Žižek on charity

If you have 10 minutes to spare and are looking for something to think about, have a look at this graphical representation of some words from Slavoj Žižek. h/t Maggi Dawn for this one.

I have to admit that I hadn't heard of Slavoj Žižek until now, but I have a feeling I may have to read some more. I'm not sure I agree with him, but he does make a compelling argument that there is a hypocrisy at the centre of charitable giving. Hmmm.

Bring on the love!

As parents of a young child, DrLanky and I have been exposed to massive amounts of folk wisdom about how best to bring up LittleLanky. After much reading and reflection, we have stumbled into an approach called attachment parenting (championed by Dr Sears). It's good to read, then , that there is now more scientific evidence to support an approach which does not limit the affection you show to your child. In fact, this study seems to show that giving lots of affection to your child actually makes them more confident and able to deal with the stresses and strains of life. This is at the core of attachment parenting. 

So much of the advice we have been given by friends and family necessitates the imposition of artificial limts on affection, on the basis that 'they need to learn', or 'you don't want them to be too attached to you' or 'do you want her to be sleeping in your bed when she's a teenager?!'. We have chosen to reject this type of advice, because we feel that LittleLanky needs to be given emotional security from the beginning. We feel that she isn't actually an evil manipulator who's trying to manoeuvre her parents (as some 'experts' would have you believe), and that when she cries (which happens rarely), it's because something is wrong (even if we can't tell what is wrong). Some see the attachment approach as 'lazy parenting' that provides parenting difficulties down the line, but we believe and hope that a solid emotional start, where trust and affection flow in both directions, is what LittleLanky needs and deserves. It seems to be working so far, as LittleLanky is the most consistently contented baby I have ever come across. I expect some of that is her natural disposition, but I do think we learn most of our character traits rather than inheriting them in our DNA. So we can probably take an amount of credit for her cheeriness.

The problem with the attachment approach, though, is that a lot of people will feel that it is incompatible with a working life. It's difficult (not impossible) to continue with the attachment parenting principles if the mother has to return to work. Also, contrary to the 'lazy' description given by some, it can be really hard work to continue with some of the principles, even if the mother stays at home full-time to care for the child.

All this reflection on parenting makes me realise that there are two main lessons I have learnt so far as a parent. The first is that no-one is an authority on your child! The nearest you will find to this mythical creature is yourself, so be confident in your own instincts, and weigh up all the factors before you make your decisions.

The second lesson (which helps during the difficult times) is that with a child, everything is a phase. The good bits and the bad bits. 

50 days

Feeling philosophical

Auguste Rodin's Le Penseur

For some reason, I've come over all philosophical about our impending upheaval. I don't mean in relation to the physical move or resettlement. Rather, I'm thinking about the change of mental pace I'm about to experience.

Whilst my current work is challenging in a number of delightful ways, it is rarely intellectually stimulating. In fact, the only time it is intellectually stimulating is when we have a disagreement in our management team meetings, and an 'argument' kicks off.  The mental manoeuvering reminds me of Philosphy seminars, when you would go into the room with firm conviction behind opinion A, and you would leave the room an hour later with a firm conviction behind opinion Z (having travelled through the whole alphabet on the way).

You can imagine, then, that I look forward with a mix of excitement and trepidation as I contemplate a 2 year degree in Theology (for Ministry). My degree was in Philosophy, but this is quite different from theology. And it was 9 years ago! I'm a bit worried that my mind has been dulled by the monotony of everyday working life, but I suppose I just have to work on the basis that it's a bit like riding a bike. 

I have tried to get myself prepared by doing a bit of reading, but as any parents among you will know, there is little spare time in a house where a 9 month old baby lives. I seem to get 4 or 5 pages into a book before having to start it again because I've left it too long before coming back to it.

As if by divine intervention, as I have been typing this post I have received an email from Westcott with a mammoth number of attachments (15 in total). One of these is a reading list which I would have hoped to have dented by now (but haven't). Looks like I'll have to stop procrastinating, and have a look at the email.

