Translate

Thursday, 30 October 2014

A philosophical discussion on the value of life and what makes a psychopath a psychopath

Dennis Nilsen is my favourite psychopath, because he once said something very thought-provoking.

A late friend of mine visited him in prison and often referred to him as "Dennis" when talking about him to me. It was a kind of name-dropping, I suppose. Her great great whatever grandfather was the Earl of Rosebury who was Prime Minister for a year. She told me Dennis never accepted that he had done anything wrong because not one of his victims was reported missing.

This means no one even noticed that they were missing, or if they noticed they didn't care.
So what wrong had he done by murdering them?

Even if he had not murdered them they would not escape death forever, since death comes to all of us.

If his victims could sue him they could not sue him for causing them death because they would have died anyway.

If they could sue him they would be suing him for depriving them of their lives sooner than they otherwise would have died.

But, what is the value of the enjoyment that cruising queers get out of life to anyone else in society? Nothing. Zilch. They would not be missed and were not missed.

Ergo it would not have been in the public interest to compensate them at all, because their lives were in fact to all intends and purposes worthless.

Therefore Nilsen did not think he had done anything wrong.

Therefore he should have been allowed to carry on cruising and killing gay men who are not missed when they are murdered, because no harm is done to society at all, is there?

Please do not report this for hate-speech, even if you are a libtard, because this post was inspired by a discussion about psychopaths. Instead, why don't you answer this question and explain to Dennis Nilsen

(a) why you think he was wrong to what he did and

(b) how society would be harmed if all the people whom no one cared enough to report missing were murdered by him and others like him.

(I already know what to say to him to tell him why he is wrong, of course, but I want to see if any of my readers can work this out on their own.)




Dennis Nilsen's mum talks about her son. Did she fuck him up? If so, why is she being treated with such deference? Cos she is a woman? Can you imagine Dennis's dad giving such an interview and being treated with such deference by the interviewer? Of course not, don't be so fucking stupid.


One must always remember that motherhood doesn't begin when the bastard is born, but when the female allowed a male to impregnate her. If she chose to fuck a criminal psychopath and her bastard is also a criminal psychopath why shouldn't she be blamed?


What and who is a psychopath?

What and who is a psychopath?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29804446




Can You Pass The Psychopath Test?

My result:

"Sometimes you are a little distant from other people. You are no stranger to difficult times and a little depression, but overall, you are fairly friendly, outgoing and enjoy the company of others. You don't like to be on your own too much, you are very empathic, and you do feel bad when you see someone in need (heck, you might even help others from time to time!)

Don't worry about your potential to become a psychopath, as long as you keep yourself surrounded with good people and a healthy lifestyle, you will be fine!"

Wednesday, 29 October 2014

What Muslim convert Sooraya Graham really wanted to do: to turn Muslim women into sex objects and mock Islam


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/12/sooraya-graham-bra-muslim-saudi-arabia_n_1421478.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/bra-photo-forces-muslim-woman-into-hiding/

If Sooraya Graham says she is Muslim, then she must have been a convert.

She should just star in a porn video with her in her hijab doing whatever she gets up to with her long-haired boyfriend and see what happens.

She is a convert thinking she can make her point as a white woman who thinks nothing of having premarital sex using her white feminist privilege to mock Islam and Muslim women but expect no comeback from Muslims.

Of course, I expect Islamophobic libtard men to defend women like her who openly fornicate unquestioningly because their reaction is as predictable as night following day.

These men clearly regard their right to have extramarital and recreational sex as far far far more important than respecting the institution of marriage which means forbidding extramarital sex. This is the real ideological divide between Islam and feminism.

We already know these pitiable libtard Islamophobes would happily fight pointless and ruinous wars to defend this principle for the "honour" of women like her and have already been doing so since Iraq was invaded in 2003.

How Feminism Led To Two World Wars

After all, was  not the Trojan War fought over a woman who had extramarital sex too?

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

My complaint to The Today Programme about an Ebola female doctor's bad grammar

Dr Geraldine O'Hara who went to Oxford, said the following at

2:41:

"The woman was sat on the floor"

https://audioboom.com/boos/2603499-dr-geraldine-o-hara-s-ebola-audio-diary

I write to complain about the BBC condoning bad grammar in a member of the learned profession. I had a nasty turn when I heard John Humphrys saying "was sat" too, but that was some time ago and I let that pass.

Now that bad grammar is now mixed up with a nasty life-threatening tropical disease that will soon be out of control, I feel it is now time to make a stand.

It is impossible to convey the sense of despair and foreboding I feel about the way the media gives the impression that women are being in charge of Ebola and therefore by extension that it is going to be allowed into Britain to kill us all too, while female doctors take time off to collect their kids from school.  The fact that this female doctor has bad grammar as well as a regional accent does not give confidence to me or the public. The fact that the BBC does not see fit to correct this grammatical error and perpetuates it is even more disturbing and alarming.

