52 great ideas (and some musings on them)

8/8/2019 52 Great Ideas (and some musings on them)

1/137


2/137

Table of ContentsThe Little Book of Humanity.............................................................................................................................1

Marcus Aurelius on being human.....................................................................................................................2

Marcus Aurelius on fountain of good................................................................................................................5

Bertrand Russell on dogma and evidence.........................................................................................................8

Oscar Wilde on pure and simple truth...........................................................................................................11

Feedback for Post "Oscar Wilde on pure and simple truth"..................................................................13

Robert G. Ingersoll on intellectual honesty....................................................................................................14

Feedback for Post "Robert G. Ingersoll on intellectual honesty ".........................................................17

Bertrand Russell on values and science..........................................................................................................18

Hippocrates on opinions and facts...................................................................................................................21

Bertrand Russell on mistakes of Aristotle......................................................................................................23

Marcus Aurelius on living among lying men..................................................................................................26

Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on living among lying men "......................................................29

Bertrand Russell on interdependence of humankind....................................................................................30

Bertrand Russell on preoccupation with possessions....................................................................................32

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on preoccupation with possessions"...........................................35

Bertrand Russell on free intellect and fanaticism..........................................................................................36

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on free intellect and fanaticism".................................................39

Marcus Aurelius on living well........................................................................................................................40

Marcus Aurelius on nature and humans........................................................................................................43

George Orwell on patriotism and nationalism...............................................................................................46

George Orwell on money..................................................................................................................................49

Thomas Paine on ownership of earth..............................................................................................................52

Howard Winters on "we" and "them"...........................................................................................................55

Epicurus on possessions and servility.............................................................................................................58

Marcus Aurelius on happy life.........................................................................................................................61

i


3/137

Table of ContentsEpicurus on fame and status............................................................................................................................64

Feedback for Post "Epicurus on fame and status".................................................................................67

Epicurus on God...............................................................................................................................................68

Feedback for Post "Epicurus on God "..................................................................................................71

Bertrand Russell on teapots in orbit...............................................................................................................72

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on teapots in orbit"......................................................................75

Epicurus on folly of prayer..............................................................................................................................76

Thomas Paine on the Bible...............................................................................................................................79

Robert G. Ingersoll on prisons of mind..........................................................................................................82

Marcus Aurelius on gods..................................................................................................................................85

Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on gods"......................................................................................88

Bertrand Russell on philosophy and theology................................................................................................89

Bertrand Russell on vastness and fearful passionless force of non-human things.....................................92

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on vastness and fearful passionless force of non-human

things"...................................................................................................................................................95

Marcus Aurelius on causes of controversies...................................................................................................96

Bertrand Russell on fear and superstition......................................................................................................99

Epicurus on fears of the mind........................................................................................................................102

Epicurus on living justly.................................................................................................................................105

Marcus Aurelius on good and evil.................................................................................................................108

John Ruskin on consequences of beliefs........................................................................................................111

Marcus Aurelius on loving those who wrong you........................................................................................114

Bertrand Russell on the authority of the sacred books...............................................................................117

Thomas Paine on approval of slavery in religions.......................................................................................120

Walter Lippmann on dangers of thinking alike...........................................................................................123

Anaxagoras on ownership..............................................................................................................................126

ii


4/137

Table of ContentsDiax on beliefs and truth................................................................................................................................128

Author's friends..............................................................................................................................................130

About the author.............................................................................................................................................132

Pageviews.........................................................................................................................................................133

iii


5/137

The Little Book of Humanity
http://fix.blog.de/


6/137

Marcus Aurelius on being human

"Not to feel exasperated or defeated or despondent because your days aren't packed

with wise and moral actions. But to get back up when you fail, to celebrate behaving like

a human -however imperfectly- and fully embrace the pursuit you've embarked on."

Marcus Aurelius

I do think that in practice Marcus Aurelius is saying here that there is no reason and what's

more important no excuse to give up, even if one is inevitably unable to reach the highest

levels of excellence in what he or she does and strives for.

I'd like to add to this that we should remember also that standards we use to evaluate people

were originally set by similar failing and frail people as we are, but even so they can be and

most often are extremely worthy goals to strive for.

Marcus Aurelius reminds that we fail and fall, but we can stand up again and keep trying

again and again and we can become better human beings day by day, week by week, year by

year.

However, I do think that one should remember that no human can never be and never has

been perfect. Anybody claiming this sort of thing even for his or her favorite character in

history is a victim of wishful thinking or simply lying.

Saints or seemingly over-human historical figures are all too often created by just leaving the

bad parts out of the final story and exaggerating the good parts. The exact opposite is of

course very often true with the great villains of history.

On the other hand every human can become a better person if he or she wants. This process of

continuous betterment just might be the real essence of being human.
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/marcus-aurelius-on-being-human-7491078/


7/137

by jaskaw @ 01.12.2009 - 15:53:50

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/marcus-aurelius-on-being-human-7491078/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/marcus-aurelius-on-being-human-7491078/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/


8/137


9/137

Marcus Aurelius on fountain of good

"Look within. Within is the fountain of good, and it will ever bubble up, if thou wilt ever

dig." - Marcus Aurelius

This idea presented by Marcus Aurelius is for me the deep essence of humanism.

I personally do think that that deep buried in all humans there is the ability for doing good

also, but sometimes it just must be dug up with a conscious effort, or it may go to waste.

For me at least the one of the most important things in humanism is the idea that every human

being has a irrevocable value as human being.

This is the more so, as I do think that every human being has the ability to do also good, even

if political, social economical or ideolocigal circumstances do all too often create situations

where a human is unable to express the good sides of his or her basic humanity. This all too

often happens because of pressures brought about by other people acting as a collective.

I do think that to truly see how a person is as a human, one must be able to see that person

separate from the social, political or religious group he or she belongs to.

I do fear that the true basic humanity of any person is all too often revealed only when he or

she is able to act without the constraints brought about by different ideologies.

For me core things in humanism is also a belief in the ability of humans to change. I do

believe that a true humanist thinks that the fact that a person acts in a certain way at the very

moment does not entail that he or she would not be able to change his or her behavior if

circumstances that have brought about this behavior do change at a later stage.

Of course there are also people who are not able to change. There just might be people who

do not do a single recommendable deed during their entire lives, but happily they are
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/marcus-aurelius-on-fountain-of-good-7493386/


10/137

extremely rare exceptions.

I do think that this kind of condition is commonly caused by very deep psychological

problems and traumas, but they are not at all showcases of the basic human condition, but of

how it can be changed by traumas and mental illness.

However, such people are happily so rare that whole books are written about people who turn

out to be that way.

I do also think that all too many problems in this world are created by false negative

expectations and too hasty characterizations made of other people.If you believe that a person you will meet will be difficult or unlikable, your negative

expectations just could be the thing that triggers negative responses in the other person. The

result just may be that he or she will really be difficult and unlikable.

