness. While there is arguably no lack of deceased, non-male, non-white persons out there to whom you could raise a glass, a drinking game in their honor would be an inaptly sobering exercise rather than a flippant boozefest. Dead White Men works so well as a drinking game because it can be played without really thinking, on an unconscious level.

History, at least Western history, is littered with the corpses of dead white men. Art history is likewise dominated by them—their paintings and sculptures and cathedrals and manifestos and infighting and denunciations and revelations, their strokes of genius and their cultural plagiarisms. This is not to say that their contributions are irrelevant or should be dismissed. The thinking, writing, making, and movements of European men have undeniably shaped Western history, art, and culture. Dead white men have produced the conditions of the world in which we live today. Like it or not, this is our canon.

But what if it was different? What if the rules of the game were flipped?

In the early 1970s, Mary Beth Edelson took a reproduction of DaVinci’s Last Supper and replaced the head of Jesus with the visage of Georgia O’Keeffe, and his disciples with the faces of other women artists—Louise Bourgeois, Helen Frankenthaler, Nancy Graves, Elaine de Kooning, Lynda Benglis, Lila Katzen, Lee Krasner, Louise Nevelson, Yoko Ono, M. C. Richards, Alma Thomas, and June Wayne. Around the border of the collage, she affixed the portraits of 70 other women artists—“every photograph of a woman artist that I could find.”1 Eighty-two. That is how many Edelson could find in 1971. She titled the work Some Living American Women Artists / Last Supper. It’s an iconic work of feminist art, one that has been widely reproduced, disseminated, discussed, censured, and celebrated.

In 2007, artist and writer Micol Hebron encountered Edelson’s collage for the first time in person, and looked at it for a very long time. The piece struck a very personal chord: “It was the first work of art that had ever moved me to tears. And my tears were because of the overwhelming emotion that I felt when I thought about the proposition that this work was making, which was, for me: Imagine if you saw yourself—and not a man—in all of the places where men appear in (art) history. Imagine, then, what the world would be like for you.”2

It’s a simple proposition with powerful implications. What if all the faces on Mount Rushmore looked like people like you? What if you saw yourself throughout the canon of history? What if you didn’t have to discover people like you to look to as role models and you could simply look to any number of the great majority of thinkers, leaders, philosophers, artists? What does that underlying knowledge of precedence do to your innate feeling of self worth and potential? How psychologically empowering that would be in an unconscious, unquestioning, assumed way. (For our white male readers, I’d ask you to imagine what it would be like to flip the script the opposite way. What if you grew up in a world where everyone in power did not look like you? How might that subconsciously change your perspective, your grasp on the possible or impossible, your goals and ambitions?)

“I became overwhelmed thinking about how empowered, capable, respected, supported and optimistic I would feel,” Hebron continues. “Having seen thousands of images of men in art history—men as artists, authors, collectors, writers, etc. —I realized that if I had seen women instead, my sense of what I was capable of, and of what opportunities there would be for me in the world would be RADICALLY different. And that made me cry. And then, it made me want to work to ensure that women of the future HAVE such a history to look back upon. And that’s what drives my work now.”

Certainly there are other factors at work with regards to an individual’s predispositions and aptitudes for ambition, confidence, leadership, success. Not to mention concrete socioeconomic factors that affect access, including class, education, family or personal security, physical ability, etc. But there’s no doubt that your perception of yourself, your accomplishments and your perceived likeliness to succeed is affected by whom you see represented as your peers, the successful people at the top of your field, and the leaders of the past. To put it bluntly: it takes a lot more gumption, persistence, will, and maybe even a measure of sheer delusion to even enter a field that is dominated by people who are not like you. And once you’ve entered that field and made it your prerogative to succeed within it, you still have to contend with the viewpoints and expectations of the other people and institutions within it, who may find it easier to accept and promote the people they usually do, than to try and reevaluate their preconceptions. It’s a constant struggle. And it’s a struggle that those who are blessed with the privilege of already being part of the dominant sex/race will never even need to consider.

In 2013, Hebron initiated the Gallery Tally project, which invites artists to expose gender inequity in the art world through statistics gathering and poster design. The project thrust the issue of gender discrimination back in the spotlight, following in the tradition of the Guerrilla Girls, the “conscience of the art world,” whose humorous graphic representations of inequality have been the bane and the shame of the keepers of the patriarchy since 1984.

But who remain the keepers of the patriarchy? Hardly anyone in the art world, or, really, anywhere else, would readily and openly identify as such in this day and age (Georg Baselitz may be one of the only exceptions). And yet inequality still persists, as curator Maura Reilly recently pointed out, “despite decades of postcolonial, feminist, anti-racist, and queer activism and theorizing, the majority continues to be defined as white, Euro-American, heterosexual, privileged, and, above all, male. Sexism is still so insidiously woven into the institutional fabric, language, and logic of the mainstream art world that it often goes undetected.”3 This logic is most pronounced in the secondary art market and institutional collections, but extends throughout the art world. In an interview that appeared in this magazine’s online edition, artist, educator, and the co-editor of the issue you’re reading now Jaclyn Wright diplomatically offered her thoughts regarding the controversial Selektor Magazine “100 Photographers on Tumblr” blog post (which featured only 8 women4 ). “Many times I’ve heard/read artists say things like, ‘it doesn’t have to do with male or female, I just prefer this over that,’” she writes. “Of course, everyone is entitled to his or her own preferences but if you are only looking at male artists then you should consider looking at some female artists. It’s advantageous to have a more diverse group of individuals in your repertoire,” she suggests.5 In response to the controversy generated by the blog post, Selektor apologized and explained that the list’s bias toward male artists was not intentional. In comparison, the roster of New York gallery Sperone Westwater—who represents the likes of Richard Long, Bruce Nauman, and William Wegman—also only includes 8% women6 (and only two of its 35 artists are non-white), and that discrepancy is, in all likelihood, also not intentional.

I doubt that most gatekeepers of art and culture—including many women art professionals—set out to consciously favor the works of white men. There are a great many far-reaching systemic factors and conditions at play when it comes to who gets shown, who gets written about, who gets opportunities, and who gets collected. But a major part of the problem, I contend, is due to a simple lack of awareness of the implicit biases and the lingering subconscious effects that are produced by a world that has been traditionally dominated by white men. The looming presence of the dead white men of the past—those hordes who have dominated the narrative of Western history—leads to a general cultural state in which, unless you have trained yourself otherwise, a white-male dominated lineup might not immediately trigger concern or suspicion. It’s because, subconsciously, it just looks normal.