The increasing number of people who say "the amount of people" instead of "the number of people" who go uncorrected simply confirms my diagnosis that not only is this country degenerate, but the libtards of the BBC are actually going around encouraging and promoting this by refusing to correct anyone's grammar.

It was Montaigne who said that grammar is the logic of language. When educated people no longer care about grammar or logic, we may safely conclude that we and our government are indeed degenerate and decline and doom is imminent and inevitable.

Doubtless we will soon be reduced to grunting or saying "fuck off" to each other in varying tones of voice to convey emotion and information after we have forgotten all the other words. Is this what the BBC wants? If so, why should the BBC licence fee payer be forced to fund this?

I look forward to hearing from you as to whether my complaint about Dr O'Hara's bad grammar will be conveyed to her so that she will desist from using "was sat" next time she is sitting anywhere or sees anyone sitting anywhere that she sees fit to inform us about.

Claire Khaw

Sent 9.30AM
29/10/2014

"It's surprising who I've considered voting for since I became disillusioned with the main parties."


Tuesday, 28 October 2014

An alternative Pope and an alternative Vatican in Detroit



Michael Voris is very angry with the libardtion of the Catholic Church and is plotting revolution.




https://www.facebook.com/pages/Michael-Voris-for-Pope-or-President-or-both/1492050997746004

The Alternative Pope Michael Voris could live here.

Saturday, 25 October 2014

Marriage protects beta males, but atheist 21st century beta males won't stand up for it because they already know it is too late for them

I have always acknowledged the necessity for any ideology -  including Secular Koranism which would criminalise extramarital sex - to appeal to the people who matter. The people who might favour my ideas I would not expect to be part of the current political establishment and those already in the matriarchal political establishment who might favour my ideas would be fearful of doing so simply because they fear being expelled from it. It is a big ask.

In theory, however, men would favour my ideas because my ideas would raise their status.

In theory most mothers with young children - even if they are illegitimate - would favour my ideas because they would be the ones most desirous of having a protector and a provider while they bring up young children, and even mothers of illegitimate offspring would probably easily admit that they would prefer to have had a husband before becoming a mother if only they could have found a decent man to marry.

It would not be too hard to get beta males to understand how marriage protects them and gives them status and a stake in society as well as reproductive rights to have legitimate offspring.

In practice, however, beta males are shunned and despised by women. Nothing is guaranteed to give any woman - feminist or not - the heebie geebies than the thought of having to settle for some pathetic loser of a beta male who is skint, scared, stupid and without ambition, charm or prospects. They would really rather be spinsters, lesbians, sluts, prostitutes or commit suicide or prepare to suffer a lonely old age than settle for a man they feel is lower in courage, intellect and income to themselves.

"A few minutes of alpha is better than a lifetime of beta." This is what a slut/feminist would say.

In practice, these SSMs who might concede that they would certainly have married if only they had found a man they could bear to marry already know it is too late for them and they are either too old or bitter to be considered attractive enough to be wife material or they are already saddled with "baggage" in the form of having some man's brat and bastard in tow.

There are now more unmarriageable men like that than there ever were before. If you are asking feminists to now settle for this worst case scenario of being practically forced into marrying a beta male whose political views and person they find actually repulsive, it is, let's face it, a big ask.

Even if the media were co-operative, I have the problem of people's negative attitudes and self interest that my ideas would threaten.

Most beta males are unmarriageable or don't want to get married anyway. They would therefore have no interest in discussing my idea of promoting marriage because they fear the mockery of women they might wish to have sex with, and the mockery of men who are not as stupid, skint and scared as they are.

Male solidarity no longer exists. Because life is comfortable enough for most men, they only compete against each other for the sexual favours of sluts and the sexual favour of a slut can be gained for being a white knight and coming to the defence of any slut who might give them sex out of pity or gratitude, even if only once. Instead of standing up for each other, they would think nothing of betraying each other for the sexual favours of a slut.

Because beta males are despised by women of their own race and because there is no longer any disgrace in white women having sex with men of other races, white beta males face not only competition from alpha males of their own race, they also face competition from males of other races.

Let us say a white woman has two beta males to choose from: one from her own race and one of another race. She will probably choose the beta of another race because she will perceive him as having a higher status because he managed to make his way into her country, even as an illegal immigrant, than the white local male whose ways she already knows so well. Familiarity breeds contempt, after all.

I have explained to the beta males complaining about immigration that they need to find themselves a leader, but they are not interested.

I have explained to the beta males complaining about feminism that they need to declare an OFFICIAL marriage strike, but they are not interested either.

Why aren't they interested?

The beta males complaining about immigration do not trust each other and also despise other beta males; a beta male will not accept the authority of another beta male, only an alpha male, and they are all without exception beta males with no leadership qualities.  There are no alpha males in nationalism because beta males are only conscripted by their grievance and alpha males in nationalism are either shepherds or wolves. Sadly for the beta males complaining about immigration, their previous leader was a wolf (Nick Griffin) and their current leader is another beta male like them (Adam Walker).