Of course it is all too easy to just sit here and say that a positive attitude will get you far. On

the other hand just remembering this maxim by Marcus Aurelius could make one really

understand that there could be a well hidden fountain of good in that other person also, even if

your first impressions of him or her could have been even very negative.

by jaskaw @ 01.12.2009 - 22:33:18

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/marcus-aurelius-on-fountain-of-good-7493386/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/marcus-aurelius-on-fountain-of-good-7493386/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/


11/137


12/137

Bertrand Russell on dogma and evidence

"I mean by intellectual integrity the habit of deciding vexed questions in accordance

with the evidence, or of leaving them undecided where the evidence is inconclusive. This

virtue, though it is underestimated by almost all adherents of any system of dogma, is to

my mind of the very greatest social importance and far more likely to benefit the worldthan Christianity or any other system of organized beliefs." - Bertrand Russell in "Can

Religion Cure Our Troubles?" (1954)

I do think that Bertrand Russell presents here the very basic requirement for the decision

making process in a good society; decisions should not be based on dogmatic beliefs only, but

they should be done based on the real world evidence and merits of the issue at hand as far as

is possible.

Reacting instantly basing the decision on some old and well-known dogma is admittedly

often the quickest way to reach a decision.

However, I do see that Bertrand Russell is saying here that when people get over that oldgut-reaction, we will have in fact caused a real revolution in the decision making process in

our societies, as things would be decided more and more on their real current merits, not on

what has been done in the past.

I do not think that Bertrand Russell would be saying that one should keep on waiting for all

possible new information, before making a decision, as that would often slow down decision

making process.

In my mind he is just saying that one should normally just gather the available real evidence

that we already have and make decisions based on them and not on old dogmatic beliefs.

On the other hand I see that he is saying that we should defer nailing our final stand on thosethings that we have too little information to base a real opinion on and when the old dogma

would be our only guide.

Of course the difficult part here is to see when we have enough information to make a stand

and when we should withhold our decision until there is enough real information. That

decision still requires true wisdom, and this is sometimes in short supply in any form of

government, I'm afraid.
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/bertrand-russell-on-dogma-and-evidence-7493422/


13/137

by jaskaw @ 01.12.2009 - 22:38:20

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/bertrand-russell-on-dogma-and-evidence-7493422/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/bertrand-russell-on-dogma-and-evidence-7493422/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/


14/137


15/137

Oscar Wilde on pure and simple truth

"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple." - Oscar Wilde

Are there such things as truths at all? I for my part think that we have a lot of best possible

guesses, a truckload of extremely good approximations and masses of extremely accurate

information, but are they unmovable and final truths?

In fact science is in its essence not at all about creating any kind of final truth, but just about

finding the best possible answer and explanation that is currently available with current

knowledge and current means of discovery.

The best possible answers provided by science will change if a better answer or better

explanation is found. I would go as far as to say that absolute and unmovable truths are found

only in mathematics and religions, and even those in the religions are in fact mostly extremely

bold and extravagant delusions.

Just their boldness and extravagance makes it so difficult to see their true nature as things

made up by ignorant men to create at least some kind of answer to questions that did not have

real answers at those ignorant times.

In fact I do think that the absolute truths are possible even in mathematics only as far it is

used as a purely theoretical tool.

The absoluteness evaporates even in mathematics as soon as one starts measuring and

calculating real world entities whose nature cannot all too often be defined in any kind of

unchanging absolute terms, as pure theoretical mathematics is free to do when it uses purely

theoretical mathematical entities in its theorems.

by jaskaw @ 01.12.2009 - 23:08:53

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/oscar-wilde-on-truth-7493601/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/oscar-wilde-on-truth-7493601/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/oscar-wilde-on-truth-7493601/


16/137


17/137

Feedback forPost "Oscar Wilde on pure and simple truth"

FedupwithR [Member]

06.12.2009 @ 20:34

As Truth is not a material object it cannot exist. The Truths spoken of by religions are all too often

unverifiable. The result of hallucinations, optical illusions rumor etc.
http://www.blogs.fi/user/fedupwithr/http://www.blogs.fi/user/fedupwithr/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/oscar-wilde-on-truth-7493601/#c11705304http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/01/oscar-wilde-on-truth-7493601/#c11705304http://www.blogs.fi/user/fedupwithr/http://www.blogs.fi/user/fedupwithr/http://fix.blog.de/


18/137

Robert G. Ingersoll on intellectual honesty

"But honest men do not pretend to know; they are candid and sincere; they love the

truth; they admit their ignorance, and they say, "We do not know."

- Robert G. Ingersoll in "Superstition" (1898)

As I see it, Robert G. Ingersoll is speaking here mostly about the unbelievable callousness of

many of the religious people who simply claim to know the final and unmoving answers to

many question that are difficult or even impossible to answer in real world.

They all too often claim to also have the final and unmovable truth of how people should

behave and how things should be arranged in a life of a human being.

It just takes a lot more guts of a person to say: "I really do not know what the final answer is,

and I do not know if I ever will".

A true follower of any of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) will just

never be capable of doing it, as the main selling point of these religious is just claiming to

have certainties in issues where they simply do not exist.

On the other hand science is not at all about being certain and creating final and unerring laws

of nature.

Science is all about striving to reach the best possible answer there is to be had at any given

moment. This is a quite different thing than a final and absolute truth offered so easily and

eagerly by so many religions.

On the contrary the answers given by science can and will change when new data emerges

and enough scientists are convinced of its correctness.

That fact is also the main reason why religion and science will always be inherently

incompatible on a very basic level.

by jaskaw @ 02.12.2009 - 11:31:55
http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/robert-g-ingersoll-on-intellectual-honesty-7495958/


19/137

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/robert-g-ingersoll-on-intellectual-honesty-7495958/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/robert-g-ingersoll-on-intellectual-honesty-7495958/


20/137


21/137

Feedback for Post "Robert G. Ingersoll on intellectualhonesty "

Richard Prins [Visitor]

http://richardprins.com

02.12.2009 @ 11:44

I'd add one of my favourites by Charles Darwin to this (from The Descent of Man, 1871, p. 4):

"It has often and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can never be known: Ignorance more frequently

begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so

positively assert that this or thatproblem will never be solved by science."

| Show subcomments

jaskaw pro

http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi

02.12.2009 @ 11:47

A great quote, Richard, thanks!

FedupwithR [Member]

06.12.2009 @ 20:17

I would have said "unbelievable effrontery"of the religious.
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/robert-g-ingersoll-on-intellectual-honesty-7495958/#c11666663http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/robert-g-ingersoll-on-intellectual-honesty-7495958/?comment_ID=11666663&comment_level=1#c11666663http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://www.blog.de/pro_account.phphttp://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/robert-g-ingersoll-on-intellectual-honesty-7495958/#c11666676http://www.blogs.fi/user/fedupwithr/http://www.blogs.fi/user/fedupwithr/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/robert-g-ingersoll-on-intellectual-honesty-7495958/#c11705160http://www.blogs.fi/user/fedupwithr/http://www.blogs.fi/user/fedupwithr/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/robert-g-ingersoll-on-intellectual-honesty-7495958/#c11666676http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi/http://www.blog.de/pro_account.phphttp://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/robert-g-ingersoll-on-intellectual-honesty-7495958/?comment_ID=11666663&comment_level=1#c11666663http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/robert-g-ingersoll-on-intellectual-honesty-7495958/#c11666663http://richardprins.com/http://fix.blog.de/http://fix.blog.de/


22/137

Bertrand Russell on values and science

"While it is true that science cannot decide questions of value, that is because they

cannot be intellectually decided at all, and lie outside the realm of truth and falsehood.

Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what

science cannot discover, mankind cannot know." - Bertrand Russell in "Religion andScience (1935), ch. IX: Science of Ethics"

I do think that we can also scientifically explore what for example love and morality are, how

they have evolved, what purpose they do serve and what is the groundwork laid by physical

and most of all cultural evolution on which these ideas do rest in general.

I do think that we can achieve great insights also in the field of human values by trying to

understand with the help of true scientific inquiry why certain models of human behavior

have been and are deemed 'good' and certain models as 'bad' in a certain society at a given

time.

I however also do think that classifying specific actions for example 'loving' or 'moral' and

others as 'unloving' or 'immoral' in a specific society cannot in reality be done by scientific

methods alone.

The values used in a society are created in a quite unpredictable cultural processes that can

change unexpectedly and rapidly, when the situation and needs of the society do change

I do think that the real world classification of human activity as 'good' or 'bad' is basically

determined by the overall basic moral grammar that is in use in that society. A fact of life is

that this moral grammar is not based on rational ideas alone at all, but also on fears,

deep-seated emotions and also some very irrational ideas and ideologies.

However, I do think that we can use scientific methods to determine which are the real net

results for the individual or society at large of applying different kinds of morality and values

in a society, even if we cannot create the values themselves with scientific methods alone.

by jaskaw @ 02.12.2009 - 15:27:38

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/bertrand-russell-on-values-and-science-7497094/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/bertrand-russell-on-values-and-science-7497094/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/bertrand-russell-on-values-and-science-7497094/


23/137


24/137


25/137

Hippocrates on opinions and facts

"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the

latter ignorance." - Hippocrates (460 BC - 377 BC) in "Law"

As I see it, Hippocrates is not saying here that people should not have opinions of their own,

as some people have clearly interpreted this quote. I think that Hippocrates is implying also

here that also opinions should be based on facts as far as possible.

I do think that Hippocrates in fact means here by opinions those ideas that are based just on

the force of tradition and old prejudice and also those ideas that that are based on wishful

thinking and not on known facts.

Of course in all organized human communities there will always be different opinions based

on differences in life experiences, different expectations and different views on the world as a

whole.

However, I do think that he more these opinions are based on current, known and established

facts of the physical world, the more realistic the decisions made on them will ultimately be,

even I fear that a society based on facts alone is in practice impossible to create.

However, I do think that merely understanding the difference between fact and opinions as

Hippocrates is suggesting here can help in creation of even a bit more rational societies.

by jaskaw @ 02.12.2009 - 23:55:21

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/hippocrates-on-opinions-and-facts-7500556/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/hippocrates-on-opinions-and-facts-7500556/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/02/hippocrates-on-opinions-and-facts-7500556/


26/137


27/137

Bertrand Russell on mistakes of Aristotle

"Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice

married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives'

mouths." - Bertrand Russell in "The Impact of Science on Society" (1951)

The imminent danger of following authority blindly lurks always also in modern science,

even if it is in its foundations based on endless doubting and questioning of the established

facts and current scientific 'truths'.

The reason why this is dangerous also in science is of course that that the supposed authority

can be dead wrong in some things, even if he or she can be on the right track on very many

other things.

So, the danger lurks at the very moment when a scientist achieves a position where his or her

work is not doubted and questioned anymore. We are all humans and it is only natural that

this will happen from time to time.

Sometimes the great figure must pass away from the scene before his or her work can bestudied with a really critical eye.

However, the real fantastic thing about modern science is that this critical analyzing of the

established facts and 'truths' is an non-stop event and eventually, even if often slowly and

laboriously, the right path can be found again and mistakes of even great men and women

corrected.

We can in fact count on that even the most well-established mistakes will be corrected in the

world of science given enough time. This inbuilt ability for self-correction in science makes

inf fact it quite unique among all of the enterprises humanity has embarked on during its long

history.

Aristotle thought that women are a lower species than men and just maybe he wanted just tofind support for his opinions and maybe for that reason did not even want to check the facts.

This danger of idealogical bias lurks of course also today also in science, but the openness

and self-corrective quality of science can work wonders also in this respect.

by jaskaw @ 03.12.2009 - 15:19:07

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/03/bertrand-russell-on-aristotle-7503438/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/03/bertrand-russell-on-aristotle-7503438/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/03/bertrand-russell-on-aristotle-7503438/


28/137


29/137


30/137

Marcus Aurelius on living among lying men

"There is but one thing of real value - to cultivate truth and justice, and to live without

anger in the midst of lying and unjust men." - Marcus Aurelius

I do think that the single most important and valuable single phrase here is "without anger".

Besides making often one's own life more livable and bearable, I do think that remaining

calm in the most difficult moments of social interactions can also put you in position of clear

advantage compared to those who act in state of anger.

So, Marcus is not speaking out because of his love for the whole of mankind, but because one

can really collect a real life bonus from achieving a level of control over ones own anger and

other negative emotions.

Of course this kind of thing is incredibly more difficult to implement than to just say, but

understanding the value of patience is the necessary start.

On the other hand, in my books passion is a quite different animal than anger, as passion is a

positive feeling and anger is a negative one.

I would dare to say that passion drives you forward, but anger very often stops you on your

tracks. One so easily gets stuck in the old and otherwise soon bygone mishaps and all too

often even imagined wrongdoings of others.

If you let anger guide you, you may end up spending your energies in wallowing on old and

often in the end quite meaningless insults and wrongdoings of others, instead of concentrating

on all of the great work you are about to do in future.

I do think that Marcus is saying here that a strong enough person will not let his fears and

negative thought guide him or her, as this will not benefit him or her in the long run.
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/03/marcus-aurelius-on-living-among-lying-men-7504684/


31/137

This is of course the very central message of Stoicism. Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic and from

his book 'Meditations' it is easy to see that he himself did believe that this system of thinking

did help him greatly in his extremely difficult job.

He was the emperor of the mightiest empire of his time, and in the end he was expected to

collaborate and get along with all kinds of people from all walks of life to do his work well.

By all remaining accounts at least he also succeeded in making this difficult and extremely

demanding principle work in real life.