The greatest bowler of all time?

Muttiah Muralitharan has reached the landmark of 800 test wickets in his final test match for Sri Lanka. This led me to ask a philosophical question about greatness: is greatness proportional to a quantum of success (like a number of wickets)?

As a cricket fan with a Sky Sports subscription (until September) I have watched the bowling of Murali on the TV many times. His action is unconventional, and has been subject to controversey and dispute over the years. His 'bent' arm makes his delivery look quite unique, and he has confused a great many batsmen (800 of them). This wicket-taking acheivement far outstrips his nearest rival (Shane Warne, 708 wickets), but I have to say that Shane Warne is the bowler I always preferred to watch.

One of the difficulties of equating greatness to a quantum of success is that the quantum under discussion is accrued over time. So someone with an extremely long career may end up with more wickets than someone with a shorter career. So why don't we look at the averages then? Well maybe that would be better than looking at the career total for wickets taken, but does that number adequately quantify the greatness of the bowler? Probably not.

It was Warne, not Murali, who dispatched Mike Gatting with 'the ball of the century', but is one ball enough to confer greatness? 

I suppose, in the end, greatness is in the eye of the beholder. What's beyond doubt is that many international batsmen will face the Sri Lankans with a little less anxiety than before.

My right to sympathy

I was troubled to read that our PM has declared that we should have no sympathy for Raoul Moat, the alleged murderer who took his own life after leading the police on a merry dance. I can understand the fact that politicians live and die by the polls, and that sometimes they have to make simplistic populist statements, but I just can't agree with this one!

"There should be sympathy for his victims and the havoc he wreaked in that community.

"There should be no sympathy for him."  BBC News Website

I'm not condoning Raoul Moat's behaviour in any way. His alleged actions are completely abhorrent and sickening to me, but are we naive enough to think that it was as simple as 'bad people do bad things' and that 'bad people deserve no sympathy'? David Cameron is an intelligent man, and I struggle to believe he really thinks in such a simplistic way.

I also find it hard to believe that Cameron feels he has the right to instruct anyone else as to those with whom they should and shouldn't sympathise! For instance, what about the family and friends of Moat? Are they not allowed to sympathise with him and his situation? What about people who, for one reason or another, identify with Moat? Are they not allowed to sympathise?

My point is that sympathy is something that is freely given from one human being to another, for personal and complex reasons. It is not the place of anyone to direct another's sense of sympathy to another. Especially an approval-seeking politician. I don't condone the Facebook groups and campaigns that have been launched in support of Moat. I think these may have been Cameron's intended target (he uses the phrase public sympathy), but in the quote above, he makes a rather sweeping statement. What I do promote is the right of the individual to feel sympathy for anyone they choose, regardless of David Cameron's opinion on the matter. It really is nothing to do with him or anyone else!

Turing apology

I've long been a fan of Alan Turing and his work. I was first introduced to Turing's ideas during a philosophy module called 'Knowledge, Mind and Language' whilst at university. We looked at the 'Turing Test', which is a test for detecting artificial intelligence.

Whilst at university, I also developed an interest in logic and crypotgraphy (though I have no skill in either!), and I read a lot about the work of Station X. It's clear to me, from what I've read, that the work of Turing, and his lesser-known colleagues, was instrumental in shortening the war. It also paved the way for the birth of computing as we know it.

I'm pleased that Gordon Brown has offered an official apology for the apalling 'treatment' Turing received:

Turing was a quite brilliant mathematician, most famous for his work on breaking the German Enigma codes. It is no exaggeration to say that, without his outstanding contribution, the history of the Second World War could have been very different. He truly was one of those individuals we can point to whose unique contribution helped to turn the tide of war. The debt of gratitude he is owed makes it all the more horrifying, therefore, that he was treated so inhumanely.

In 1952, he was convicted of "gross indecency" – in effect, tried for being gay. His sentence – and he was faced with the miserable choice of this or prison – was chemical castration by a series of injections of female hormones. He took his own life just two years later.