If they had not been a member of the lumpenproletariat, or  had money or lived in a nice white neighbourhood, they would also despise these beta males complaining about immigration and regard them as inferior omega males who deserve to suffer.

Many may wonder why I, a female and a foreigner, should take an interest in a group of people who are not my race, class or sex and who would instinctively suspect me for my race, sex and national origin. I have often wondered myself, and have concluded that I have arrived at an important truth that it would be as well for future generations and other races, nations and cultures to bear in mind, viz the importance of maintaining the practice of marriage through instilling a general belief in God. While demonstrating the link between marriage and God, could I interest you in a little Secular Koranism?

As for the beta males complaining about feminism, being beta, they lack the imagination to conduct a bold publicity stunt and the courage to see it through. If they declared an OFFICIAL marriage strike they would be mocked, but they do not have the initiative to find an alpha male to lead them, or do not feel they could ever succeed in finding anyone to lead them even if they tried. Perhaps these mulish men simply dislike the idea of being told to do anything by anyone, even if he is alpha. The beta male is not known for his social confidence, after all, or his ambition or effectiveness. That is why he is a beta.

Why will no alpha male help them?

Because an alpha male would not be living in ethnically mixed high crime neighbourhoods these betas live in, and he would know that his status would be lowered by taking an interest in the plight of the beta male complaining about immigration and feminism and of being tainted by association.

Women, being above men because they have the vote and can divorce their husbands without stigma under the rules of no fault divorce, in fact exert a vice-like grip over the autonomy and liberties of men who instinctively exercise self-censorship.

Because exercising self-censorship makes men feel oppressed, they comfort themselves through making themselves believe in feminist propaganda and pretending that their lives have been improved by feminism because they now in theory have more sexual access to more women, even if it may mean years later having their reputations ruined through being accused of a historic sexual offence by a malicious woman known to be sexually promiscuous.

To say anything against the matriarchy ie complain about feminism or immigration, would jeopardise their status through losing their job, not getting promotion, losing their wife and access to their children and of course their property, pension and wealth.

Why should any alpha male gives up his status and privileges to help a bunch of losers who are universally despised?

I am actually in an ideal position to help them, but what remains of their racial and masculine pride forbids them from choosing me as their leader.

Not only is my sex, race and country of origin against me, my detestable promotion of Secular Koranism http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html is something none of them can abide and that is why they cannot bring themselves to even discuss my ideas, even for the purposes of mocking them.

Secular Koranism is a version of Islam and they cannot abide Muslims whose very presence in this country is an affront to them.  They hate Muslims because they are so visible and because they are a daily reminder of their impotence and lowered status since the end of  imperial glory.

Being descendants of Christians ancestors, they would also have inherited their antisemitic prejudices. Being mostly descendants of members Episcopalian Church, they would also have inherited their hatred of Popery and be suspicious of Catholics in general.

Beta/omega males coming from the lumpenproletariat are not good about discussing other ideas even amongst themselves, so I know I cannot expect them to discuss my ideas which they will doubtless consider alien, outlandish and literally unspeakable.

If there had been a single man who was both complaining about immigration and feminism who was an alpha male, he would have taken my ideas and run with them. Before doing so he would have thought of challenging them and testing them to destruction by asking me difficult questions to test their strength, coherence and practicability, but none of this has happened.

Their attitude is best represented by the following, spoken or implied:

"What do you expect me to do about this? I am just a skint, scared and stupid beta male without imagination or ambition, afraid of radical ideas and change."

"Your ideas are stupid but I won't engage with you about why I think they are stupid because I would fall into the trap of letting you win the argument when I cannot prove that your ideas are in fact stupid."

"When I say that your ideas are stupid, I mean that they are so detestable that I hope they will never be implemented, even if this means that the problems I am complaining about will not be solved, but I don't mind as long as I can take to my grave the idea that I am a member of a superior race, without being forced by circumstances to formally acknowledge that this is no longer or was ever the case."

"The truth is that I find your ideas so detestable that I cannot bring myself to discuss them, even in theory. Sorry."

Basically, what we have here is a bunch of betas with a problem, but who refuse to do the thing that would solve their problem and are too stupid to see how stupid that is.