Of course no person can ever control his or her negative emotions fully, but I do think that at

least giving it a try can also help in very many situations.

by jaskaw @ 03.12.2009 - 19:15:51

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/03/marcus-aurelius-on-living-among-lying-men-7504684/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/03/marcus-aurelius-on-living-among-lying-men-7504684/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/


32/137


33/137

Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on living among lyingmen "

FedupwithR [Member]

06.12.2009 @ 19:41

Henry Miller once said that anger was a mental sickness. Anger seems to be accepted today as a justifiable

way to behave whereas, as you say, it is totally negative. Anger itself never solves any problems and life

would be so much more agreeable if everyone just stayed calm.
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/03/marcus-aurelius-on-living-among-lying-men-7504684/#c11704879http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/03/marcus-aurelius-on-living-among-lying-men-7504684/#c11704879http://www.blogs.fi/user/fedupwithr/http://www.blogs.fi/user/fedupwithr/http://fix.blog.de/http://fix.blog.de/


34/137

Bertrand Russell on interdependence ofhumankind

"Humankind has become so much one family that we cannot ensure our own prosperity except by

ensuring that of everyone else. If you wish to be happy yourself, you must resign yourself to seeing

others also happy." - Bertrand Russell in "The Science to Save Us from Science" in The New York

Times Magazine (1950)

In my my mind Bertrand Russell is saying here that our human race has for a very long time been so

interdependent that to ensure our own true happiness, we must ensure that others are happy too.

I'm also quite sure that he did mean this on a global level, not only in ones own immediate life circle or even

one's own society.

It takes of course a lot to see and really understand the mankind as united whole, with all of its different ideas

of how the relationships between humans should be organized.

I do think that Bertrand was way ahead of his time, but I do also think that globalization is in fact a centuries

old phenomena.

The interdependency between all nations was there even in 1950, but it was not talked about as much as now,

as it was a part of the nationalistic agenda to downplay the international aspect of human enterprise.

Of course internationalization and globalization have been intensifying in the last few decades, but it is a

question of rise in the quantity and also quality of the old ties between nations.

I do think that because of this ongoing process of internationalization, this quote by Bertrand Russell is in fact

more current than ever before.

by jaskaw @ 03.12.2009 - 23:19:37

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/03/bertrand-russell-on-interdependency-of-humankind-7506326/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/03/bertrand-russell-on-interdependency-of-humankind-7506326/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/03/bertrand-russell-on-interdependency-of-humankind-7506326/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/03/bertrand-russell-on-interdependency-of-humankind-7506326/


35/137


36/137

Bertrand Russell on preoccupation withpossessions

"It is preoccupation with possession, more than anything else, that prevents men from

living freely and nobly." - Bertrand Russell in "Principles of Social Reconstruction"(1917)

I think that the word "preoccupation" is the key-word here. It is the lack of moderation that is

the real problem, not the ideas of possession and ownership in itself.

As far as I know, Bertrand Russell was not against the idea of private property, but he saw

how these things do preoccupy the minds of men and women to a degree that makes creating

a just society much more difficult.

This is of course a very Epicurean thought. In the very heart of the Epicurean thinking there

are ideas about achieving a balanced life by controlling ones urges and needs. These ideas are

do apply also to our needs concerning the urge to possess new things.

I must repeat that in my mind Bertrand Russell is not saying that ownership of things is bad

thing per se, but I do think that he simply says that too great preoccupation with collecting

and preserving existing possessions can burden a person quite unnecessarily.

I do think that this idea really touches a very central and also very painful nerve in our

society. I don't expect this discussion to die out anytime soon or that on the other hand it will

ever lead to any kind of final conclusion.

But I do sincerely believe that this kind of discussion is sorely needed, as I do think that no

single facet of our society should not be taken as granted.

In the end, who can really for example say what is the right level of consumption that is

needed to keep up a a modern society that can support all its members?

by jaskaw @ 04.12.2009 - 21:32:26
http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/04/bertrand-russell-on-possessions-7511555/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/04/bertrand-russell-on-possessions-7511555/


37/137

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/04/bertrand-russell-on-possessions-7511555/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/04/bertrand-russell-on-possessions-7511555/


38/137


39/137

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on preoccupation withpossessions"

antony rounis [Visitor]

http://antony

06.10.2010 @ 08:55

As far as I can explain by my own example, possession fixes our wings on earth. If we want to fly to our typeof living we' ve chosen, we have to throw that weight far away. Free life, i suppose, may be within

possessions. Many times, these 2 words are contrary. That is the time one have to choose. Life free or like a

bee!
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/04/bertrand-russell-on-possessions-7511555/#c14155405http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/04/bertrand-russell-on-possessions-7511555/#c14155405http://antony/http://fix.blog.de/http://fix.blog.de/


40/137

Bertrand Russell on free intellect and fanaticism

"One who believes as I do, that free intellect is the chief engine of human progress,

cannot but be fundamentally opposed to Bolshevism as much as to the Church of Rome.

The hopes which inspire communism are, in the main, as admirable as those instilled by

the Sermon on the Mount, but they are held as fanatically and are as likely to do asmuch harm." Bertrand Russell in "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism" (1920)

I do believe that the degree and level of fanaticism is the crucial thing here. The exact policies

and ideologies the fanatics are furthering are really of quite secondary importance in this

context.

In my mind Bertrand Russell is speaking of the closed mindset of a fanatic, where only

information supporting ones existing views is accepted and all contradictory evidence is

brushed aside.

Most of all the true happiness or well-being of humans is in fact all too often less important

for a fanatic than furthering ones extremely strongly held set of ideas.

Bertrand Russell did see Soviet communist ideology as a closed system quite like the older

religions.

In fact he did often treat the Soviet communism as just a modern form of religion in his

writings.

It should be pointed out that Bertrand Russell himself continued to adhere to the western

tradition of humanistic and democratic socialism to his very end.

Bertrand Russell was of course looking at a specific point of history and opposing somespecific policies, but I do believe this quote can still very well be used as a warning against all

fanaticism be it coming from the left or right.
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/05/bertrand-russell-on-free-intellect-7514927/


41/137

by jaskaw @ 05.12.2009 - 15:14:51

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/05/bertrand-russell-on-free-intellect-7514927/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/05/bertrand-russell-on-free-intellect-7514927/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/


42/137


43/137

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on free intellect andfanaticism"

Erkki [Visitor]

06.10.2010 @ 19:37

It was easy for Russell to be critical of the Bolsheviks from a distance. He didn't have to deal with the Whites.When he wrote that, the Civil War had been going on for almost 3 years, with no end in sight. Indeed, the

involvement of Britain, France, et al. helped prolong it: where is Russell's criticism of the "fanaticism" of the

White Terror or the Western governments' support thereof?

To be sure, the Bolsheviks had their fanatics. War and repression breed fanaticism. But the Bolsheviks were

far from the worst example.

| Show subcomments

Itchtakov [Visitor]

07.10.2010 @ 02:42To be fair, being a more philosopher and thinker than a politician, I don't think he spent his time criticising the

Bolsheviks because they were worse, but rather because they were newer and more interesting. After all,

Western imperialism had been around for hundreds of years and was I think already widely agreed to be

wrong among left-wingcircles, whereas no-one quite knew what to make of Soviet communism.

| Show subcomments

jaskaw pro


07.10.2010 @ 08:38

I do believe the thing that did turn Bertrand Russell against Bolsheviks was the wholesale suppression on all

critical thinking that was part of their basic way operation.As Bertrand Russell saw critical thinking as the prime engine of human progress, he could not subscribe to a

ideology that did systematically suppress the critical analysis of its own premises.

