Thursday, 14. May 2009, 15:07:42
Thoughts, Argument
Hello again.
First, let me make an apology for my prolonged absence. I have had a bit of a strange run of misfortune, due to a slight human error, that has left my mind elsewhere.
Anyhow, I just read an article about non-belief. Religion is undoubtedly good for the soul. It offers itself as a panacea to the problems the world throws at us, but does that mean the atheists among us are doomed? Are secular societies to be feared and avoided?
Religion, we are told, can prolong our lives and help keep our society in check. However, while people argue that godless societies devolve into a lawlessness and immorality, the best societies were some of the least religious countries in the world. Scandinavian countries, for instance, have the lowest church attendance rates, also the lowest rates in belief in God or Jesus or the Bible. If they did believe, that belief was weak.
Do secular societies descend into chaos and throw up nightmare states? Do drop me a line 
Saturday, 4. April 2009, 09:29:37
Thoughts, Argument
It's been quite a while I'm enjoying My Opera which let me find new friends and have good academic discussions with them - from philosophy to social phenomena. Thanks to everybody for the time you spent on my blog and on the topics.
I just started a Community group under the name Intellectual Discussions with the aim of bringing like-minded people as well as those of opposite and different ideas together, exchanging thoughts. You know what they say: if you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas. Especially taking into account the fact that similar groups about these kinds of topics are all inactive in My Opera.
Right now, we have only 6 topics in group's forum. You can start the topic you're interested in right away.
I'm not advertising this group (although I may seem so) or seeking to increase my page's traffic and statistics. I'm just trying to discuss attentively and politely with friends on topics we all share interest on.
Please, take your time, look around and maybe you'll get inspired
Updated: There are 37 members already!
Saturday, 28. March 2009, 08:29:00
Thoughts
The conflicting beliefs, that competition serves to drive the advancement of society thereby bringing wealth and happiness, and its counter, that competition acts by bring destruction and suffering are common place within society. The reality of competition is that it has both beneficial and detrimental manifestations; it comes in both constructive and destructive forms.
A common belief of those with a positive attitude towards competition is that competition acts as a significant force driving the individual towards competence and strength, however, this is only true in the case of constructive competition. But the problem with competition is that it only works if both competitors behave in this constructive fashion. If one competitor behaves constructively, while the other chooses to carry out destructive activities, since destruction is more effective than construction the constructive competitor would quickly lose. Therefore, no one can behave in a constructively competitive manner unless they can be assured that their competitor will behave likewise.Unions
Competition is by far the most common strategy in nature. This occurs since constructive competition acts to make the members of a species stronger and hence more capable of out-competing other species which compete with them. Since other species are genetically different from each other, a given species can never trust another species to act constructively or non-competitively. Therefore, it is necessary for all such species to maximize the competitive power of their members in order to ensure that such members would be able to out-compete any competition from such other species. Any species failing to use constructive competition between its members would inevitably go extinct.
In a union, the members do not compete for “food”, they simply gather as much as they can and share what they gather. Because of this behavior, a union will more efficiently gather “food” than an equal number of individuals each working alone, and more over, the members of the union will be healthier since they do not have to deal with “starvation” if another member of the union gets to the “food supply” ahead of them. As such, a union of members will typically out-compete a large number of individuals.
The only time when constructive competition occurs within a union and individuals is during the union’s competition to be “the queen”. And so the individuals, by sacrificing the non-competitive advantage, maintain a greater individual competitive power, and so are able to survive despite the non-competitive strength of the union.
What makes this disadvantage of the union acceptable is the extremely close “genetic relationships” (personality, structure, as well as common characteristics I mean) between the members. Because of this close similarity in “genetics”, members of non-competitive structures gain relatively little by constructive competition between each other: with so little difference between the members, one member’s genes are generally equal to another’s in quality. Because of this, species (in which closely related individuals group together), will develop non-competitive behaviors within these groups, since doing so is of benefit; because such species can gain the advantage of non-competition for a minimal loss of individual competitive power.Supporters as well as defiants of terms such as Union (locally or internationally) and even Globalization each make use of the concept competition and its different aspects to justify their ideas.
Wednesday, 18. March 2009, 12:28:52
Thoughts
Most people believe in absolute laws and rules in this world: absolute moral laws or absolute thoughts about God, reality, existence, etc.