Harvard University psychologist Mahzarin Banaji terms these “implicit biases”: “bits of knowledge” about social groups that get “stored in our brains because we encounter them so frequently in our cultural environments.”7 The names of famous men we learned in school, memorized, repeated, regurgitated (“Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison…”) establish and reinforce a connection between white men and leadership, prominence, genius, and fame. “Once lodged in our minds, hidden biases can influence our behavior toward members of particular social groups, but we remain oblivious to their influence,” Banaji writes. These unintentional biases can manifest themselves in many different ways, of which we are often completely unaware. The first step to fighting these biases is to become alert to their presence, to understand that even if we believe we don’t have them, they might in fact be lying under the murky surface of our subconscious, underpinned by generations of tradition, history, and culture that has favored certain groups over others. I’m not suggesting that we always need to insist on absolute parity, but shouldn’t we be aware of the possibility of implicit predilections? And be vigilant against unconsciously and unquestioningly giving in to them?

In the long view, for oppressed minority voices, our history is just beginning, our forebears relatively few amongst the crushing crowd of dead white men. “To make up for what’s happened so far in art history, every show should be 99% women and artists of color, but only for the next 400 years,” the Guerrilla Girls write.8 It’s good to keep that in mind when someone gets defensive when you point out bias or depressing statistics—we’ve only just turned that corner. Our Western culture, ideas, philosophy will continue to be defined by the actions and thoughts of great dead white men. Past the horizon of our most recent history, you encounter only the echoing absence of the voices of women and people of color in the tradition.9

But let’s lift a glass to our new history. Here’s to some living women artists. Here’s to all the artists of color. Here’s to the diversity of the artists within the pages of this magazine. Here’s to the strivers and the persisters. Here’s to the counters and the quota queens. Here’s to artists from other traditions and artists who invent their own traditions. Here’s to Mary Beth Edelson and Micol Hebron and the other artists who imagine what life could be like if the script were flipped. And here’s to all those old dead white men—I promise we won’t forget you.

1 Linda S. Aleci, “In a Pig’s Eye: The Offence of Some Living American Women Artists,” from The Art of Mary Beth Edelson, 2002.

2 Email communication with the author, July 9, 2015.

3 Maura Reilly, “Taking the Measure of Sexism: Facts, Figures, and Fixes”, ARTnews, May 26, 2015. http://www.artnews.com/2015/05/26/ taking-the-measure-of-sexism-facts-figures-and-fixes/

4 N.B.: This number might be 10 women, depending on names and pronouns found online. - Copy editor

5 “PS Feature: Jaclyn Wright,” Papersafe, December 21, 2014. http:// papersafezine.tumblr.com/post/105783077257/ps-feature-jaclynwright

6 Paddy Johnson, “Pussy Galore’s 2015 Gallery Report Card is Out,” ArtFCity, February 19, 2015. http://artfcity.com/2015/02/19/pussygalores-2015-gallery-report-card-is-out/

7 Mahzarin R. Banaji, Anthony G. Greenwald, Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People, New York: Delacorte Press, 2013, p. xii.

8 Confessions of the Guerrilla Girls, 1995. http://www.guerrillagirls. com/interview/index.shtml

9 Laura Lyn Inglis, Peter K. Steinfeld, Old Dead White Men’s Philosophy, Amherst, NY: Humanity Books, 2nd ed., 2000, p. 1.

Essay Printed in PAPERSAFE Magazine, Issue #05: Turbulent Bodies / A Cross, A Wild Sea, Edited by Jaclyn Wright & Elle Perez, September 2015

[nofomoartworld]

Hyperallergic: A French Surrealist’s Eclectic Remembrances of His Cohort, Finally in English

Philippe Soupault, ‘Lost Profiles: Memoirs of Cubism, Dada, and Surrealism’

Lost Profiles: Memoirs of Cubism, Dada, and Surrealism is a diminutive, stylish book that kicks off by appreciatively documenting a curiously seedy period of transition within the anti-rationalist French avant-garde: from Dada to Surrealism. Published by legendary City Lights in late 2016, this alluring collection of amiable reminiscences was penned by co-founding Surrealist poet Philippe Soupault (1897–1990) and first appeared in French in 1963 as Profils perdus. City Lights has bracketed this English translation with an introduction by Mark Polizzotti, the director of the publications program at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and an afterword by poet Ron Padgett.

Polizzotti’s contribution is essential, as he not only contextualizes Soupault within the Parisian avant-garde but corrects some dating errors of Soupault’s and reverses some of André Breton’s bowdlerizing, revealing the essential conceptual contribution that psychologist, philosopher, and psychotherapist Pierre Janet played in Soupault and Breton’s budding Dada-cum-Surrealist movement. (Breton had neglected the erudite Janet in his accounts.) On the other hand, Polizzotti keenly reports that “Soupault tends to assign himself the starring role a bit more than is warranted,” thus advancing the thesis that every biography is a disguised autobiography.

Though essentially about his experiences as a rather blissful young man, Soupault wrote this book of portraits at age 66, sparing it the typical excesses of literary juvenilia. Indeed, his generally urbane tone is neither ironic and frivolous, nor competitive and facetious. His clipped, fluid prose avoids academic stodginess with élan, and there is nothing insolent, narcissistic, lecherous, or self-protective about it.

Amedeo Modigliani “Pierre Reverdy” (1915) (image via Wikimedia)

The translation by poet Alan Bernheimer has flair too, delivering Soupault’s appealingly eclectic text in delightful form to the Anglophone audience for the first time. Soupault’s sharp but sweet anecdotal memories of fellow experimental artists and antagonists include laudable short portraits of Guillaume Apollinaire, Marcel Proust, James Joyce, sad surrealist René Crevel, novelist Georges Bernanos, painter Henri Rousseau, poet Charles Baudelaire (whom he sketches as a precursor avant-gardist) and lesser-known poets Pierre Reverdy and Blaise Cendrars. Given the heroic stature of some of these audacious subjects, within their chapters Soupault seems to delight in making large small and small large, humanizing the celebrated with intimate particularization and paeanizing the obscure with encomium.

With a seductive cubist cover painting by Robert Delaunay of a scowling Soupault ignoring a quaking Eiffel Tower, this enjoyable collection of crisp recollections popularizes what was once essentially arcane. Like Marc Dachy’s essential Discoveries: Dada: The Revolt of Art, Soupault’s book — with its pocket size, short chapter format, and reasonable price — makes for the perfect travel companion. Even though the essays presume a certain level of familiarity with the French avant-garde, they have an engaging quality that transmits Soupault’s palpable love for experimental art and for his — quelle surprise — exclusively male subjects. Lost Profiles offers witty and unexpurgated views of venturesome men during a daring era, but it is in no way a sufficiently broad-spectrum historical overview of the birth of the avant-garde in Paris.

