Football Clubs as major ‘Engines of Positive Social Change’

I once heard a premier league football manager giving a very frank interview on the radio. The perceptive interviewer asked him why it was that Premier league footballers (and major-league footballers around the world) get paid such astronomical money each week for playing the game they love. (Players weekly wages were already high – but seem to have increased massively in recent years.)

The manager replied that the clubs had so much money rolling in each month from the TV companies around the world, that they simply did not know what else to do with all the money apart from pay the players these high salaries. The problem the clubs had 'came across' as that they simply would not be able to spend all the money they received otherwise…..

While I understand that in the film, TV, music, and sports industries - that getting the best talent comes with a price……  it did seem such a pathetic answer for the football manager to give; that they simply couldn’t think what else to do with the money. Of course, we should not blame the football manger being interviewed since he may well of simply been answering the interviewers question truthfully.

“If” it is the case, that the football clubs (or rather the mentality of the people running them) is such that they can’t think of anything worth doing with the money apart from paying higher and higher salaries each month - then perhaps some more creative thinkers should suggest to them some alternatives for that money, or at least a small part of that money - perhaps 10 to 20%.

Even the Bank of England has commented on the extraordinary rise in player wages (with expanding TV revenues) particularly in the last 5 years.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/why-are-football-players-paid-so-much

Major football clubs are not just blessed with disposable cash (and mostly unused facilities for 6 days a week) - but importantly they are also blessed with having established positive role models for local youngsters - playing for their teams each week.

It seems to me therefore, that football clubs (at various levels of the game) are ideally placed to be major ‘engines of positive social change’ within the local communities they supposedly ‘serve’ and represent.

While it is true that some players have taken this role on as individuals, and indeed some clubs run ‘community projects’ (e.g. notably Arsenal) there is an argument to be made that the football clubs as organisations could - and indeed should - do a great deal more to improve life within their local communities and perhaps beyond in a whole range of areas.

I hope that somehow this idea of clubs becoming major ‘engines of positive social change’ can be suggested regularly to the people who can make a difference in getting such an idea off the ground. Any help with this sharing of ideas would be appreciated.

ENVIRONMENT – ‘Having the Option’ - to Refill Plastic Water Bottles

About Having The Option to Refill Plastic Water Bottles for say 30 cents - rather than always needing to buy a new one for 60 cents....

(An ongoing 'practical philosophy' project.)

As a regular walker and ‘litter picker’ I am constantly collecting plastic water bottles from along the paths of the beautiful locations where I walk. I know people talk about re-cycling and putting stuff in the right box for the garbage man – but surely the problem is we are using far too many plastic bottles and other packaging to start with. The hot Mediterranean countries alone must use tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of these little plastic drinking bottles each year. Globally the number must be mind boggling

I just want people to be at least ‘have the option’ to take their empty bottles into a supermarket, local newsagent, or fast food outlet and be able to get a refill for their plastic bottles if they wish - at a lower price than if they buy their water in a new plastic bottle. Clearly, some kind of vending machine or office water cooler perhaps with re-usable bigger containers - could easily be adapted to make this possible and indeed some water vending machines already exist - and are readily available at modest cost. (Could not the bigger containers could simply be collected and re-used in a similar way to beer barrels?)

Bottled water is big business for companies like Evian, but with water vending machines they could still make a profit – and be brought onside to support the idea of saving on disposable plastic. Indeed, with the growing public opposition to using disposable plastics, and creeping legislation, their successful business model to date may not tenable 10 to 15 years from now. The water companies therefore might be persuaded to help reduce the number of one-use bottles – rather than being the main cause of the problem as they are at the moment. They could be interested in suggestions for adapting their business model sooner rather than later. Certainly, the big water bottle companies have the right people, the right teams in place with the right skills, and the right distribution networks to get the job done; that is to encourage people to refill their water bottles rather than 'automatically' buy water in a new plastic bottle. Giving people the choice on how they buy their water is an important first step in my view.

So how can we encourage the refilling of water bottles among the thirsty public; and encourage big corporate bottled water companies to offer refill vending as ‘an option’?  

‘Nothing to Excess…. But What Is Enough? (Living Moderately and Sustainably)

‘Nothing to Excess…. But What Is Enough?

Now I live outside Athens in the modern Greek town of Delphi about 200 kilometres west of Athens. It’s a beautiful and inspiring place, and if you get the chance to go I recommend taking it. (Try and stay one night at least if you do go, since it is quite difficult to appreciate Delphi and its very special ‘relaxed vibe’ on a rushed day trip from Athens – well I think so anyway.)

 In ancient times, Delphi was the centre of Ancient Greek spiritual life. Much practical decision making for individuals and cities throughout the Greek world was made in Delphi - by the very famous Oracle of the Greek God Apollo at Delphi. (… quite possibly this reputation for good decision making and choices also owed a lot to the very well informed group of priests and administrators there)

Now for some reason, there were just two short pieces of simple advice written above the main temple doors of Apollo in Delphi, and these two phrases were obviously very carefully considered by the wise priests and administrators who had these phrases chiselled into the stone there.  The first phrase in Ancient Greek was ‘Gnothi S’Afton’ meaning Know Yourself - and I have just told you a little about the deeper meanings of this ‘Knowing who and what you are’.

Now the second phrase above the temple door was ‘Miden Agan’ meaning literally ‘Nothing to Excess’ or more usually rendered these days in modern English as: ‘all things in moderation’; and although this really would be another talk all of its own to discuss with you in any detail, I wanted to say just ‘something’ to you about this second phrase tonight – which is basically advising us all to live moderately and sustainably. This ‘nothing to excess – living moderately’ was clearly a central concept to the Ancient Greeks, and so I think well worth 6 or 7 minutes of our time to discuss.

