This was published at Instapundit:
IS THERE A POSITIVE CASE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN? Geologist Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute insists there is and he has a new book out that makes the case. HillFaith is pleased to begin re-publishing a series of pieces by Luskin based on the book. It is offered here for informational purposes, not as a claimed last word. 459
The “459” at the end of the post will take you to the comments which you might also find of interest.
Having put up this post the other day – Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum – it brought me back to the phrase in which the Latin word “igitur” is most famously found – Gaudeamus igitur – which is the title of a mediaeval song that has been sung by students since the thirteenth century. I heard it first in Latin class in Grade XI sung by our Latin teacher, Mr Ireton. Here are the words, Latin first and then in English translation, the opening verse only.
Gaudeamus igitur,
Iuvenes dum sumus,
Post jucundam juventutem
Post molestam senectutem
Nos habebit humus.Let us rejoice
While we are (still) young.
After a pleasant youth
After a troubling old age
The earth will have us.
I may already have worked out by then that life would fly by before I knew it, but that was the song that put that thought firmly into my mind, a thought which has never disappeared. And when I saw the word the other day – and I might note I was taught “igitur” never comes at the start of a sentence which when I saw the phrase quoted I knew I was not dealing with a scholarly use of the word – I thought of that song and its message. The message has been more than reinforced by a book I have just come across and have almost finished – Galileo & the Art of Ageing Mindfully : Wisdom from the Night Skies – which is discussed here.
With meditations on gravity, the turning Earth, and letting go, [its author Adam] Ford offers a personal synthesis of ideas on mindfulness, curiosity, ageing and stargazing. Part of the joy of growing older, he says, is in “letting go of certainties and living without answers”: but it’s a powerful thing to ask questions, and to contemplate those of centuries past.
It is the only book on mindfulness I have been able to resonate with, perhaps because the author and I are almost at the identical point in our lives. Not only was he at exactly the same age I now am when he wrote the book, not only has he also retired from work, but he had also, as I had myself, spent part of his youth in Hammersmith in London (not as odd as it was for me since I am Canadian-born and he is English). He also discusses on a couple of occasions when he had been in Australia.
I will only add that for me I have found dwelling on the brevity of life and living in the moment something I have always done (well, sort of). But if I were to name the philosophers in my reading past that have brought me here, they would include David Hume, as I have just discovered here: Was Hume a Secret Buddhist? The question for me then is this, am I now one as well?
Taken from Quora from a post by Spencer McDaniel in answer to this question: Why were most Greek philosophers against democracy?
First of all, it is a grave mistake to say that “most” Greek philosophers were opposed to democracy, because that is not actually true. Most Greek philosophers were either in favor of democracy or had no opinion on it. The philosophers that most people see as having been opposed to democracy are Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, but, as we shall see in a moment, this common perception is actually rather inaccurate.
For one thing, we actually know very little about what the historical Socrates (lived c. 470–399 BC) thought of democracy because everything we know about Socrates’s opinions comes from the writings of his two students Plato and Xenophon. Plato in particular seems to have used the character of Socrates in his dialogues as a sort of “sounding board” for various ideas and opinions, so, in most cases, when Plato attributes an idea to Socrates, it is very difficult to tell if it is really one of Socrates’s ideas, one of Plato’s own, some combination thereof, or just an idea Plato was experimenting with.
Plato (lived c. 423–c. 347 BC) makes it very clear in his Republic that he does not have much liking for the particular form of democracy that was instituted in his native city-state of Athens. Instead, in this dialogue, Plato argues that the ideal, perfect government should be ruled by a “philosopher-king,” a man who is supremely wise, intelligent, and rational and who makes all decisions for the benefit of everyone. This, however, is an idealistic vision and it is unlikely that Plato ever expected anything resembling his ideal republic to actually be implemented.
Plato would probably have much admiration for the government of most modern democratic countries, which operate on a very different form of democracy than the one that existed in Athens during Plato’s time. Athens in the fourth century BC was a direct democracy, meaning citizens voted directly on all the issues. This was a problem because most people did not understand the issues and were unable to make informed decisions on them. Modern representative democracies would probably be more palatable to Plato’s sensibilities.
Aristotle (lived c. 384–322 BC) has sometimes been portrayed as hostile to democracy, but, in fact, this is an egregious misunderstanding of Aristotle’s complex and erudite political theory. In his Politics, Aristotle explains that there are three major forms of ideal government: a monarchy (which he defined as a government ruled by a man very much along the lines of Plato’s “philosopher-king”: one who is supremely qualified and rules for the betterment of everyone), an aristocracy (which he defined as a small group of the best and most qualified people ruling for the betterment of everyone), and a constitutional government (which he defined as a government ruled by all the free citizens on behalf of and for the betterment of everyone).
Aristotle held that, of the three ideal forms, a monarchy is the best because it is the most efficient, but he contended that all three ideal forms of government will inevitably become perverted and corrupted over time. He explains that a monarchy becomes perverted into a tyranny, a government ruled by one man for solely his own benefit. An aristocracy becomes perverted into an oligarchy, a government ruled by a few people for solely their own benefit. Finally, a constitutional government becomes perverted into a democracy, a government ruled by the majority of the population for solely their own benefit.
Aristotle reasoned that a democracy is the least terrible of these three forms of government because it results in the most number of people being happy; whereas a tyranny is the worst form of government because it results in only one man (the tyrant) being happy. Aristotle was therefore in favor of democracy, not because he necessarily liked it in and of itself, but rather because it was the least awful form of government that he could think of.