Males with alpha qualities are mostly atheists and atheists are short-termists who do not care how posterity judges them as long as they can fill their boots while they live.  (I call them males with alpha qualities because they are not really alpha males at all.  Real alpha males would not be afraid of offending omega females ie Slut Single Mothers also known as  SSMs.  David Cameron is the supposed alpha male of Britain, but all leaders of UK political parties are also afraid of offending  omega female, who all have the vote in our political environment of indiscriminate universal suffrage. The omega female is the least desirable female partner for a man looking for a wife and a mother for his legitimate children because she has already borne the mistake of another man.) Atheist males who do not have legitimate offspring or who are estranged from them because they have been deprived of access to their offspring by their ex-wives, think and behave like childless homosexuals. Because these men estranged from their offspring no longer feel they have control or love for their delinquent sons badly brought up their mothers, they really don't care what happens to their sons after they die. The purpose of these males with alpha qualities is to take their pleasures as they come and their ambition is to use up all their wealth before they die leaving nothing behind because they either have no children or hate their own delinquent offspring.  Some of them even make the BNP  the beneficiaries of their will to spite their unfilial offspring. http://www.wilsonandfish.co.uk/Blog/wills/sons-challenge-fathers-bequest.html

In effeminate societies, men are as risk-averse as women. Atheist men who grew up and grew old in an environment of hedonism, hypocrisy, cowardice, slut-worship and the systematic cultivation of failure will have no inclination to discuss revolutionary ideas they know they have no ability or stomach to implement.

With no faith, no moral courage, no regard for the truth and no desire to uphold any principle because their moral and intellectual education and courage was deficient in these regards, even charismatic men who are well-educated and went to best schools are no better than the most unprepossessing beta male.  Nigel Farage has already demonstrated his cowardice and risk-aversion when  he declared that he would not be repealing the Equality Act 2010. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/05/ukip-councillor-donna-edmunds-women-gay-people

These ageing men who dislike 21st century Britain are  regarded with contempt and pity by women especially if they show that they dislike foreign food and or any signs of being  unadventurous and boring.  The older men become, the less adventurous they become and the more like old women they become.

When enough of them have died out through natural attrition, Islam will take over after young Muslim men who are prepared to take risks and prepared to fight move in after these effete senescent men - low in talent and courage as well as weak of spirit and in mind - roll over after they have died.

What is my role in this?

I tried my best to point out the possible courses of action. I did not of course expect any of these beta males to make me their leader. The most I hoped for was someone of their number being prepared to take my ideas and run with them instead of continuing blaming Jews, Muslims, immigrants and other races, but not a bit of it.

They are in a sorry state and I understand perfectly now why other cultures made a point of treating sluts and bastards badly to prevent precisely this state of advanced moral putrefaction that now pervades the West, of sluts and bastards taking over after becoming the majority.  In the West, the visceral disgust right-thinking members of society would instinctively feel for the slut has been all but bred out of them.

I like to think that I, a female and a foreigner, was sent by their ancestors as a warning and a reminder to these effete sexually-enslaved men of the West.  I am the only one with a political ideology that does not entail being nasty to Jews, Muslims, other races and foreigners.  Indeed, my message is simply to take marriage seriously again, but even saying this is considered blasphemy to the sexually-liberated Westerner the majority of whom regard their right to have extramarital sex as much much more important than respecting marriage itself.

Because they will dismiss out of hand any proposal to have laws that punish those who have extramarital sex nothing will improve because they are part of the problem: by being unwilling to discuss how the problem can be solved, they are in fact denying that there is even a problem.

Why do they deny that there is a problem?

Because they cannot bear the cure.

Livy: "We can no longer bear our vices nor their cure."


What it means in practice to respect marriage


  1. The abolition of no-fault divorce. (No-fault divorce allows wives to divorce their husbands just for being old, irritating, fat and boring and then take half their property and deprive them of their children.)
  2. The requirement that both parties agree a marriage contract before a marriage is legally valid
  3. The repeal of the Equality Act 2010 to restrict the lifestyle choices of women who would otherwise choose not to  marry or remain faithful to a beta male.
  4. The criminalising of extramarital sex and the corporal punishment of 100 lashes for anyone convicted of having extramarital sex  http://quran.com/24/2 as well as the practice of slut-shaming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming
  5. It be implied into every marriage contract a term that give the husband the right to carry out a DNA test on every child borne by his wife

Can you imagine pathetic beta male losers asking for any of the above?

Can you imagine alpha males asking for any of this when they already get so much free  pussy?  

Only I can do it because I don't care if sluts say they won't have sex with me and I do not have a wife who will divorce me just for questioning and challenging feminism.  

Give me your support and things may yet change. If you do not agree with my ideas, then at least tell me what better ones you have. If you haven't any then I think you are morally obliged to support my ideas by discussing them with other men and getting your political party to support them.  If moral obligation counts for nothing with you  then you deserve the continued oppression of the matriarchy and the continuing weakening and decline of the civilisation your ancestors built that will be recorded by history as having fallen under your watch, because men in the West no longer have any shame or any pride because most of them are atheists, Commie Pinko libtards, homos and pussy-whipped slut-worshiping manginas.  