Soupault, whose style of disaffection favored plain living and high thinking, lived a lengthy literary life, never ceasing to write improbable tales. Rather young during World War I when he served in the French army, he saw the Parisian art spirit of the times as one based in Dada iconoclastic destruction, bent on devastating conventional systems of representation, traditional morality, and all sorts of “rational” social organization (which the Dadaists saw, in light of the war, as depraved and crazed). This effervescent mood, which fêted scandal, was particularly incited in Paris by the arrival of Tristan Tzara. This closed a circuit, as Dadaist Tzara had been influenced by Parisian Cubism: borrowing and intensifying the anti-logic of juxtaposition, condensation, and displacement specifically from Synthetic Cubist collage. For Soupault, Tzara’s tipsy Dada showed the nonsense latent in all sense.

André Masson, “Automatic Drawing” (1924), ink on paper, 23.5 x 20.6 cm. Museum of Modern Art, New York (image via Wikimedia)

As Soupault writes, Dada was out to “destroy all the established values, the literary practices, and the moral bias” in the interests of what Apollinaire (an outspoken and thought-provoking defender of Cubism) called the “new spirit” in art. Perhaps that is one reason that the essay “Steps in the Footsteps” (“Les pas dans les pas”) has been moved from the end in the French edition to open the collection in English: It is here that Soupault recalls how he and Breton were first affiliated through Apollinaire’s friendship and encouragement as they came to know Tzara and participate in the earliest performances of the Paris Dada movement. In 1919, with Breton and Louis Aragon, Soupault co-founded the Dada journal Littérature. That same year, Soupault collaborated with Breton on Les Champs magnétiques (The Magnetic Fields), the text of automatic writing that inspired André Masson’s automatic drawings. Together, these works are widely considered the foundation of the Surrealist movement and the greatest contributions by the original Surrealist group.

Of course, Soupault had a famous falling out with Breton’s goatish brand of Surrealism (a term taken from Apollinaire’s text Onirocritique that was itself snatched from Artemidorus’s ancient Greek treatise on dream interpretation) arising from the movement’s increasingly Soviet Communist ties and Breton’s self-anointment as leading arbiter. In 1927 Soupault and his wife Marie-Louise translated William Blake’s Songs of Innocence and Experience into French, and the following year Soupault authored a monograph on Blake, arguing that he had anticipated the Surrealist movement.

After putting down this fulfilling read, a few nasty thoughts kept haunting me. Soupault’s anti-rational Dada-Surrealism was largely the art of generalizing where the particular was in play. Dada-Surrealism rejected the tight correlation between words and meaning, which perhaps sounds familiar in our era of Trump post-factuality: slippery conceptual bullshit moves that exploit Soupault-type forms of verbal extrapolation in the interests of far-right political manipulations. It seems to me that what Soupault wanted to show us was that verbal impossibilities could produce astonishing transgressions that liberate the mind from conservative militaristic convention — something quite the opposite of spectacular post-factual speculative conspiracy theories (think Pizzagate) that support Trump by liberating thought from a concern for credibility.

In that sense (and that one alone), Soupault’s avant-gardism helped cultivated a taste for the ambiguity of the post-truth political economy of the alt-right, with its toxic mix of white supremacy, misogyny, xenophobia, militarism, and oligarchic tendencies. Indeed, hard-right Trump trolls are similar to their Dada predecessors in that they do not recognize any limits to truth claims. For some, merely saying things that are not usually said openly is part of the transgressive thrill of Trumpism. Even when Trump himself is caught in an egregious lie, his anti-globalist, nationalist supporters manage to believe that he is instead revealing critical truths, and that any reporting to the contrary actually exposes the anti-conservative bias of the perceived media and cultural élite.

Like the Dadaists, the trolling radical right has always been acutely sensitive to the emotions of shockingly vulgar communications whose primary goal is cognitive manipulation. Trump panders to prejudice by liberating previously repressed aggression, viciousness, and mockery and redirecting it at immigrants, people of color, women, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. So it saddens me to say that I could not help but notice that the alt-right trolls and the Dada-Surreal heroes share many of the clever cognitive-dissonant techniques in their messaging. Of course, the evil onus is on the alt-right (already a passé term, as this group’s objectives are no longer an alternative to anything but central to sites of forceful power). Therefore, it is important to note that Soupault did not stop his intellectual pursuits with the anti-rational Magnetic Fields. Following his co-founding of Surrealism, he practiced journalism and directed Radio Tunis from 1937 to 1940 after he was arrested in Tunisia by the pro-Vichy regime during WWII. After the war, he resumed his journalistic activities, worked for UNESCO, and taught at Swarthmore College while writing essays and novels.

The reality of Trump has now sunk in, and the sense of trauma on the cultural left has deepened (with the stakes only likely to get higher). As a starting point for political activism/artivism, perhaps artists engaged in increasingly vehement expressions of dissent may wish to consider how best to combat the normalization of Trump’s impulsive anti-rationalism through the refusing anti-rationalist eyes of Soupault’s disaffection, conversely tempered by his journalistic rigor and educational commitment. This double-bladed approach of utilizing anti-rational (“post-truth”) mind games and facts-based objective accuracy may best frustrate Trump’s insatiable desire for recognition and get under his oh-so-thin skin.

Lost Profiles: Memoirs of Cubism, Dada, and Surrealism is now available from online booksellers and City Lights.

The post A French Surrealist’s Eclectic Remembrances of His Cohort, Finally in English appeared first on Hyperallergic.

from Hyperallergic http://ift.tt/2n28eIy via IFTTT

[trendingnewsb]

Whats Its Like To Be An INFJ, In Other Words, A Living Paradox

Mohammed Metri

If you’re at all into learning more about personality types, you’ve probably run across descriptions of the INFJ before. INFJs are touted as the rarest personality type of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, but what does it actually mean to be an INFJ? INFJs are often labeled as “The Protector,” “The Empath,” “The Advocate” and “The Counselor.” This type stands for “Introversion (I), Intuition (N), Feeling (F), Judgment (J).” Although INFJs make up only 1-2% of the population, remember that you’re likely to “run into” an INFJ more often in creative communities (whether virtually or in real life) because that’s where they tend to congregate to share ideas.