The editors gave the article the title The Failed Covid Response but the article really is about what a bunch of morons we are who do not deserve the freedoms we have inherited from our ancestors. Let me take to near the end of what is a very long article:
We need an honest discussion about how we proceed from here, and it must be free of the bullying, dogmatism, and bad faith exhibited by many experts over the past two years. The Science™ has held up poorly and will likely crumble further as time goes on, but that will not stop defenders of COVID policies from insisting it was all worthwhile.
That question—was it worthwhile?—cannot be answered by numbers, no matter how they are sliced and diced. We had a social contract before COVID hit. Like all social contracts, it emerged organically over time, and perhaps it needed to be revisited. But there was no such debate in 2020. The contract was simply tossed overboard, along with the values and principles underscoring it. Any suggestion that this was perhaps a bit precipitous was deemed morally reprehensible.
We acted as if we were on the Titanic with only minutes to work out what to do. It was a media-led pandemic for which there was virtually no evidence of anything unusual for virtually everyone. If we don’t learn from this great social disaster about the kinds of political leaders we have somehow put in place, we will all end up serfs subservient to some of the most incompetent people who have ever achieved high office.
Meanwhile, go to the link and read the whole thing.
From Meet the Kinesins, Your Body’s On-Time Cellular Supply Chain Trucking Fleet. Specially for those who think Darwinian random chance evolution is the cause of our existence. From the link:
Those billions of cells that make up your body require all kinds of supplies in order to fulfill their respective functions in keeping you alive and well. That’s where the “walking wonder” of the Kinesin family of molecular motors enters the picture.
As the Discovery Institute’s Evolution News & Science Today explains, the Kinesin-II is especially fascinating because of how it moves about supply-chain-like delivering needed supplies where and when required:
“Kinesin-II, one of the extended family of kinesin motors, is involved in a ‘relay race’ on a micro-miniature scale. It demonstrates how different families of molecular motors cooperate.
Kinesin-II “feet” move the molecular motor along its delivery route. (Screenshot from YouTube)
“This one works in synergy with other cargo-carrying motors in the important complex function known as ‘intra-flagellar transport’ (IFT) that builds and maintains cilia and flagella. An important example occurs in the neurons of the eye.”
As the following animated video demonstrates, the Kinesin-II has a couple of “feet” with which it moves itself along a receiving cell, as it unloads whatever supplies it happens to be carrying. Being a molecular motor, the Kinesin-II has distinct parts that require assembly in a specific sequence. It doesn’t happen by chance; it happens by design.
Watch the vid. It only takes 3 and a half minutes but is guaranteed to amaze you.
I have had a long-time interest in psychology – even having studied it at university as part of my undergraduate degree. But Freud I have never found made much sense and Jung does seem to go off in odd directions of his own. It is Alfred Adler that I have found the most compatible with my own way of thinking.
I came across this which has only made me appreciate Adler even further: Alfred Adler Quotes That Will Make You Reflect. This is what it says about Adler himself:
Alfred Adler was an Austrian medical doctor, psychotherapist, and founder of the school of individual psychology.
Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and Alfred Adler are all giants in the world of psychology.
Adler was one of the original core members of the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society, which was led by Freud. His ideas were counter to Freud’s, and he split from the group and proposed an “individual psychology” based on his own original theories. His emphasis on the importance of feelings of inferiority, the inferiority complex, is recognized as an isolating element which plays a key role in personality development.
Adlerian psychology enjoys a broad base of support in Europe and the United States, and presents simple and straightforward answers to the philosophical question: How can one be happy?
I must admit, I didn’t even know of Alfred Adler or Adlerian psychology until I came across the book “The Courage To Be Disliked” by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga. It’s an excellent book and a great way to learn about the principles of Adlerian psychology in order to live a happy life.
Anyway, go to the quotes of which this one particularly stood out for me:
“The only normal people are the ones you don’t know very well.”
The other 39 are amazingly insightful as well. Oh well, let me mention one more.
“What is courage? Courage is the willingness to risk failure… There is only one danger I find in life, and that, indeed, is a real one. You may take too many precautions.”
There are now the other 38 for you to investigate yourself.
I have been looking everywhere for a medical assessment of Novavax which is the vaxxine that is more traditional and does not rely on mRNA molecules to produce whatever effects it supposedly produces. I have now been sent this for which I am extremely grateful.
This is its title, Novavax – hope or hype? but as a hint of what is to come, this is the sub-head: “Spoiler alert: it’s not what you were sold.” You can read the whole thing at the link. It’s quite detailed, and the writer seems knowledgable, but as with so much you will have to decide for yourself how much any of this can be trusted. This is how the post ends:
Even if adverse reactions to the Novavax vaccine are rarer than to the AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna shots, any risk at all is, in my opinion, a completely unacceptable price to pay for a product that offers no clinically meaningful benefit to individuals nor any social benefit.
So, don’t bother inviting me to join your Novastan cult. I’m staying in the control group.
And if there are other assessments out there that you know of, please note them in the comments.
Life has evolved on this planet due to many unique circumstances: Earth has a solid (or more plasma now I guess) core which provides a gravitational field to protect us from life killing radiation, has one moon at just the right distance and a mostly stable orbit allowing for stable seasons and tides without which life would be difficult (difficult as what things would be like with an unpredictable winter lasting a year instead of 3 months); Earth is located in the Goldilocks zone, just the right distance; we have a stable star which is currently at mid-life peak; we live in a solar system with outer planets which allow for a protected inner core; ozone layer; bodies of water; right amount of O2, etc…Makes you wonder if it’s all coincidence.
A comment on this post which had nothing that I could see that would lead to this comment.
That really is extraordinary.
Law of Markets 