Saturday, 18 October 2014

Claire Khaw asked to leave philosophy group for questioning the basis of Western academic philosophy

The Mind-Body Problem


"If consciousness itself could be identified with some kind of physical state, the way would be open for a unified physical theory of mind and body, and therefore perhaps for a unified physical theory of the universe. But the reasons against a purely physical theory of consciousness are strong enough to make it seem likely that a physical theory of the whole of reality is impossible. Physical science has progressed by leaving the mind out of what it tries to explain, but there may be more to the world than can be understood by physical science."  
– Thomas Nagel, What Does It All Mean? A Very Short Introduction To Philosophy, pp. 36–7 
  • Claire Khaw
    Claire Khaw
    If we want to know what consciousness is, look it up in a dictionary.
    Like · Reply · October 7 · Mute
    • Andrea Kennard
      Andrea Kennard
      Surely the dictionary isn't the only place to find out about anything? Wouldn't that be a bit one dimensional?
      Like · October 7
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      I think asking ourselves what consciousness is is a distraction then there are far more interesting and important things to discuss.
      Like · October 7
    • Andrea Kennard
      Andrea Kennard
      According to the guy in the video, consciousness is the only thing that each of us can really be wholly certain of about ourselves. As he points out, I don't really know if anyone else even exists. The only thing that truly exists is my own consciousness. (I don't necessarily hold this as my own thought, but I think that is what the guy is saying). I think consciousness is only one aspect of three anyway - what about the Semi and the Unconscious parts? Those are equally important but less discussed.
      What sorts of things do you think are more interesting and important, Claire?
      Like · October 7
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      The following come to mind:
      What is wisdom?
      How is wisdom measured?
      How can we distinguish good from evil, truth from falsehood, right from wrong?
      Nobody really doubts that they are conscious, do they?
      It was just a rhetorical device devised by Descartes to "prove" that God existed.
      Like · October 7
    • Andrea Kennard
      Andrea Kennard
      I don't think it is necessarily that people doubt they are conscious, but more what does it mean? What is consciousness for? Why have it at all? What does it allow? What is this 'one consciousness' thing that the New Age movement seems to think is so special? What happens when you fall asleep and are no longer conscious?
      Your questions are valid too, what is wisdom indeed? Although you could, again, look that one up in the dictionary.
      How is wisdom measured? Is it even measurable? is measurement really important anyway?
      Good/evil, right/wrong - I would say it isn't what you do, but why you do it that determines if anything is right or wrong - and against what?
      All questions are valid. All should always lead to more questions. Once you hit up against a full answer, that line of reasoning dies and becomes stagnant. Nothing should end up in that situation...
      1 · Like · October 8
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      Consciousness is necessary for us to go about the business of being alive.
      Like · October 8
    • Scott
      Scott
      Claire and Andrea – thanks for getting the discussion started. Listen to what Chalmers says around 02:55. Can we imagine creatures that look and behave just like us despite the fact that they have no inner conscious life? If so, it’s by no means obvious that consciousness is practically necessary. And listen to what Chalmers goes on to say about the supposed evolutionary function of consciousness. The question here is why, in addition to our complex physiologies, we also need to have an inner conscious life.
      Like · October 8
    • Andrea Kennard
      Andrea Kennard
      Can something be alive if it doesn't have some sort of consciousness? even a most basic rudimentary one? Where does consciousness reside in a being?
      Like · October 9
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      Plants are living organisms. Why do people have such a problem with this? Why does philosophy make people ask such stupid questions?
      Like · October 9
    • Andrea Kennard
      Andrea Kennard
      Sorry, are you having a dig at me? I am not clear on your messages.
      Like · October 9
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      Why do philosophers keep asking each other "What is consciousness?" What is the point of this?
      Like · October 9
    • Andrea Kennard
      Andrea Kennard
      Wow.
      Like · October 9
    • Scott
      Scott
      The point of asking 'What is consciousness?' is to clarify the idea of an inner conscious life. Claire, have thought about what Chalmers says around 02:55? Can you put the question he's asking in your own words and explain why it's stupid? That would take this discussion forward.
      Like · October 9
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      Do I have to watch that long-haired hippy wittering on about consciousness again? I don't think I will. Does anyone know which philosopher started asking that question, after which people got the wrong end of the stick and kept asking themselves that question?
      This particular philosopher was actually trying to make another point and it was really only a rhetorical question. If someone gives me the correct answer, then this silly subject can be put to bed forever.
      Like · October 9
    • Andrea Kennard
      Andrea Kennard
      Surely the fact that there is no final answer to such a question points to the need to continue to question it? The fact that consciousness evolves means that questions about it would also evolve?
      Like · October 9
    • Scott
      Scott
      Claire, there’s no need to be so insulting. Perhaps you can tell us which philosopher you’re thinking of (not Descartes, presumably) and explain why the question ‘What is consciousness?’ was for him or her merely rhetorical.
      Like · October 9