He was also a humanist and the often quite unnecessary wholesale slaughters of opponents perpetrated by the

Bolsheviks very early on did not endear him to them at all.
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/05/bertrand-russell-on-free-intellect-7514927/#c14159636http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/05/bertrand-russell-on-free-intellect-7514927/?comment_ID=14159636&comment_level=1#c14159636http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/05/bertrand-russell-on-free-intellect-7514927/#c14162606http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/05/bertrand-russell-on-free-intellect-7514927/?comment_ID=14162606&comment_level=1#c14162606http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://www.blog.de/pro_account.phphttp://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/05/bertrand-russell-on-free-intellect-7514927/#c14162947http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/05/bertrand-russell-on-free-intellect-7514927/#c14162947http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi/http://www.blog.de/pro_account.phphttp://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/05/bertrand-russell-on-free-intellect-7514927/?comment_ID=14162606&comment_level=1#c14162606http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/05/bertrand-russell-on-free-intellect-7514927/#c14162606http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/05/bertrand-russell-on-free-intellect-7514927/?comment_ID=14159636&comment_level=1#c14159636http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/05/bertrand-russell-on-free-intellect-7514927/#c14159636http://fix.blog.de/http://fix.blog.de/


44/137

Marcus Aurelius on living well

"Where a man can live, he can also live well. " - Marcus Aurelius

I do think that striking the right balance in ones own mind is the important thing here. I do notthink that this quote is about blindly accepting all the things that destiny throws at us, as some

people seemingly tend to read this quote.

As I see it, it is just a call for making the best of things when we are at the moment unable to

change our circumstances and just such situations are regrettably quite common in a human

life.

However, I do believe that one can also strive for change without driving oneself to despair

because of his or her current circumstances.

Of course on the other hand just the personally felt feelings of hurt and despair have always

been great forces for driving change.

There lurks of course the danger of missing the possibility to change ones circumstances

when a window of opportunity finally arises if one takes this accepting ones circumstances

too far.

As an old saying goes, it is in the end all about accepting those things one has no power to

change and using one's energies in trying to change those things that one can really change.

But most of all the big thing here is of course acquiring the wisdom to see the difference

between these two.
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/05/where-a-man-can-live-he-can-also-live-well-7515623/


45/137

by jaskaw @ 05.12.2009 - 18:03:02

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/05/where-a-man-can-live-he-can-also-live-well-7515623/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/05/where-a-man-can-live-he-can-also-live-well-7515623/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/


46/137


47/137

Marcus Aurelius on nature and humans

"Nothing happens to anybody which he is not fitted by nature to bear." - Marcus

Aurelius

I do fear that this is not an easy idea at all, but I personally do think that good old Marcus

means that the human species has evolved to bear and cope with all the good or bad things it

commonly encounters in real life.

Basically just millions and millions of similar earlier encounters with good and bad things in

life have made our species what it is just now.

Marcus Aurelius did not know anything about the modern scientific theory of evolution.

However, very similar ideas were floating around also in times of Antiquity.

These pre-evolutionary ideas were perhaps not formal scientific ideas in a way we know

them, but thoughts based on just observing the extraordinary variety of myriads of different

life forms and on thinking how this all could have happened and wondering why all the

different creatures were as they were.

The main point here is as I see it, that if something that humans would have commonly

encountered in their daily life would really been too much for humans to bear, there would be

no humans left at all.

Ergo; we can learn to bear most of the things nature and life do throw at us, as they mostly are

things that other people have learned to live and cope with before us.

There are no kind of divine forces or destiny presupposed in this quote at all. It is all about the

very nature of our species, which has with time changed us in a way that we can cope with at

least most of the common features of the reality that we do live in.
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/06/marcus-aurelius-on-on-humans-and-nature-7520045/


48/137

We do not need divine help to cope with the difficult situation that do arise in every life, but

we can rely on the tools that evolution of our species has given us to survive.

We need just to remember that hundreds or thousands of generations of humans have

survived with these very same skills before us. The proof of all this is of course that we all

really are here against all odds.

by jaskaw @ 06.12.2009 - 14:53:44

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/06/marcus-aurelius-on-on-humans-and-nature-7520045/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/06/marcus-aurelius-on-on-humans-and-nature-7520045/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/


49/137


50/137

George Orwell on patriotism and nationalism

"Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so

vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a

distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved.

By patriotism I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life,which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people.

Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally.

Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding

purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself

but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."

"Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally." - George Orwell in

"Notes on Nationalism" (1945)

I do think that there really is a point where the quite harmless garden variety of patriotism

turns into something more nasty, as George Orwell tries to explain in his magnificent essay.

I do think that in quite similar manner a Christian or even Islamic faith in itself needs not to

lead to any bad things as such, if it is just taken in small and mild enough doses.

However, even very bad things do very often appear the moment when beliefs do turn into

fanaticism. This fact most certainly applies also to the feelings people have for their home

country.In small enough doses patriotism can be quite healthy thing, but overdoing it will lead into

trouble, as well as overdoing any strong ideology will lead to quite similar trouble.

In general it well can be argued that whenever the well-being of a ideology becomes more

important than well-being of humans, there is a good reason expect bad things to happen.

The world would undoubtedly be a better place without even the milder forms of patriotism,

but lets get real here; it ain't gonna go away very soon, if ever.

However, I do think the formation of European Union is a great example how erasing the ill

effects of nationalism and patriotism is possible.

It is no coincidence that it happened Europe which has been completely ravaged and
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/06/george-orwell-on-patriotism-7521607/


51/137


52/137


53/137

George Orwell on money

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not money, I am

become as a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of

prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith,

so that I could remove mountains, and have not money, I am nothing." - George Orwellin "Keep the Aspidistra Flying" (1936)

George Orwell is in my mind expressing a very universal thought here. It does not matter who

you are, how eloquent you are, how perfect your mind is when you end up for reason or

another in a situation where you have no money at all.

In that situation you are simply nothing for very many people and often they do not want even

to know about your very existence.

George Orwell also knows very well what he is talking about here, as he did have a period

when he was really at the bottom.

George Orwell was born as Eric Blair, but he did use the pen name George Orwell for all of

his life. He did originally come from a quite typical British middle class family.

He started a normal middle class career as a police officer in Burma, but dropped out as he

realized what he was really doing in the colonial Burma and as he decided to become a writer.

After coming back from Burma he experienced the life of vagrants and hobos.He tells about this period in his life in his fine first book called "Down and out in Paris and

London" and this period of utter and desperate poverty has surely influenced this quote.

Later on he mostly led life of a typical freelance writer, where money was mostly scarce, as

his real success did come very late in life and he did not much have time to enjoy the

financial and critical success of his last masterpieces.

'Animal Farm' was published in 1945 and his best know work '1984' in 1949, only a year

before before his death in 1950.
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/07/george-orwell-on-money-7526043/


54/137

by jaskaw @ 07.12.2009 - 12:23:44

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/07/george-orwell-on-money-7526043/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/07/george-orwell-on-money-7526043/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/


55/137


56/137

Thomas Paine on ownership of earth

"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth

itself, that is individual property." - Thomas Paine in "Agrarian Justice" (1795 - 1796)

There is also a more profound philosophical level to this statement in my mind at least, if one

forgets the problems of taxation that did in fact originally inspire this famous piece by

Thomas Paine.