As someone who has consistently tested as INFJ since the age of eighteen and has interacted with more than a few INFJs in the mental health advocate community, I wanted to share some insights about this interesting personality type and how they work. Keep in mind that INFJs share a few of these traits with other like-minded personality types such as INTJ, ENFP, INFP and ENFJ, but the ways in which they manifest can vary by personality type. In an INFJ, these traits tend to be embodied in more extreme ways:

1. They are complex but they have integrity.

Like a living, breathing Walt Whitman cliché, INFJs contain multitudes. Developing a friendship or relationship with an INFJ is like slowly peeling away an onion. You think you know them, but you turn around and they’re revealing another facet of their personality that doesn’t seem to align with their more cookie-cutter image. You may see a scholarly and reserved INFJ get down on a dance floor with alarming ease, or a normally demure and quiet INFJ serve a savage clapback to someone who’s pissed them off. They can be both the class comedian and the highest achieving student. There isn’t a ‘box’ that contains their seemingly contradictory characteristics.

This is because INFJs are duplicitous; in fact, they tend to be extremely genuine and authentic, veering on the edge of perhaps being at times (unless they’re a narcissist, in which case, can be). Rather, it’s because INFJs have many layers to their personality that sometimes even haven’t worked out! It can take years to get to know an INFJ; not because they’re deliberately hiding parts of themselves, but because they tend to take their time trusting people and revealing different facets of themselves along the way.

2. Although they are natural loners, they tend to get mistaken for extroverts; they love people, adapt well to social situations and can be the life of the party.

INFJs can be incredibly vivacious, humorous, fun-loving and energetic, especially with those they feel comfortable with. They definitely have a wild side which can shock those who stereotype them as button-down academics. However, just like any other introvert, they also need enormous amounts of time to recharge from being around others. Being alone for long periods of time is necessary for them to detox from social interactions and to reflect on their lives.

INFJs love disappearing inward, exploring deep philosophical questions and inventing things. Even a simple walk in the neighborhood can turn into a full-on imaginative fantasy scenario for them; there’s nothing they love more than taking refuge in their own minds. They can spend days pondering hypothetical scenarios or coming up with ideas. INFJs have such rich inner lives that they can imagine new worlds and new methods in the blink of an eye; being creative comes easily to these types. They are also lovers of research and learning. Their intellectual complexity and imagination make them ideal candidates for careers that challenge them to create in some capacity or engage in innovation.

3. They’re incredibly compassionate, but it’s wise not to mess with them.

INFJs are often among the world’s changemakers. Famous INFJs are said to include Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa and Oprah – you get the picture. Their compassion for others drives their need to help the world and save it. But sometimes, INFJs also bear a remarkable ability to save themselves from toxic situations.

To put this ability into context, remember that INFJs are natural targets for toxic predators like malignant narcissists, who assume these sensitive types will succumb to their bullying behaviors. INFJs make up a large portion of survivor communities that are healing from violations like narcissistic abuse.

Yet what predators forget is that INFJs appear to be lambs, but they’re really lions. They are extremely compassionate, but they will defend themselves and others fiercely when they feel that their rights are being violated. If you’ve read anything about an INFJ, you’ve probably heard of the infamous “INFJ Door Slam.” This is what happens when these normally warm, gentle individuals meet with someone who causes them to ‘flip their switch’ so to speak.

The INFJ door slam is not a malignant trait; it’s a protective measure taken against chronic bullying and injustice.  It often occurs after numerous transgressions have already taken place (for example, when an INFJ meets someone who consistently talks down to them and treats them with contempt). In this type of scenario, the INFJ finally recognizes his or her worth and boundaries. They face emotional overwhelm and they need to retreat – stat. In a flash, you see them depart and probably never hear from them again. Or, if they’re in the mood, they’ll serve you with an epic manifesto of your wrongdoings before leaving forever (after all, they do tend to be excellent communicators!).

Outwardly, INFJs may not be as overly bold and aggressive as other personality types, but when they bring the reckoning, they bring it with full force. You’ll never see an INFJ coming – and perhaps that’s a good thing, because they do tend to be on the front lines of massive social change.

4. They are extremely loyal and devoted, but they don’t like authority.

Don’t mess with the ones they love, either. INFJs hold a special place in their hearts for those they connect with and they will remember those who had their back during difficult times. That’s why, if they see someone being bullied or oppressed, especially someone they’ve bonded with, they will defend them with a righteous sense of devotion.

INFJs make loyal dating partners, friends, spouses, employees and parents, and their loyalty extends to social change too. They are the harbingers of revolution and the defenders of the outcasts, the bully victims, and the outliers. It’s because they themselves know what it’s like to not belong, so they seek to create refuge and safety for those like them.

However, the INFJ’s loyalty doesn’t extend to authority figures unless that authority figure is someone they admire and respect. Because they are naturally independent, strong-willed individuals with a high degree of intuition, they rely on their own sense of intuition to pave their path. They can sense when someone is working integrity, and it makes them viscerally sick. They can be stubborn and hard-nosed at times when it comes to bending to someone else’s will especially if it contradicts the strong moral values they hold dear.

In many cases, especially in circumstances where there is oppression or injustice, this can be a good thing. INFJs are idealists who work to bring justice into the world and sometimes going against authority is the perfect way to do so. However, INFJs must also learn how to balance their faith in their inner authority with the ability to respect other perspectives. They could also benefit from letting themselves off the hook once in a while; their high standards of moral perfection are likely to falter under mental duress and human folly. While their intuition does bring them to great places, sometimes their way is not always the best way. The INFJ is still flawed and their high expectations of themselves and others could stand some reevaluation at times.

5. They are both scientific and driven by emotion.

The INFJ is an enigma in that he or she is not entirely driven by hard facts nor hot-headed emotion. They are a paradoxical package of both research and poetry, science and spirituality, intuition and statistics, art and dissertations. They are what I would call the “intellectual artists” of society, merging imagination and knowledge. Able to see the big picture as well as the finer details, they are motivated by a need to serve others while also cultivating the potential of every individual. They can reach masses of people with their message but they can also change individual lives because they know how to connect one-to-one. This is perhaps what also make them great researchers, counselors, scientists, writers and teachers. They flourish in fields where they can be both creative and logical, individualistic and people-focused.

The magic is that while INFJs make for great orators and can inspire people with their words, they are also very practical and know how to bring about tangible results. Their mission always has a purpose of improving the state of society in some way. They practice what they preach and they help motivate people to live their best lives not just by words but by living example. When it comes to persuasive arguments, they’ll bring the receipts but they’ll also appeal to your pathos. Their ability to stir emotion in others and also appeal to their action-oriented side is what make them great leaders and catalysts for radical change.

6. They are highly intuitive, but have a tendency not to trust themselves.

A fully empowered INFJ is someone who can take one look at a situation, follow their instincts and say, “I just know.” For example, INFJs may know years ahead of time when the person their friend is dating is conniving, even when they present a false mask. They know how to read the energy of a room, even in a room full of people they’re meeting for the first time. They know when someone is putting on a front. They can sense the aggression beneath someone’s niceties. The INFJ’s uncanny intuition is something other more seemingly “rational” personality types might dismiss, but in many cases, they really and they turn out to be right.