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      Yes, it was indeed Descartes I was thinking of. He was only leading up to proving that one can know *just by thinking about it* that God exists, just as he "proved" that nothing produces that sense of certainty that we exist as the answer to the question "Do I exist?"
      Like · October 9
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      The concept of God most certainly exists, even if His actual existence is in doubt. However, the question to ask is whether it would be useful for most people to believe in Him.
      Like · October 9
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      No atheist would deny that God is an instrument of government, and I see no harm in using God as an instrument of government. A general belief in God would enable us to have fewer laws and lower taxes too.
      Like · October 9
    • Andrea Kennard
      Andrea Kennard
      I don't follow this at all. Why would a general belief in God enable us to have fewer laws and lower taxes? And a belief in God would be useful for what?
      Like · October 9
    • Scott
      Scott
      OK, but we’re not talking about government at the moment. Are you happy with Descartes’ account of the mind? He takes the mind to be a non-physical substance that consists of representations of an external world. He needs to prove the existence of God, not reduce the number of laws or lower taxes, but to establish the trustworthiness of mental representations. The verdict of philosophy since Descartes is that his proofs fail. (If his philosophy is an instrument of government, it’s a very bad instrument.) He sets himself a problem he can’t solve: How do mind and body interact?
      Like · October 9
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      Yes, I am aware of the empiricist and rationalist debate about the existence of God, and also of the conclusion that the only intellectual respectable position to take is to be agnostic, since it is impossible to prove to that God exists to one who doesn't wish to believe or that God does not exist to one who wishes to believe. It was Voltaire who pointed out that if God did not exist it would be necessary to invent Him to assist us in our morality, spirituality, government and politcs.
      My position is to simply posit that the *concept* of God exists, and we can pretend that He does simply by following His laws. We will be the happier and better for it, just like Pygmalion, in fact.
      Like · October 9
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      As for how we can be certain about anything, we can only use a range of tests which already exist. The trouble about truth, evidence and arguments is that they tend to be rejected by those who dislike their conclusions, especially by those who hare more power than us. The problem is really more one of morality and education rather than methodology, in my opinion.
      Like · October 9
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      As for how the mind and body interacts, let us just say that the mind exists in the brain, just like a computer programme runs on a computer, and software runs on hardware. The SIM card and its memory is the soul of our phone but cannot work without the phone we hold in our hands, and so on.
      Like · October 9
    • Scott
      Scott
      Thanks, Claire. You've made your views clear.
      1 · Unlike · October 10
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      I try!
      Like · October 10
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      But you will still carry on asking this question and inviting people to consider it, when there are more important and useful questions they could be considering, it seems!
      Like · 3 days ago
    • Kroum
      Kroum
      Ha, I've enjoyed reading this. I like being exposed to arguments I completely disagree with. Namely, I think considering the question about consciousness is essential to gain any true understanding of anything, even of what understanding even means (the concept, not the dictionary definition). The questions posed by Claire are special cases of the general inquiry, and I question defining them as "more important".
      1 · Like · Yesterday
    • Kroum
      Kroum
      After all, we live in a country where people are able to look up in the dictionary or discuss, as they choose. Defining either approach as stupid is not insulting - people see the world not as it is, but as they are.
      1 · Like · Yesterday
    • Scott
      Scott
      Kroum, your closing remark reminds me of Kant, who said something similar but at a higher level of abstraction. Have you ever looked into Kant's philosophy? Perhaps we could do a session on it.
      Like · Yesterday
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      Kant's only useful contribution to human wisdom was his principle of universalisability.
      Like · Yesterday
    • Kroum
      Kroum
      Scott - I haven't yet in detail, so I like your idea. What did he say? That's a Buddhist saying; sometimes the simpler the saying is, the deeper meaning it conveys, and it can reach more people. That's one of my gripes with how philosophy is sometimes presented, and made sound elitist, especially in the West.
      1 · Like · Yesterday
    • Kroum
      Kroum
      Claire, you sound like you have a lot to contribute, I like you. I just wish you would do it in a less confrontational way - nothing to prove here, we're in this to enrich ourselves in one way or another. Posting here means that you want the same thing, so let it happen, you might surprise yourself...
      Like · Yesterday
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      I would like to see philosophers making more of a contribution to morality and religion, instead of indulging in their perpetual navel-gazing asking each other what consciousness is. Nothing that has gone on here suggests that anyone here is interested in what I am interested in. Seeming confrontational is the inevitable side effect of making my position clear while challenging the academic establishment that will always have the final word on what constitutes philosophy in the West. (It seems to me to be the exercise of asking each other silly questions and then not even bothering to answer them properly.)
      Like · Yesterday
    • Kroum
      Kroum