I personally took this quotation to my heart because I think it also reminds us that we all in

fact are just in the end borrowing something, when we claim to have the ownership over land

or water.

I believe that we must understand that we must in the end return that borrowed property in

good condition to its rightful owners. In the case of land they are the coming generations and

humanity and also the ecosystem of the Earth as a whole.

If we want to preserve Earth as a viable ecosystem for all of the coming generations we must

behave as any lender of borrowed things must do.

I do mean that we can never own a piece of land similarly as we own a television set and do

whatever we like to it.

We have obligation to keep it in such a condition that also coming generations can also use it;

in that sense we are not owners, but borrowers.

There is a crucial difference on owning things and owning land; we can build new cars andboats if we destroy them, but if we destroy the mother-ship Earth because we just did not care

enough of the future, the children of our grandchildren just may have nothing left.

We must of course improve and use land to our own benefit to be able to live, but we should

always remember that we are never the final owners of any part of it. I do think that only after

we learn how to do this, can we hope for the ultimate survival of the human race.

I must add that I am not talking about taking something away from anybody here. Thomas

Paine was not taking away things from people, but giving them new things; namely

responsibility for their actions also concerning the land they happen to own.

Thomas Paine does nod dispute the right of the individual to "own" land and also collect the
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/07/thomas-paine-on-ownership-of-earth-7529596/


57/137

profits that can be gained from using it.

He is only saying that land is different from all other property, as it has not been made by

anybody, but has existed before the rise of the mankind, even if men can improve the land by

creating farms and building houses on it.

The first owner of any land has not created it, as a house or a car is created by men, but has

simply declared it as his own and by doing it excluded others from using it.

Ownership of land is a social convention only and this is the reason why there has been the somany land-reforms in countries where private property is honored in all other forms.

Thomas Paine just states the obvious here.

I do think that one is not allowed to do one's children anything that will harm them

permanently; similarly I do see that people cannot be allowed to harm permanently any piece

of Earth they claim to own.

The state restricts your right to do harm to your children, why cannot it restrict your freedom

to harm the planet we all live in?

This Earth will be here 50 billion years after we are dead, but without humans if humans are

allowed to make the planet inhabitable because of short-sighted greed.The question in worst cases of harming land and the whole Earth permanently is never about

feeding the hungry or poor, but generating enough profit for the big players.

by jaskaw @ 07.12.2009 - 22:01:16

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/07/thomas-paine-on-ownership-of-earth-7529596/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/07/thomas-paine-on-ownership-of-earth-7529596/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/


58/137


59/137

Howard Winters on "we" and "them"

"Civilization is the process in which one gradually increases the number of people included in the term

'we' or 'us' and at the same time decreases those labeled 'you' or 'them' until that category has no one

left in it." - Howard Winters

I do think that broadening of the sphere of group inclusion that Howard Winters is speaking about here is a

clear and unmistakable evolutionary trend, if one just cares to think about it.

However, I see that it still is one of the less widely observed and most of all accepted general trends in the

human history.

This just may be because it is not brought about by any single ideology or process, but it is a result of many

simultaneous developments.

Most of all I fear that noticing this important trend does not fit the ideology of very many people, especially

those espousing different forms of nationalism.

Noticing things like this is a matter where the discipline of history called the Big History can really help.

The Big History tries to see the bigger picture behind individual historical events and find deeper trends and

changes in human behavior that do ultimately propel along also the visible changes.

I do see that the ongoing creation of a whole new kind of global digital marketplace of ideas and

computerized goods has greatly intensified this erosion of national borders and also "us" and "them" thinking.

I see a simultaneous creation of global tribes that can be identified in every corner in the world. This process

is having a tremendous impact in the way the coming generations will see the importance of national borders.

This formation of transnational global tribes has been gaining momentum for decades, but the rise of the

Internet has intensified this process tremendously, as now you can really hang out and even "live" with your

tribe in the Net.

This global tribalization is not without its own grave dangers, but the important thing is that it is slowly eatingaway the lifeblood of the extremist nationalism, which do form a real axis of evil together with the

fundamentalist interpretations of the religion.

Extreme nationalism and fundamentalist religions are the last bastion on the dangerous "us" and "them"

-thinking.

Eroding the basic divisions of humans that have been for so been created along the national borders does

inevitably also weaken the base for extremism based on physical divisions of humans.

Of course we will never reach any kind of Utopia that is admittedly hinted in the original quote, as even when

old fault lines dividing humans disappear, new ones will arise.

However, I for my part do honestly think that weakening the power base of extreme nationalism can do only
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/08/howard-winters-on-we-and-them-7533105/


60/137

good for the humanity as a whole, even if it will not solve all of our problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_history

http://archaeology.about.com/od/archaeologistsw/g/wintersh.htm

American archaeologist Howard Dalton Winters [1923-1994] was probably most influential in the fleshing

out of G.R. Willey's settlement patterns study. Winters argued that the proper way to study a settlement

pattern (that is to say, a group of related sites, each with their own role) was as a system, as each part of a

working whole. He was also interested in identifying the reasons for the selection of which goods werefunneled through trade networks in the past, what the value of these goods were to the people who traded

them.

by jaskaw @ 08.12.2009 - 13:47:49

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/08/howard-winters-on-we-and-them-7533105/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/08/howard-winters-on-we-and-them-7533105/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/


61/137


62/137

Epicurus on possessions and servility

"A free life cannot acquire many possessions, because this is not easy to do without servility to mobs or

monarchs." - Epicurus

This is one of the easiest maxims by Epicurus: you must simply choose if you want to collect possessions or if

you want to be truly free.

Of course this decision is most often done without really noticing that there would even be alternatives

available, as the weight of tradition and expectations do often narrow down ones real choices even

considerably.

Of course not all men or women do even ever want to lead a free life, but are happily serving the mobs in for

example in Hollywood at their typewriters or directors chairs.

They are serving the mobs by trying desperately to second guess what the mobs would like to see tomorrow,

what horribly exaggerated catastrophes or morbid tales of rampant irrationality they would like dwell in next.

On the other hand, "servility to monarchs" is easiest to observe in a modern society in the middle management

in every business corporation of the world.

Few people seem even to understand how a necktie or cravat is a physical sign of servitude that says: "Here is

the rope already in my neck, my life is yours if you so wish,".

Only the real owners and on the other hand the men at the ultimate bottom can discard this outward sign of

servitude.

Those who do not plan to rise up in the corporate ladders can be much more relaxed and are in fact more free

than those above them.

The men at the middle are often highly dependent on the opinions of their superiors, and lose their much of

their freedom just because of their eagerness to gain and better positions and though it more possessions.

On the other hand the men at the very bottom of the corporate ladder need often not to constantly show their

servitude; they just need to do their work well, and this is a different thing altogether.

by jaskaw @ 09.12.2009 - 00:25:56
http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/08/epicurus-on-possessions-7536915/


63/137

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/08/epicurus-on-possessions-7536915/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/08/epicurus-on-possessions-7536915/


64/137


65/137

Marcus Aurelius on happy life

"Very little is needed to make a happy life." - Marcus Aurelius

Even though Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic he had a clear fondness for many of the central

ideas of the older Epicureanism and was certainly very familiar with them.