This is because an INFJ’s intuition can catch on quickly to the nuances of every situation. They can see through the facades of others and they can sense when someone is not being authentic. However, because they’ve been gaslighted for so long by a society that does not always appreciate their gifts and label them oversensitive, they’ve also learned to distrust their intuition and second-guess themselves, often. A challenge for the INFJ is re-learning how to fully trust in their inner voice while also leaving room for the constructive feedback of others.

The Big Picture

Being an INFJ is not easy, but INFJs can find a sense of community with others like them and those who appreciate their traits. Distancing oneself from toxic people and cultivating genuine relationships is key. When INFJs are supported and are able to grow in environments where their gifts are nurtured and seen, they can thrive and become incredibly revolutionary changemakers in society.

Read more: https://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2017/12/whats-its-like-to-be-an-infj-in-other-words-a-living-paradox/

from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2BlQazm via Viral News HQ

[johnchiarello]

2 Charlies

2 CHARLIES [Painting]

Romans 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

2 Charlies- https://youtu.be/y7cXAQE4I4s

http://ccoutreach87.com/9-7-17-2-charlies/

http://ccoutreach87.com/9-7-17-2-charlies-2/

 Painting- https://youtu.be/GmY0nNXD-Ys  [This video cut off- right before I showed you the painting! I’ll post the picture on my facebook page the day I post this ‘post’]

 Roll out [I made these the other day- just wanted to add the links]-

You won’t believe it- https://youtu.be/JJM2PBHx-SE  

Remember her- https://youtu.be/rU3ZGnAc-4U

CCCF- 911- https://youtu.be/hbcKj5IfFeQ

Park- https://youtu.be/U_bSv5GOEog

Genesis 2:7

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 ON VIDEO-

.Old perspective gone

.Redemption of creation

.Don’t focus on yourself

.Pursue God in the midst of difficulty

.Sound Wave

.The breath of God

.Physics

.Outside of time

 NEW- This day I was going to teach a kings chapter [12- I think?].

But I felt I should wait until later in the day- because I already posted a ‘post’ and was busy.

 As I was talking to some of my friends- who are homeless- I asked them to tell some of their story- most of you have seen these friends before- but as we talked it turned into somewhat of a teaching video-

So I decided to simply use this video [2 Charlies] as the teaching post for this day.

 On the video we talked about God’s sovereignty- and how it is his desire to redeem all things.

Little Charlie brought it up on his own- and for those of you who follow these posts- these were themes I hit on the last few weeks.

 After I left Timons- I went to my friend Mikes house-

Mike is a talented artist- and I had an idea the other day- to ask him to do a painting for me.

 Mike was in need of some money- and I have seen him paint some of the best original work I have ever seen.

And then- he paints over them!

 Yes- he has done this before.

So I asked Mike if he would do this special painting for me- for the cheap price of 25 bucks [yes- when you see it- it’s worth 25].

 On the video titled ‘Painting’ you see him about 10 minutes into the painting- and it already looked good enough for me [the video cut short- I’ll post a picture of it to facebook]

 After I shut the video off- Mike spent about 3 more hours finishing it while we were talking.

For those of you reading this on other sites- I’ll try and post a picture of the final work on my Facebook page.

 As I Talked to Mike- I told him the painting looked great- like many talented- gifted people- they often feel insecure.

 I told Mike that the way the day worked out- was sort of like Art.

You begin with an idea- but you don’t always stick hard and fast to the first idea.

 As the day- or work of art- progresses- you try and see the beauty in the plan as it progresses.

 Even before I did the first video- Big Charlie was once again quoting the bible verses I just taught on the last few days.

 It’s stuff like that- just riding the wave- that is more valuable in my mind.

I’ll try and add my past teachings below that relate.

 But I guess the message for this day was let God direct you- yes- have a plan- an idea- and by all means work that plan.

But if that route changes- while you are already in motion- then that’s ok too.

 But- if you never get moving- then you never see the interesting turn down the road-

or the great work of art- that was inside you- all the time.

 Lessons from an artist-

 I mentioned to Mike a few days earlier- that I wanted him to do this painting for me- so he had some ideas and when I got to his house this day- he actually had another one done.

 But it was a big picture of me- in the middle of a hurricane.

It was good- but not what I wanted [I was too big].

 So I sketched the other image real fast [you see my sketch on the video] and in a few minutes he almost had it done [from my standpoint].

 But I know Mike- and he likes working on his paintings- and sometimes has a great product- then almost paints over the original work [which he has done with his other paintings] and loses what he captured the first time.

 So as I sat with Mike for about 3 hours- I realized I better get the painting now- because it looked great- but I know how he is-

And if I left it with him overnight- he would probably over- do it- and come up with another product.

 So I told Mike ‘Mike- it’s great- it looks done to me’.

 Sure enough- I took it [paid him 25 dollars] and have the work I wanted.

Many gifted people are perfectionists- and often times that actually holds them back.

 I watched a few Rock documentaries the last week or 2 [Led Zeppelin- Fleetwood Mac].

The past few months I caught Tom petty and a few others.

 I like their stories- because they will tell you [most of the time] that they were not in control- they had no idea how their work [music] took off like it did.

Dylan said [I read his biography a few years ago- Chronicles] that when he was writing and playing his songs- he would often sing the actual song- one time.

 He would play it at a concert- the songs were recorded- and became famous.

Years later- when he would do another concert- some of the songs that his fans memorized- and listened to for years-

 He himself only heard it- once.

When he wrote and played it years earlier.

 He would have to go back- look at the lyrics- so he could play it again for the concert.

Dylan was not a perfectionist.

 In whatever calling you have [Petty actually described his mission to do music- as a calling that ‘preachers have ’- his own words]

Begin the process of acting- taking steps- the motto ‘just do it’.

 If you wait for the perfect product- you will never begin the journey.

On the short video I showed you a few of Mikes other paintings sitting around his house.

These were paintings of his- that he painted over!

 Over the years I would visit Mike- and he would have some of the best work I have ever seen- honest.

Then I would go back a week or 2 later- and he painted over all of them- just because he couldn't afford new materials- and he wanted to keep painting!

 I used to think if he saved all of his original work- the ones he painted over- he would have an entire art gallery of original art- that in my mind- would be worth a lot of money.

 But that's ok- he paints for the love of painting.

I’m glad I took the painting when I did- because if I left it overnight [like I think Mike wanted me to do]

he probably would have painted a whole new piece over it.

 Don’t get me wrong- the new painting would have still looked good- but it would be a whole new work-

And to me- he would have lost what he already captured- on the first try.