      So you are a philosophy activist - great stuff! I think we are small fish, I certainly don't consider myself a philosopher, let alone academic establishment on the subject. However, exploring such a fundamental question cannot be done from the position of one field of knowledge alone, in my opinion, it's all connected. Have you checked out the Mind and Life series, where the Dalai Lama and other monks gather with Western scientists (and philosophers occasionally) to discuss just what you wish to see, amongst other things? I don't see why you would think that by being willing to approach the subject of consciousness the people in this group are not interested in the questions you pose...
      Like · Yesterday
    • Kroum
      Kroum
      Religions ultimately carry the same message, but trying to steer all fields of knowledge to contribute to religion/morality as it is understood at a given period in time proved misguided on occasion, and the ones who strayed from that proved to be the real carriers of progress - Galileo, Copernicus, Brache, etc. So what we attempt to do in this group, at least according to my understanding, is to have an open mind about things, and while exploring what Kant etc. had to say on one subject or another, try to gain a better understanding of how things really are, from our separate perspectives. Is there a need for morality if people saw things how they are? I believe that underneath people are good, and religion/morality can be perceived as tools to battle their egos into submission, so that they can live together in a more harmonious way. You can contribute to that, if you wish, I'd be glad. If not - good luck with destroying the academic establishment.
      1 · Like · Yesterday
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      I am afraid I think the Dalai Lama is a platitudinous Western stooge and that all who are taken in by him are imbeciles who should be deprived of the vote.
      Like · Yesterday
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      What is the message that you claim all religions carry, Kroum?
      Like · Yesterday
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      Morality is instilled by religion, and religionis just another word for state ideology. The religion of the West is not Christianity as so many people mistakenly think, but PC Liberalism already enshrined in law in PC Liberal legislation such as the Equality Act 2010 and no-fault divorce, which I propose is repealed and abolished.
      Like · Yesterday
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      All that Kant basically said is that sometimes, we can tell ab initio that an idea is wrong or a proposed course of action will not achieved the desired result ie rationalism, and at other times we need to give something a chance before pronouncing on it ie empiricism. Kant helpfully gave us a way of working out the morality of any behaviour by asking ourselves what would happen if everybody else did it ie the principle of universalisability.
      Like · Yesterday
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      The questions that most interest me are (1) Who are the bad guys - ISIS or NATO? (2) Do we instinctively choose NATO because we live in the UK and the UK is a NATO member? (3) If we decide the UK are the good guys, what should we do? (4) If we decide that ISIS are the good guys, what should we do?
      Like · Yesterday
    • Scott
      Scott
      Let me add this. Although I teach philosophy at an elite university and must therefore be to some extent complicit in the elitism of academic philosophy, I am opposed to that elitism and regard these sessions as a constructive way to tackle it. Philosophy Off Brick Lane is an experiment. The idea is precisely to see how much sense it makes to study philosophy outside academia. My special contribution to our conversations is that of someone who knows the subject well. (I've been reading philosophy for over 25 years now.) The difficulty for me will be to get the balance right between being the teacher and being just another conversationalist, with no special contribution to make. There is a paradox here worth thinking about.
      1 · Like · Yesterday
    • Scott
      Scott
      Kant defined enlightenment as "the human being's emergence from his [or her] self-incurred immaturity." What on earth could that mean? The immaturity of a teacher, at least, is to believe that he or she has nothing to learn despite having something to teach. Teaching is allowing others to help you see what you know. What is learning?
      1 · Unlike · Yesterday
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      continued (5) If we are UK citizens would we be more inclined to ignore evidence that would point to the UK being one of the bad guys and dismiss evidence that jihadists might have a valid reasons for objecting to UK foreign policy? (6) Should people who don't know and don't care about foreign policy be deprived of the vote? (7) If our politicians get so much about domestic policy that they know we care about wrong, how likely are they to be even more careless about foreign policy which they must know most of don't know and don't care about until and unless it bites us in the bum?
      Like · Yesterday
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      (8) How many people do you think vote for a political party on the basis of its foreign policy? (9) Would it be fair to say that most voters don't care who our government bombs and kills in our name as long as it does not affect us? (10) Is democracy government by people who don't know and don't care about foreign policy? (11) If democracy is government by people who don't know and don't care about foreign policy until it bites them in the bum, how likely is the UK and other NATO members to be the good guys?
      Like · Yesterday
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      If you don't like my political questions, you could always ask yourselves more navel-gazing questions such as (a) Is Western philosophy wise? (b) What is the wisest thing you learned while studying Western philosophy? (c) Should philosophy graduates be shunned by employers to discourage university departments from sponsoring what amounts to no more than an exercise in futility by the vacuous, pretentious and pompous who have no useful knowledge to impart and only like the sound of their own voices?
      Like · Yesterday
    • Kroum
      Kroum