I'm pleased about the apology, but it doesn't reduce the sorrow I feel about his plight. It makes me angry that anyone could be treated in this way, and sad that we missed out on his academic brilliance. The only comfort I take is that we don't treat people in this way any more - at least not on an institutional level.

Angry atheists

Thanks to Phil Cooke for leading me to this article from the LA Times by Charlotte Allen. I like this bit:

I can't stand atheists -- but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.

Other people, most recently the British cultural critic Terry Eagleton in his new book, "Faith, Reason, and Revolution," take to task such superstar nonbelievers as Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion") and political journalist Christopher Hitchens ("God Is Not Great") for indulging in a philosophically primitive opposition of faith and reason that assumes that if science can't prove something, it doesn't exist.

And this bit:

Maybe atheists wouldn't be so unpopular if they stopped beating the drum until the hide splits on their second-favorite topic: How stupid people are who believe in God. This is a favorite Dawkins theme. In a recent interview with Trina Hoaks, the atheist blogger for the Examiner.com website, Dawkins described religious believers as follows: "They feel uneducated, which they are; often rather stupid, which they are; inferior, which they are; and paranoid about pointy-headed intellectuals from the East Coast looking down on them, which, with some justification, they do." Thanks, Richard!

I think she summarises some good points, and I actually like her combative style; it somehow seems fitting in the face of the vitriol of the atheist 'lobby'. I think she's right about the anger. People like Dawkins seem to be incredibly angry at a God in whom they don't believe. The other good point she makes is that the philosophical arguments often deployed by angry atheists are simplistic and naive. I'll have to see if I can find her book.

E-books revisited

Mark Vernon has some interesting points about e-books. I've previously posted in support of the medium, following the acquisition of a Sony Reader for Mrs Lanky, and following Mark's persuasive piece, I still think they have a place.

I think Mark's right to insist that there is something about the embodiment of a book in paper form which is different from the embodiment of an e-book. I don't think you can argue an e-book has no embodiment, but you could say that its embodiment is non-unique, given that the reader-unit looks the same and feels the same with any book (apart from the content of the screen).

My wife loves her Sony Reader, and for someone who reads books by the tonne, it makes sense for her to have one. However, I share some of Mark Vernon's opinions,and as I don't currently read many books, I'd extend the issue to itunes. I still prefer to buy a CD; partly for the confidence brought by the posession of an incorruptible (relatively) 'embodied' artefact. You have bought a CD rather than some data.

I realise there's an amount of inconsistency here. CDs look very similar to each other, and are only unique due to the data they contain, and maybe a bit of printing on the top. Maybe it's less about uniqueness and more about the particularity of each artefact.

hmmm...

Bus spotting

I saw my first atheist bus today - I didn't think we'd get them in lowly Lancaster. I also saw this on the Church Times blog.

The father of science

A few months ago I did a presentation at our group for postgraduate students about the birth of photography. In my research, I came across a chap called al-Hassan Ibn al-Haytham. I had assumed that Newton was the father of optics as we know them, but my reading led me to the discovery of the aforementioned chap, who is reputedly the first person to get to grips with the fundamental nature of light as we currently understand it.
I was very interested to find out about a thinker, whose name I'd never even heard, yet who could have had such a fundamental contribution to science.
The BBC have obviously heard about my momentous discovery and a three part series sbout al-Hassan Ibn al-Haytham will start tonight at 9pm on BBC4 presented by Professor Jim Al-Khalili from the University of Surrey. Should be good!

Happy World Philosophy Day

Even if you didn't know it was world philosophy day, I hope it's been good for you. As a philosophy graduate, I believe that everyone should do a bit of philosophy as part of their basic education. Sometimes it makes your head hurt, but mostly it's fun! It definitely helps you to write better essays! Take a look at the link above for a few classic philosophical problems to get your brain working.

Here's my mate Descartes looking a bit shifty!