 PAST POSTS- [Past teaching I did that relates to today’s post- 2 Charlies]

https://ccoutreach87.com/romans-updated-2015/

[1740] THE UNEXAMINED LIFE IS NOT WORTH LIVING- PLATO.

 I caught a show the other night on Link TV. It was a spin off from this famous Platonic quote- it was called ‘The examined life’.

 They interviewed some of the most prominent philosophers of our day. Cornell West, Peter Singer- a few others [I think the name is Singer?] I found it interesting that Singer- who specializes in Ethics- tried to make the case that you really don’t need religion/God in order to do ethics- all you need is to work from the basic principle that says ‘try to treat others like you too want to be treated- and then you will have a foundation for morals’.

 Now- I caught the contradiction right away- do you see it? Who is he quoting? This is the great moral principle- given to us by Jesus himself- called the Golden Rule.

 This actual principle- in Theology [the study of God] we call Natural/Moral law. The Argument is based on the reality that all people [not animals- Singer- get to it in a moment] have within them this moral compass [Romans 1] and that this in itself is proof that there must be a higher moral being- a transcendent being- who has put it in man.

 I just found it funny that Singer- who is supposed to be a prominent atheist/agnostic thinker- would fall flat on his face like this.

 Singer advocates for legal Rights for animals- and has also argued that viability of the new born baby should determine its personhood- he says that we should be able to abort babies up until around the age of 1- because they can’t really survive on their own until that age.

 Sad.

 Okay- why do Philosophy- or Physics- or any other of a number of schools of thought?  Because too often Christians abandon these fields- and then when someone from that field says ‘this is why we don’t need God’ we usually have no answer.

 When we think about philosophy- most of us think about the 3 great big shots- Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. While it is true that these guys were the major guys at right around the 5th century B.C.- yet we actually date the beginning point to the early 6TH Century B.C. to a man by the name of Thales.

 Thales accurately predicted a solar eclipse in the year 585 B.C. and he gained notoriety because of this. Thales was the first Greek thinker to grapple with the idea that there must be one reality that makes up all things.

 He would argue that Water was this element- that contained being and Motion and life. Many of these pre Socratic thinkers were obsessed with the idea of motion- where did it come from?

 Thales observed that streams and rivers- and all types of water sources flow- so to him this was a logical source of motion.

 This idea- that only one element makes up all reality- is called Monism. Monism is not be confused with Monotheism- the belief in one God- Monism actually leads to another religious view- called Pantheism- the belief that God is everything- and everything is God.

 This is not the historic Christian view.

 Now- the pre Socratic guys- Parmenides, Zeno, Heraclitus- these guys would challenge Thales view that water was the main thing.

 Some said ‘maybe it’s Air’ another said ‘Earth’ and some Fire. These 4 elements [Earth, Air [wind] Fire and Water- are the 4 basic elements of the early Greek philosophers.

 We see these things in the naming of musical groups [Earth Wind and Fire] as well as the themes in movies [fantastic 4- based on 4 basic elements- powers].

 Now- one of the thinkers said ‘wait- maybe the reality behind all things is not any one of these elements- maybe there is a 5th dimension [another musical name- and also the famous Bruce Willis flick- called the 5th Element] a Boundless being- outside of time and matter- maybe this 5ht element is the foundation for all things.

 Of course this view would lead to the more developed view of God that Socrates and his followers would embrace- an early view of God- much like the later Christian view [absent the Trinity].

 By the way- the view that 2 or more elements make up all reality is called Pluralism- not to be confused with religious Pluralism [that all religions lead to the same God]. The most common form of Pluralism is Dualism [2 realities equally true] but all non Monists who embrace more than one reality are Pluralists.

 Okay- maybe a bit much with the 10 dollar words- but it might spark the interest of some.

 The church has debated for centuries on whether or not Philosophy should be taught to Christians. One of the early church fathers- Tertullian- said no- his famous quote is ‘what does Jerusalem have to do with Athens’.

 Meaning what does Philosophy have in common with Christianity [Athens- Greece was the seat of philosophy in Jesus’ day].

 For the most part- the early church fathers would embrace the study of philosophy- and try to make arguments for the Christian faith by presenting Christianity as ‘thee’ philosophy that best answers the questions of man.

 These early Christian thinkers are called Apologists- men like Justin Martyr are in this class.

 Apologist is a word we use to describe those who defend the faith- it comes from the Apostle Peter’s letter in the N.T. where Peter says ‘give an answer to those who ask you about the faith’. In the Greek language- the original language the N.T. was written in- this phrase is talking about a defense- an ‘apology’ in the sense of ‘making the case’ not in the common sense of apologizing.

 In the book of Acts- chapter 17- we read the famous sermon of the apostle Paul-  given at Mars Hill. He was in Athens at the time- and he was debating with all the philosophers of the day. He tells them ‘as I was looking around town- I saw that one of your altars is addressed to The Unknown God’.

 He would go on and declare unto them that this Jesus is the true God- the one raised from the dead.

 Paul also said ‘in Him we live and MOVE and have our being’. Kind of a popular verse quoted by preacher’s today- but we often overlook the significance of the MOVE part.

 I mean- why say we MOVE in him too? Paul was a smart guy- he knew these children of Socrates questioned where motion came from [Remember Thales?] So he was basically saying ‘I am declaring to you the one true reality- the true 5th Element- the missing God particle from your system’ and he went on and preached Christ- being raised from the dead.

 Paul knew that you can’t really do true philosophy- to grapple with the questions of life and being and ‘motion’ without realizing that God is indeed the ultimate answer to all things.

 Even Peter Singer- who claimed that you don’t need God or religion in order to do Ethics- even he unknowingly quoted Jesus in attempting to give a basis for his Philosophy- yes- he quoted a God- one unknown to him- just like the altar at Athens- but a God never the less.  

 An inescapable 5th element- the missing part to the whole puzzle.

[parts]

THE 5TH ELEMENT.

 Ok- let’s talk philosophy today- the last post on this subject I traced what we normally refer to as the beginning of Greek philosophy- a man by the name of Thales- 6th century BCE.

 We said that Thales had an idea that water was the principle element- water seemed to have the ability to move [motion] by itself- so Walla- maybe water is the principle thing.

 He was what we refer to as a Monist.

 Monists believed that there was one principle element- responsible for all other things.

 Now- the pre Socratic philosophers debated about this- some said it was air- others earth- some said fire- as a matter of fact- some said all 4 of these elements were responsible for existence.

 Now- some sought a 5th element- some yet to be discovered thing that would explain it all.