      Very useful this last bit - what do you think would happen if everybody else on here had your attitude? Now I see why China took over Tibet - those imbeciles were taken in by the Western stooge, and needed to be deprived of their right to vote. What use is that right when you can only vote for the latest reincarnation of the Chairman is beyond me, though... Also, your desire for philosophers to contribute to morality, which is instilled by religion (another means of state control) to me means that you want to destroy the academic establishment that encourages asking silly questions, so that it can contribute to the state/religious establishment's means of control over the imbeciles. Empirically, this discussion does not work for me, and you're correct that a no-fault divorce is not applicable here...
      Like · Yesterday
    • Kroum
      Kroum
      Ha, missed a few posts, prolific discussion, like it. I, for one, did not join this group to talk about ISIS, Putin, NATO, Assad, Hezbollah etc - I do that in other venues, I'm sure you'll find one yourself too. Or just because one pompous, self-righteous group of people have decided to have a beef with another pompous, self-righteous group at some sliver of the history of an insignificant form of life on an insignificant planet, all of a sudden everything else has to stop and all meetup groups have to be concerned with this? Or is it all about employment, productivity, and business encouraging the universities what to teach and what not to teach? Feels like you want to get yourself out of the system, but cannot get the system out of you. Just my two cents...
      Like · Yesterday
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      Some of you may have heard of the concept of practical wisdom or even phronesis. Perhaps as academic philosophers you have some sort of moral objection to exercising this and prefer to return to such questions as asking each other what is consciousness?
      Like · Yesterday
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      I apologise for having omitted to answer Andrea's questions which were "Why would a general belief in God enable us to have fewer laws and lower taxes? And a belief in God would be useful for what?" The Koran prescribes a 20% flat rate tax. http://en.wikipedia.o...­ A belief in God is like having a policeman in your head and is obviously cheaper than CCTV.
      Like · Yesterday
    • Scott
      Scott
      Claire, it would be odd of me to join some other Meetup group just to tell its members to do something else. (A cookery Meetup group, for example – in the meetings of which no mention of the mind-body problem is likely to be made.) Presumably, you haven't joined this one just to criticise the rest of us for wanting to gain a better understanding of philosophy. You seem yourself to have devoted time to the subject and are quick to demonstrate your erudition. Why are you telling others not to bother learning what you've learnt?
      Like · Yesterday
    • Scott
      Scott
      As I've already suggested to you, there are different ways of doing philosophy, one of which is to question the point of doing it. (That's modernity for you.) Hume, Nietzsche and Wittgenstein were all very critical of at least some forms of philosophical activity, as you may know. But they were critical with a view to gaining a better understanding of what troubled them philosophically. Does anything trouble YOU philosophically? If not, this may be the wrong Meetup group for you. But you seem to be interested in philosophy. What's going on here? If you think philosophy is pointless, what for you was the point of joining this Meetup group?
      Like · Yesterday
    • Scott
      Scott
      And thank you again for your interesting contributions.
      Like · Yesterday
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      "Why are you telling others not to bother learning what you've learnt?" I am just saying there are more interesting questions than asking ourselves what is consciousness.
      Like · Yesterday
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      While I think philosophy as it is currently taught and learned is pointless, I think it could be more useful, if philosophers asked themselves more interesting questions and made a point of answering them properly.
      Like · Yesterday
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      It really makes me shudder anyone giving up three years of their life to study philosophy just to talk in a pretentious pointless way guaranteed to make everyone hate you while imparting absolutely no wisdom at all ....
      1 · Like · Yesterday
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      http://en.wikipedia.o...­ is what philosophers should be concentrating on, not asking each other what consciousness is.
      Like · Yesterday
    • Scott
      Scott
      Your image of philosophy makes me shudder, too.
      Like · Yesterday
    • Kroum
      Kroum
      Sorry to butt in again, but I found this lightly amusing, on many levels: "It really makes me shudder anyone giving up three years of their life to study philosophy just to talk in a pretentious pointless way guaranteed to make everyone hate you while imparting absolutely no wisdom at all ...."
      Like · Yesterday
    • Scott
      Scott
      Claire, is this you? Are these your views?http://en.metapedia.o...­
      Like · 9h ago
    • Scott
      Scott
      Like · 9h ago
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      Yes, those are my views, more or less, and I am that person referred to in the second link you provided. Do you have a problem with that? ;-)
      Like · 1h ago
    • Scott
      Scott
      Members, click on the second link above and you will see a photograph of Claire Khaw and a neo-Nazi (who runs as an independent candidate somewhere) standing with rifles in front of a swastika. You will find it on a holocaust denial website. An acronym Khaw devised for single mothers will give you some idea of her politics. She refers to them SSMs, which stands for single slut mothers. Apparently, Khaw was expelled from the BNP for having views too extreme even for them. In a personal communication to me this morning, she has explained why she has been so insulting in this exchange. She has ‘an online persona that [she] ha[s] developed over the years and which [she] automatically adopt[s] when engaging in any political and philosophical discussion online’.
      Like · 37m ago
    • Scott
      Scott
      Claire, I would like you to leave this Meetup group.
      Like · 37m ago
    • Claire Khaw
      Claire Khaw
      Why don't you just remove me then?
      Like · 26m ago