This maxim is of course pure Epicureanism, even if Stoicism was a rival of Epicureanism in

the field of philosophies that were actively competing for audience in the Roman Empire.

At the bottom of it all is that happiness is purely a state of mind. The true level of happiness

does not depend on the economical circumstances, given that one does not let them interfere

and affect ones state of mind.

Of course certain basic necessities must always be fulfilled before a human can even really

contemplate and value his or her state of happiness.

It is very difficult to be happy when you are hungry, thirsty or suffering from cold.

However, after these very basic necessities are fulfilled, the amount of happiness new

acquired things do bring with themselves is a purely mental process.

The amount of happiness new things do bring depends more on relationship of one's

expectation and what happens on reality, than on the value that new acquired things do really

bring with themselves.

Many studies have shown that after a certain level of material well-being is reached, adding

more material wealth will not cause more rise in the feelings of happiness and contentment

people do have.

Of course reaching even a momentary state of happiness in Auschwitz was certainly
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/09/marcus-aurelius-on-happy-life-7539691/


66/137

unbelievably more difficult than just a few meters away outside the fence. On the other hand

a unexpected friendly smile or extra loaf of bread could bring even there a moment of great

happiness, who knows?

by jaskaw @ 09.12.2009 - 14:51:01

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/09/marcus-aurelius-on-happy-life-7539691/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/09/marcus-aurelius-on-happy-life-7539691/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/


67/137


68/137

Epicurus on fame and status

"Some men want fame and status, thinking that they would thus make themselves secure against other

men. If the life of such men really were secure, they have attained a natural good; if, however, it is

insecure, they have not attained the end which by nature's own prompting they originally sought."

Epicurus (Principal Doctrines 7)

I see that this Epicurean doctrine merely states that a great fame, a lot of money or even a extremely high

social status and power brought about by it alone cannot make a person ultimately feel safe, if that status is

not secured by a solid enough approval of others.

In my mind Epicurus is not saying here that achieving fame and status would be bad things as such, given

only that they are achieved in a way that one can be secure in his mind that this situation can continue.

Of course one should not forget that the higher in the social ladders of society or a organization one climbs,

the more dependent on others and the more less free as individual one also all too often becomes.

So I do interpret this this doctrine as saying that a position of status in a society must be achieved in a way

that does not antagonize others, if one really seeks a true peace of mind.

Of course not everybody is after such a peace of mind at all, as the fame and status are so often seen as worthy

goals as themselves.

Careful reading shows that this doctrine is not about the inner feelings of a person, but about how the social

status of a person is always ultimately dependent on other members of the society.

I would even claim that Epicurus is saying that a insecure and wrongfully or forcefully achieved good social

status is causing more pain than it is worth.

In Epicurean thinking true mental peace can be achieved only when one is fully accepted by other members of

his or her own society.

So a even a very high a social position that is achieved by fear or coercion will not really benefit a person

mentally in the long run, as it will so easily ultimately lead to mental pain and anxiety.
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/09/epicurus-on-fame-and-status-7542696/


69/137

by jaskaw @ 10.12.2009 - 00:01:57

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/09/epicurus-on-fame-and-status-7542696/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/09/epicurus-on-fame-and-status-7542696/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/


70/137


71/137

Feedback for Post "Epicurus on fame and status"

Zuhal [Visitor]

14.10.2010 @ 21:40

By saying this. Epicurus automatically assumes that reaching a high status and fame is a means to peace of

mins and security alone. What if the goal wasn't security or peace of mind? For instance, a man decided thathe wants to become a president to serve the people of his country. We all know that this job is far away from

achieving peace of mind.

I think Epicurus should reconsider his statement!!

| Show subcomments

jaskaw pro


14.10.2010 @ 21:59

Dear Zuhai, this statement of course applies only if a person is striving to achieve mental peace, as I did fact

already point out in my own comment.Not all people at all are searching for anything like it, but if you do, Epicurus says that you should only seek

such avenues for advancement in society that are secure, as insecurity is one of the greatest sources of mental

stress.
http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://www.blog.de/pro_account.phphttp://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/09/epicurus-on-fame-and-status-7542696/#c14216790http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/09/epicurus-on-fame-and-status-7542696/#c14216790http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi/http://www.blog.de/pro_account.phphttp://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/09/epicurus-on-fame-and-status-7542696/?comment_ID=14216549&comment_level=1#c14216549http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/09/epicurus-on-fame-and-status-7542696/#c14216549http://fix.blog.de/


72/137

Epicurus on God

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but

not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh

evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus

/>

This very famous quotation has been in circulation for a very long time and it has alwaysbeen accredited to Epicurus. It is not however not found among the pitifully few surviving

fragments of his large and voluminous writings.

For example there are only small fragments left of his 37 volumes of treatise called 'On

Nature' and so the fact that something is not in his surviving texts does not preclude the fact

that he could not have written it.

The argument itself is of a type that was favored by the Greek skeptics, and it has been

claimed that it may have been wrongly attributed to Epicurus by Lactantius (ca. 240 ca.

320), who was a Christian and regarded Epicurus as an atheist.

Lactantius was maybe not far away from truth in his assessment, as in fact any of the 40

Epicurean Principal Doctrines does not proclaim any kind of need for some kind deity or

depend on any kind of divine or supernatural forces.

In fact on several occasions in his central surviving writings Epicurus stresses the need for not

succumbing to fearing gods or to fear of death, which are of course cornerstones of all

western religions.

All the principles of Epicureanism need active involvement only from humans themselves to

be fulfilled, and they cannot rely on any kind of supernatural forces to help them.

Epicurus did refer to the idea of a god in some of his writings, but he saw that even if there

would be gods, they would not bother humans or life on earth in any way.

This idea leads to situation where one needs not to bother himself with the idea of gods at all.

This idea does not really differ very much from atheism.
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/epicurus-on-god-7548491/


73/137

Be it as it may be this famous riddle is still quite valid, as all the question he asks have been

left quite unanswered during the two and half millennium that has passed since these words

were first written down in ancient Greece, where men could utter words like this and live to

tell about it.

A sorry fact of life is that the rise of extremely dogmatic Christianity made it impossible for

over a millennium to even try to think like this.

by jaskaw @ 10.12.2009 - 15:32:54

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/epicurus-on-god-7548491/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/epicurus-on-god-7548491/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/


74/137


75/137

Feedback for Post "Epicurus on God "

Winston Brown [Visitor]

http://weightlossgodsway.weebly.com/

14.12.2009 @ 08:02

God has been helping me lose weight - lately http://weightlossgodsway.weebly.com/

| Show subcomments

Jervis Dacia [Visitor]

15.12.2009 @ 03:26

"Is God willing to prevent fat, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is

malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh obesity? Is he neither able nor willing? Then

why call him God?

The words of Epicurus may aid you in losing weight, if you can limit the natural but unnecessary desires.