 A man by the name of Anaximander described it as ‘the boundless’- something that has no origin- he said it was ‘both unborn- and immortal’ ahh- you can already see the attributes of God in this [boundless- what Theologians call omnipresent- God having no limits- he is everywhere [but not everything- get to that in a moment] and ‘unborn’ that is he himself has no beginning].

 Ok- this 5th element [some called it Ether- or Aether- a sort of wave theory- that light travels along this ether- this idea lasted till the day of Einstein- who showed us that Ether does not exist [in this way] but that light itself is made up of particles- photons- this was one of the major breakthroughs of modern physics].

 A few years ago the movie ‘the 5th Element’- Bruce Willis- hit on this theme- sort of like the ‘God particle’- that is they were in search for some type of being that was eternal – self existent.

 The term Quintessence [quint- 5] came to be defined as this 5th element- and today we use the word Quintessential to describe the pure essence of a thing- the perfect embodiment of something.

 Over time the Greek thinkers would arrive at the idea that yes indeed- there was one main thing- Monism- that could be the source of all other things.

It is interesting to note that the Jewish prophets- and wisdom literature- which predates these guys- already started from the standpoint of Monotheism- one God.

 Now- Monism is not Monotheism.

 Monism is really a form of what we call Pantheism [in the study of religion].

 Pantheism says that God is ‘everything’- some eastern religions hold to this concept.

 The Christian view is that God is separate from creation- that he is indeed the original source of creation- but not the creation itself.

 The Geek philosophers even described this 5th element as ‘The One’- see- they were getting close.

 In today’s debates- some espouse an idea that there was no beginning point- that the universe is either eternal [something Einstein disproved with the Big Bang theory] or that there is a sort of infinite regress- that there is no one starting point- but that there have been a never ending [or beginning] series of ‘big bangs’ that go on forever.

 This defies the laws of logic- and math.

 Math?

Yeah- many of the great physicists were also great mathematicians [like Einstein- and Max Plank- who was first a mathematician].

 If there was no beginning point- mathematically it doesn’t ‘work’.

 You would never be able to arrive at the present time- if there was no starting point to measure from [I know this might sound strange- but this is indeed a proof- that there had to be a starting point].

 What these thinkers show us is that even thru the ancient field of Philosophy- you still arrive at some type of ‘thing’ that is responsible for all other things.

 Some Christians reject the Big Bang theory- but in my view it gave the Christian apologist the greatest tool to argue for the existence of God.

 For many centuries it was believed that the universe was eternal- and if that was true- then indeed you did not have to have an outside source that was responsible for it.

 But Einstein showed us that there was a beginning point- that the universe is in a continual expansion mode- and if it is getting ‘bigger’ by the second- then yes- it did have a starting point.

 Many today think that it ‘popped’ into existence on its own- this is both scientifically and logically impossible- it violates the law of Cause and Effect [every effect has to have a cause also ‘out of nothing- nothing comes’].

 There was a famous Christian who abandoned the faith- Bertrand Russell- he said ‘if everything has to have a cause- then God must have one too- and if God needs a cause- then why not see the universe as the cause’.

Tough Russell was a good man- he made a mistake here.

The laws of logic do not say that everything has to have a cause- but every effect has to have one.

 In essence- somewhere along the line- going back to the beginning- there must be an initial cause- that has no beginning- Anaximander’s Boundless One.

 Ok- I won’t do too many of these posts in a row- because as you can see- this takes time- and you lose people along the way.

 But- over the next few weeks I’ll slip a post like this in- it helps when dealing with those who have sincere objections to the faith- and it also debunks some common misconceptions.

 On today’s video- I attempted the impossible- to tell the story of ‘everything’ in 1 hour.

Ok I bit off more than I could chew.

It took 2 hours [the next video ‘history of the world- part 2’ will finish it].

But- to sum up today’s video.

Is the biblical account of creation accurate?

We read that God made everything- by speaking.

Is this even possible- or some silly fable?

Over the history of time we read the story of the Jewish people- their trials and failures.

That’s the majority of the history of the Old Testament.

They believed the story in Genesis- while others questioned whether or not all things actually had a beginning point.

In time- we see the rise of the Greek philosophers- during what we call the intertestamental period [the 400 years between Malachi and Matthew].

These thinkers were looking for the answer to these questions- and the Greek word they used to describe this answer- was LOGOS- which is the Geek word- for WORD.

Then we had the appearing of Christ in the 1st century- and the apostle John calls him the LOGOS.

Hmm?

That’s the same word that the Greeks were looking for- John says ‘we have found him’.

Remember- this is Jesus Christ- the living Word.

Ok- over time we had the great movements of history- the Renaissance- the Reformation- the Enlightenment- the scientific revolution- the industrial revolution.

Most scientists believed that all creation was eternal- so- for them- the answer to ‘everything’ was- it was always there.

In the 20th century we had the great breakthroughs of Einstein- and we call one of them the Big Bang theory- meaning- all things did not always exist.

They had a beginning point- which we call the point of singularity.

Ahh- now we are back to ‘where did it all come from- if at the start- there was nothing’.

Yes- ‘In the beginning God spoke’.

So- at the end of the story- of everything- we find the answer at the beginning.

In the beginning God spoke-Yes- the early followers of Jesus called him by this name- THE WORD.

And science and logic show us that all events need a cause [even the 'event’ of creation].

So- this history of the world- recorded in the scripture- was true all along!

Surprised?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Rev.

[parts]

Basically the media have been turning up the heat on why Perry and all the other stoops [that would be Christians] are denying science. I have written- and posted lots about this in the past. Most people are not aware of the overwhelming amount of science that challenges the most common ideas about evolution.

 I’ll just hit on one- Abio Genesis. This is the belief that life can spontaneously generate from dead matter. This view is false- scientifically false. It is also commonly held with the false view of the spontaneous generation of all things.

 Many media folk hold to a belief that the Big Bang theory shows us that all things have come from no-thing. Actually- this is a scientific impossibility. This idea- creation ‘Ex Nihilo’- is false.

 Einstein’s theory did show us that matter had a beginning point- called the Point of Singularity- yet today we have absolutely no scientific proof that all things came from nothing- yet most media folk do indeed believe this.

 So this topic really is one where the media have created their villain [the back water Christians] and their hero [the false idea that science has proved all types of stuff- that is has not!]. Yet they hope that if they run with the narrative long enough- then hopefully they will never be found out- you know- opening that car door and seeing their man- the man they assured the whole world was gone- yet he lives to see another day.

 [note- those of you who are interested in more on Evolution- on my Blog if you go to the February posts of each year- I have studies on Evolution and one on Genesis- you might find them helpful in the coming debate].

[parts]

I COPIED THIS FROM A PREVIOUS POST- talked about this on the video

In the Greek world you had some very influential philosophers; Socrates most famous student was Plato- Plato’s most famous student was Aristotle- and his most famous student was Alexander the Great.