For man, to recognize reality is something relative. We human beings, in the position of living creatures and being dependent on fundamental living conditions, observe the truth from the life’s point of view - and whatever necessary and useful for it. Therefore, even from the most even-handed sight, every single truth is inferred unilateral and on our side.
For furthur reading, have a glance at Poincaré And His Idea About World's Physical Structure
Sunday, 15. March 2009, 05:48:10
Thoughts
I've always disliked Western Media's manipulation in spreading misinformation and thoughts favored by Politics, which are mostly meaningless in reality. Although I don't believe in religions, but my my recent arguement with ste-ven in Lioka's page as well as the conversation daxonmacs and I had (about internet initially, but about media finally) made me decide to post about ideological paradoxes - specially regarding Islam and Middle East - present in European and American society.
With the Western media’s spotlight and some Western governmental attitudes, the West is a place where Middle East and Islam are names of negativity. The media often misrepresents and inaccurately explains Islam and its manifestations. Shall we really blame Islam for poverty and civil wars in a few Islamic countries? If yes, then according to this logic, we should blame Christianity for wars occured in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc. and Jewism for indiscriminate killing of combatants and civilians in Palestine. We hear, on the news, about suicidal attacks (with bombs) by Moslems and conclude Muslims are potential terrorists. But, we've already forgotton tragedies like Columbine High School Massacre or Virginia Tech Massacre and similar cases - like nothing serious happened.
Or cases like what ste-ven mentioned (in Lioka's page, under the same arguement) regarding Kurds situation in Turkey (so, Turks are "blood murderer", he concluded) is found everywhere. Now, I don't want to justify these problems "because they are found everywhere". All I want to say is that Western Media focuses only on Middle East, Islamic world and countries which are against them (like Russia). Or else, Japanese and Koreans have hatred towards each other, Kazaks hate Kyrgizes, or Russian minority suffer injustice in UK. But the spotlight is, intentionally, only on Middle East and Islam.
The West, with little or no understanding of "rest of the world' develops a distorted image that Western culture adopts, of not only Islam, but also whatever which is not "to their goods". It is really discouraging to see young bright people being misleaded.
I'd like to pull your attention to Roger Water's Amused to Death: a monkey randomly switching channels on a television, but explores numerous political and social themes, including critiques of the First Gulf War:
The little ones sit by their TV screens. No thoughts to think. No tears to cry. All sucked dry.
We have to do a multi-dimensional study to understand the actual situation in Middle East and Islamic world - rather than repeating 'extremists, fundamentalists' put by mass media in people's mouth. However, I'm pessimist about the future: I think we still have a long way to think beyond norms. As the last line, if you have time, you might like to read Trouble With Tolerance.
Friday, 6. March 2009, 10:02:35
IT, Thoughts
Internet is a means of communicating. It gives us an opportunity to be in intellectual and social contact with people of other countries and cultures: it contribute to eliminating borders. It also stores a huge mass of information (whatever you seek).
What role does it play in your life? I really appreciate this if you could count some benefits as well as disadvantages internet has brought to our lives.
Thursday, 19. February 2009, 05:33:53
Thoughts, Argument, Academic
There are a lot of issues that can make a person like me, a non religious one I mean, think that religions have played their part in our life. Complexity is one of them and I think a description of a Complex System is necessary in order to make myself clear.Read more...
Friday, 24. October 2008, 19:17:16
Thoughts
The famous sentence 'I Think, Therefore I exist' by René Descartes is a sample for the so-called direct knowledge which doesn't require any experience beforehand.
I don't want to talk about whether we exist or our life and existence is a deception (that was Descartes argument); this post is about self-evident propositions themselves.
It is believed that the sentence above-mentioned is held true on the clarity and self-evidence of the proposition: I'm now thinking and I don't need any experiment or external factor to find out that I'm thinking. But here, we identify the condition thinking because we have compared it with other verbs. I mean we once compared different verbs to talk, to hit, to go, etc together and observed their differences; and we're now able to recognize each action. So, in my humble opinion, 'I think' is not a direct self-evident proposition.
What's your opinion? Does any self-evident proposition exist?
Showing posts 1 -
8 of 13.
WIDGETIZE