why is it that the superheroes that don’t have special powers tend to be billionaire industrialists who have a hobby of pounding the shit out of petty criminals instead of using their resources to solve major world problems like hunger or social oppression?
I guess building wells or tackling domestic abuse in policy initiatives wouldn’t be as cool whether or not it had a mask, cape, and/or stark industries iron man suit
My old theology teacher once said to me that the only two certain things in life are death and taxes. One seems to be a truth about our very physical nature, and the other seems to be a fundamental truth about our very human and sociable nature.
My dad used to say to me that someone who works in a funeral director’s would never be out of a job, because people die all the time. It is this kind of rationale that I think people seem now to be adopting, or I hope they are, in maturing from this economic situation. Increasingly I hear stories and read articles about people who want to go into teaching from jobs far afield as banking and media. What is the appeal of teaching?
i. Teaching seems to be a stable and certain job
ii. There is a demand for more teachers both in general, and in the specific needs of inner-city schools; primary schools needing male teachers; and teachers from minority backgrounds.
iii. Teaching is probably the ‘best-worst’ job you can get from being a university graduate.
Perhaps people will think of those other jobs as being both important and necessary: resource production, such as farming, or manufacturing, as opposed to service sector roles.
Globalisation is seen as an evil word among some people. In my social science education, I have come to see it as a phenomenon, a neutral thing. It is almost irrelevant to say whether globalisation is a good or bad thing, the question is more: what is its extent?
Surely one may say that its a bad thing that everyone speaks english to the pain of the loss of culture of native nations, but we might say that not everywhere is becoming a global community. This can be expressed in many ways:
1. We may identify the disconnectedness that opposes the notion of the global
2. We may identify the local that opposes the notion of the global
3. We may identify the interconnectedness that expounds within the local by virtue of the global technologies.
Upon hearing about the notion of the geographical web, I immediately thought that the internet has come full circle. Instead of conflating the boundaries of space and time, namely, how it is easy to see an image from Australia from a monitor on Peru; or how quickly one may communicate with another through increasingly quicker ways: instead of snail mail, we phone, and instead of analogue technologies we move to digital communication, we are now rejuvinating the local, it seems.
It seems to be coming along so quickly that one almost doesn’t have a choice not to; what if one wishes to seek a privacy away from this interconnected world. It is almost becoming as brute an invitation or pressure to join this world wide web of surveillance as : all the cool kids are doing it!
We never expect someone to make a slipup or cough in a film, except if there is some underlying purpose or cause or plot significance. Making slipups and coughing is just what we do in ordinary life. When the film is about an hour and a half in, we expect to see that the good guy wins, or some kind of typical hollywood ending; although what is fashionable these days (ironically) is the surprise. Think of how many marvel films you have seen made in the past decade that have a ‘surprise’ in them such that they allow for either another sequel or someone to have a shocked response, we almost are in the futility of it, demanding the surprise, horror is an instance of that.
It is thus, good to see more innovative notions being used in film, such as the unreliability of the narrator and the achronological structure, where the beginning isn’t in the beginning and the end isn’t necessarily at the end, and the middle may not be anything distinctly definable. Defining expectation both sullies what we make, but yet, feeds our demand for more film.
The argument against scientific realism originating from Laudan goes something like the following:
i. All past scientific theories have been deemed false
ii. If all scientific theories have been deemed false, then our most current scientific theory T should be expected to be superceded by a superior T’
iii. We have no reason to believe in the entities of a current theory T
This seems to me true but trivial, I would agree to some extent, but we may still have a scientific realism.
What if, however, we found that from an inductive inference, that we do not believe in a whole gamut of religions (lets say the set of all religions minus 1 or 2); if we have reasons (although unique to those religions themselves) to be convinced of the falsity of a religion or spiritual philosophy, can we judge it rational to dismiss religion in general from the inductive inference that all other religions are false?
Dawkins often puts it in an interesting way: we hardly believe in the deities of Thor or Zeus, and most Westerns hardly would believe in the Hindu Gods; we might dismiss it to the confine of culture to our belief in religion, corollorary to that, we may say that the cultural appeal gives us reason less to believe in the truth of that religion but more a testament to factors such as ethnic and cultural identity. Could pessimistic metainduction be made for an argument against religious belief? It seems almost as convincing as it is for the argument against scientific realism…
Those who seem to think that the majority opine or the loudest voice seems to be rule, forget the inconsistency of our own preferential sets.
Sentimentality can easily overcome such things as consistent preferences. The neutrality of the BBC is considered in not broadcasting an appeal for the Gaza victims. Here are some reasons why:
i. This issue is inherently partisan political – against the BBC remit
ii. The victims are implicitly Palestinian
iii. The audience to which it is broadcast is not cultivated enough to see the nuances of a political situation beyond its most horrific casualties, or to state this in a single word, sentimentality is an improper tool of convincing one to the appeal, one which is inherently political, compared to a natural disaster.
In all fairness this is perhaps not the best front to address the futility of a majority populism, as one does not himself approve of these acts. It is good however, that other channels in the UK did broadcast, so that they did have a chance to see the appeal, and are informed enough to donate. Also note that those channels such as ITV do not have an international viewership, such to be sensitive to the body of its viewers beyond th UK.
Majority rule in popularity contests shall be our next address of pursuit
I’ve seen a great many stories on slashdot about how amazing Obama is:
1. Obama loves his blackberry
2. Obama seems to be quite open about open source technologies
3. Obama has many advisors who are ‘academics’, Appiah once said of him in a recently documentary “he’s one of us”.
I have also seen on some men’s fashion blogs a critical analysis of his clothing style, some very penetrating thoughts on his sense of dress. Quite in line with the modern well-to-do male. Although, I wouldn’t know anything about that