 Alexander sought to implement the ideals of his teacher- he wanted to unify the known world under one people/culture- a belief that Aristotle held- a sort of ‘unified theory’ [Einstein] that would seek to bring all learning/knowledge together under one supreme [Divine] principle.

 Alexander’s experiment was called Hellenization- which was the Greek worlds attempt to impose Greek culture/language on all their conquered enemies- and at the same time allow them to hold on to the their own culture too. Alexander did amazingly well at this experiment- at the young age of around 24 he had accomplished most of his mission. The cities were a sort of composite of Greek culture mixed in with their own culture- this is where we get the modern term Cosmopolitan.

 Alexander died young and his kingdom was divided between 4 generals- one of them- Ptolemy- would himself make it into the history books because of his keen intellect.

 The system of cosmology developed under him would last [and work!] until some 17-18 hundred years later when it was overthrown by the Copernican revolution during the time of Copernicus and Galileo.

 Alexander’s generals would do their best to carry on the system of Hellenization- and other nation’s generals would keep the system going even after Greece fell. One of them- Octavian [Roman general] makes it into the history books by another famous name- Julius Caesar.

 Alexander established a great library in the Egyptian city of Alexandria [named after him] and many of the great writings were preserved during this time.

 The writings of Aristotle would be discovered again during the time of Thomas Aquinas [13th century Catholic genius/scholar] and this would lead to Scholasticism [a peculiar school of thought developed/revived under Aquinas] and give rise to the Renaissance.

 Okay- before the birth of Christ- the Jewish people resisted the imposing of Greek culture upon them- you had the very famous resistance under the Jewish Maccabean revolt- where the Jews rose up and fought the wicked ruler Antiochus Epiphanies- and till this day the Jewish people celebrate this victory at Hanukah.

 Eventually Rome would conquer the Greek kingdom and the Jewish people were allowed to keep their culture and temple- yet they were still a people oppressed. Hassidism [getting back to the beginning] developed during this attempt to not lose their Jewish roots- the Pharisees of Jesus day came from this movement.

 Alexander was pretty successful in his attempt to unify language- even though the bible [New Testament] was written by Jewish writers- living under Roman rule- yet the original bible is written in the Greek language.

 Bible scholars till this day study the Greek language to find the truest meaning of the actual words in the bible [I have a Greek Lexicon sitting right in front of me].

 It would take a few centuries before a Latin version appeared on the scene [the great church father- Jerome- would produce the Latin Vulgate].

 Yet it would be the re- discovery and learning of the Greek texts [under men like Erasmus- and the Protestant Reformers] that would lead to the Reformation [16th century] and other movements in church history.

   The Jews had various responses to the empires that ruled over them during various times.

Alexander the Great instituted Hellenization- a sort of cultural compromise over the people he conquered.

They could keep their religious/cultural roots- but would be subservient to Alexander and Greek rule.

Some Jewish people rejected any compromise- we call them the Essenes- they moved out of town- so to speak, and lived in what we refer to as the Qumran community.

This was a few centuries before the time of Christ- and this was where the Dead Seas Scrolls were found in the 20th century.

A Bedouin boy was looking for his goats- threw a rock in a cave right off the Dead Sea- and that’s how we found the scrolls.

The scrolls might have been hidden there by the Essenes-

Now- when my friends asked me about them- I told them that it’s been a while since I read up on any of this- but to the best of my memory the thing that made them significant was the fact that they were very old manuscripts- from the bible- and they backed up what we had had all along.

I did read up this week- and basically had it right.

The earliest Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament we had previously dated back to around 900- 1000 A.D.

These manuscripts went back about 1000 years earlier- and they contained portions from almost every book of the Old testament- and some complete books.

The only book missing was Esther.

So- this was indeed a very significant find for scholars.

But the Scrolls also contain some of the writings from the Essenes themselves- things we never had before- so this too was significant.

There were Jews at the time of the first century who tried to ‘get along’ with Rome- and with the person in charge of their region [one of the sons of Herod the Great at the time of Christ].

These are referred to as Herodian’s in the bible.

Some wanted a revolution to rid Rome from Jerusalem- these were the Zealots [one of Jesus disciples was in this group].

Some thought if they returned to a legalistic obeisance of the law- that this would bring in a deliverer- like the stories we read about in the Old testament- these were the Pharisees.

And some took more of a political compromise- these were the Sadducees.

Eventually a war with Rome would be fought [By the way- Josephus- the famous 1st century historian- fought on the side of the Jews in the war- and after Jerusalem was sacked in A.D. 70- he went to Rome and wrote his great works- thinking he would make a case for the Jewish people with the Romans. This is why we have his works today- which are very valuable to scholars].

But the Scrolls also contain some of the writings from the Essenes themselves- things we never had before- so this too was significant.

There were Jews at the time of the first century who tried to ‘get along’ with Rome- and with the person in charge of their region [one of the sons of Herod the Great at the time of Christ].

These are referred to as Herodian’s in the bible.

Some wanted a revolution to rid Rome from Jerusalem- these were the Zealots [one of Jesus disciples was in this group].

Some thought if they returned to a legalistic obeisance of the law- that this would bring in a deliverer- like the stories we read about in the Old testament- these were the Pharisees.

And some took more of a political compromise- these were the Sadducees.

Eventually a war with Rome would be fought [By the way- Josephus- the famous 1st century historian- fought on the side of the Jews in the war- and after Jerusalem was sacked in A.D. 70- he went to Rome and wrote his great works- thinking he would make a case for the Jewish people with the Romans. This is why we have his works today- which are very valuable to scholars].

  VERSES-

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Romans 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Romans 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Romans 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Romans 8:12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

Romans 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

[parts]

 VERSES-

Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Ephesians 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Romans 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

Romans 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

Romans 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.

7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.

9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

2nd Cor. 12

Jude 1:9

Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Rev. 12

 MY SITES

www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com  [Main site]

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks

https://ccoutreach87.com/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg

https://twitter.com/ccoutreach87

https://plus.google.com/108013627259688810902/posts

https://vimeo.com/user37400385

https://www.pinterest.com/ccoutreach87/

https://www.linkedin.com/home?trk=hb_logo

http://johnchiarello.tumblr.com/

https://medium.com/@johnchiarello

http://ccoutreach.over-blog.com/

https://www.reddit.com/user/ccoutreach87

https://ccoutreach.yolasite.com/

https://ccoutreach87.jimdo.com/

https://www.stumbleupon.com/stumbler/jchiarello

 Note- Please do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on- Thanks- John.#

  ���( �)��Ң N��