Penny C [Visitor]

17.10.2010 @ 01:58

Maybe if you didn't waste so much time in a pew you wouldn't need a god to lose weight. We have to exercise

whether we like it or not. Maybe a professional shopper? Don't watch television too much, built in temptation.

You make yourself fat and only you can make yourself lose weight. Though honestly that posters is just a

spammer.

I really find this saying perfect logic and wish I found it years ago. There are so many good causes that are

springing up out of pure desperation that I have to say I am very encouraged by the human spirit. Forget the

Holy Spirit. How many maniacs used that idea as an excuse to do wrong? How many people used religion to

recruit or bring harm to others to make them do what they want them to do? Yeah, sure, God wants you to dothis or that. Amazing how many people on this mud ball love to play God?

Well a waste of time. When people discover their own abilities and use them to the best that they can be

wondrous things really do happen. I am very happy to see everyday the amazing ideas that come to life due to

people who just use their imagination for the good. They deserve some praise and here it is. Spend a little

more of your free time at least saying, "thank you", to people who really deserve it. You may be the only

person who does. People take too much in life for granted.

I'm just living a simple life and I don't stress as much. If I want something, I work for it, save for it but always

ask myself is it really necessary? Can I put the money to better use? Just things we all need to think about.

Those of us who know God isn't taking care of anyone. It is the love and concern of other people. Wedefinitely need a lot more love to go around. A lot more. Start thinking about the plight of others for a change

rather than if you can get more of this or that. Share to love.
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/epicurus-on-god-7548491/#c11771280http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/epicurus-on-god-7548491/#c14232029http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/epicurus-on-god-7548491/#c14232029http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/epicurus-on-god-7548491/#c11779902http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/epicurus-on-god-7548491/?comment_ID=11771280&comment_level=1#c11771280http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/epicurus-on-god-7548491/#c11771280http://weightlossgodsway.weebly.com/http://weightlossgodsway.weebly.com/http://fix.blog.de/


76/137

Bertrand Russell on teapots in orbit

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove

received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving

about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertionprovided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our

most powerful telescopes.

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable

presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be

talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the

sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation

to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to

the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier

time." - Bertrand Russell in "Is There a God?" (1952).

This classical case of teapots in orbit has been in use for over half a century now, but the need

to use it over and over again has sadly not gone away.

Sadly all too many of the religious people seem not to grasp the essence of this story at all.

I do think that the core problem is that they have great difficulty in understanding that the

basic claims underlining their religion are just claims that were originally made by ordinary

humans.

They don't want to face the fact that all religions are just a refined forms of human ideologies

which quite universally simply claim to be something else.

When people have been steeped from very earliest childhood into thinking that some kind of

deity has somehow produced their holy books, they do not necessarily grasp this metaphor

used by Bertrand Russell's at all.

They often seem just think that Bertrand Russell in speaking of made up things, when their

holy books are a quite different thing, as it just is the absolute truth which just is of a divine

origin.

They have no difficulty with the fact that this claim of divine origin is based solely on the

claims made in their holy books themselves in the first place.

They gave often seem to have great difficulty in understanding that it simply is extremely
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/bertrand-russell-on-teapots-in-orbit-7551421/


77/137

easy for a person to write texts that just seem to be dictated be a divine force, if he just so

wishes for his own purposes.

These purposes can be of course be quite noble and recommendable, as this pretending to be

the voice of a 'God' could be seen as a great tool in advancing things that the writer sees to

serve the greater good of his nation or even humanity as a whole.

A religion can of course be used to convey recommendable and noble ideas. The core

problem is that in religions these ideas are commonly presented as some kind of only and

final truth.However, in the extremely complex world of humans there inevitably are many correct

answers to most questions, depending on the needs of the current situation.

As societies and most of all their needs do inevitably change with time the religious answers

that were invented in different societies thousands of years ago can became even a heavy

burden to society.

They can eventually become a barrier that prevents the true flourishing and unlocking the true

potential available in a society.

Theists do not seem also ever to wonder why their god had a a habit dictating long texts to

certain groups of herders and small time farmers several thousands of years ago, but hasstopped this habit completely later on.

They seem not to wonder why if there would be a god that would want all people to act, think

and eat in certain way, why should he not appear constantly to dozens or hundreds of new

prophets to make absolutely certain that his will is not corrupted with time?

What Bertrand Russell did is to show with his example how the reasoning of the theist is so

often based firmly on breath of thin air.

by jaskaw @ 10.12.2009 - 23:33:14

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/bertrand-russell-on-teapots-in-orbit-7551421/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/bertrand-russell-on-teapots-in-orbit-7551421/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/


78/137


79/137

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on teapots in orbit"

Karen [Visitor]

11.12.2009 @ 03:18

Classic Russell. I adore him. Where is the Bertrand Russell of our age? Maybe Dennett. I really think he was

underappreciated, even when he was alive. At least now some of us godless beings have brought him out ofsemi-obscurity.

Ib Balicanta [Visitor]

11.12.2009 @ 09:50

He is, undoubtedly the most influential figure in my life.

Ashley Moltzan [Visitor]

11.12.2009 @ 23:16I love this! This man is an inspiration.

Amin Farhadi [Visitor]

05.01.2010 @ 20:52

that's so true. I love him and among all the philosophers and writers he's the only one i've never disagreed

with YET

shahab [Visitor]

http://azghalam.blogfa.com20.10.2010 @ 21:33

Fascinating! I love him!
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/bertrand-russell-on-teapots-in-orbit-7551421/#c11747066http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/bertrand-russell-on-teapots-in-orbit-7551421/#c11747672http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/bertrand-russell-on-teapots-in-orbit-7551421/#c11754445http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/bertrand-russell-on-teapots-in-orbit-7551421/#c11940912http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/bertrand-russell-on-teapots-in-orbit-7551421/#c14261731http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/bertrand-russell-on-teapots-in-orbit-7551421/#c14261731http://azghalam.blogfa.com/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/bertrand-russell-on-teapots-in-orbit-7551421/#c11940912http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/bertrand-russell-on-teapots-in-orbit-7551421/#c11754445http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/bertrand-russell-on-teapots-in-orbit-7551421/#c11747672http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2009/12/10/bertrand-russell-on-teapots-in-orbit-7551421/#c11747066http://fix.blog.de/


80/137

Epicurus on folly of prayer

"It is folly for a man to pray to the gods for that which he can attain by his own power."

- Epicurus (VS, 65)

/>

This quote does not need much commenting, as Epicurus states his meaning in a very

straightforward way.Epicurus simply did not believe that pleading to some kind of higher or supernatural powers

would help people in their real world problems, as in reality he clearly saw that only humans

can help themselves with their own actions.

Epicurus did not believe that there would be any kind of active divine forces would affect

human life at all, even if there was appears a concept of god in some of his earlier writings.

In other words he is basically just saying in more modern language that "a man got to do what

a man got to do" and stop expecting help from quarters from where none is to be expected.

Of course also a theist can well use this quote, as it can be interpreted in a way that prayer is

not needed in the cases where humans can help themselves, but that this quote does not

exclude the cases where humans are powerless and there is nothing re

52 great ideas (and some musings on them)

Documents