In Delphi there are some stunning archaeological ruins there and I often spend a little time sitting there quietly ‘contemplating’ in the ruins of the temple of Apollo there, as old philosophers like me enjoy doing from time to time. Well sitting there in the morning sunshine over the years, I have seen so many tourist groups nod their heads immediately in apparent understanding when their tour guides showing them around the place tell them that ‘Know Thyself’ and ‘Nothing to Excess’ was written above Apollo's temple door. As discussed, there is more to the simple phrase Know Thyself than most people might think at first. So what does the other phrase, this ‘Nothing to Excess – This living moderately and sustainably’ - really mean?

'The Temple of Apollo in Delphi'

(The modern village of Delphi is a 10 minutes walk away)

     

 I remind you that while we may understand the actual words, vocabulary and phrases a poet uses; understanding the various deeper meanings within the words is often much harder. For example, the modern poetess Stevie Smith writes: ‘I was not waving but drowning…’ but the deeper meaning has nothing to do with waving or drowning but about being overcome by our personal problems while appearing happy in front of other people.

In the same way, when we read Nothing to Excess there is more to it….. deeper things we need to think about.

It is prompting us to consider carefully what is enough money, clothes, enough possessions, enough power, sex, alcohol, weed (if you are into that), enough cheesecake (never enough!)  – enough of all sorts of things.  Aristotle said that there are few exact answers to these types of practical questions, and the specific circumstances will all make a difference. (As philosophers, as we all are to some extent, we are forced to use our own common sense and experience on a lot of these kinds of issues.

As a quick and easy example, let us consider the different answers to the simple question of how much money a person needs to earn. Imagine one person has no children or dependants, but the other has three teenage children soon to go to College or University. It would ‘seem’ that the first person (or rather household) can get by on less money than the person with the three children who probably needs to earn a bit more money ‘if they can’. So the answer to ‘what is enough’ appears to be different for these two people in an ideal world. (….. or is it?)

Aristotle talks for the need for frugal living in his ideal medium sized independent cities. But what is frugal living – and what is just being down right poor or ‘hard up’ all the time?

As parents (or perspective parents yourselves), you will all want the best for your own children and will not like saying ‘no’ too often when they ask you for ‘stuff’ even if they do not really need it . How much is the right amount to give children and what is simply spoiling them?

Most of us all want a few nice things ourselves, perhaps a few decent clothes, somewhere comfortable to live, a car that actually starts OK in the mornings etc. In Plato’s ethics there are often no hard and fixed rules about many things such as how much ‘stuff’ is correct; there are only guidelines for you to consider. 

Perhaps try asking yourself sometimes not: ‘How much do I need to live on?’ but rather: ‘How little do I need to live on?’  Maybe if you do that - you will get some extra free time to spend with your friends (or kids), or get some extra leisure time to do what you like to do, and what makes you most happy; or even extra time to make a little positive difference in the world.

A little extra Leisure time seems to have become such a luxury these days. Everyone in our Western style consumerist societies seems so busy all the time – so in a rush. You know – even when people are on holidays and should have a little spare time you hear people in hostels say: ‘we did France yesterday and Greece today – tomorrow we are ‘doing’ Italy; whatever they think ‘doing’ Italy is. For many it’s just an early night in a hostel and another photo on Facebook to show their friends back home….. i.e. ‘doing Italy – maybe ?’ 

Remember, if we are to be ‘real’ philosophers, then for sure we will need some calm quality spare time to consider and investigate a few things as we go through life. 

Be careful, because becoming too materialistic is an easy trap to fall into for new philosophers. It is only when you buy new trousers that you realise that your jacket is getting a bit shabby…. Then the shoes don’t match….. This ‘materialism’ has a kinda way of creeping up on you if you are not careful….. even when we think we are immured to it…  You like my new shoes ?

DON’T GET ME WRONG….Plato was not keen on hermits or people living like monks in cloistered cells; and did not think that philosophers need to walk around looking scruffy and smelly just for the sake of it. Maybe he thought it’s good for philosophers to have their heads in the clouds sometimes, considering deeper spiritual and metaphysical matters, or perhaps complex global issues; or how to get the local health service sorted out.  However, they wanted us to keep our feet firmly on the ground, support ourselves financially, and attend to the small stuff like paying the electricity bill on time. Plato wants his student philosophers (as we all are in a way however much we think we know) to live and be part of the ‘real’ world. How can you advise other people on things – or presidents and ministers on policy – if you can’t even sort our own stuff out in a reasonable way……

In my opinion, one of the secrets to being a good philosopher is the ability to ‘balance’ various aspects of one’s life; balancing the different aspects of our lives – and life is quite complicated these days – and certainly can get very complicated if we are not careful. And of course…… there is a much more serious side to having all this consumer stuff than just showing off a bit to your friends and neighbours….

Most of us have got comfortable with our consumerist lifestyles – it’s what we are used to.   We are all ‘fairly happy’ with the lives we lead. For example, we enjoy buying the cheap clothes from places like India and Bangladesh – and we just don’t want to know that they are stitched together by children working long hours in ghastly and dangerous conditions. For example, in Bangladesh during 2013 an illegally built clothing factory in Savar (see end links) left more than 1200 workers dead and more than another 2000 injured when it collapsed one day. The owner of the factory wanted to make as much profit as he possibly could - and made clothes for many shopping chains in the West including Benetton, Primark and Walmart. Although cracks had appeared in the building the day before and the factory had been evacuated; he ordered the workers to return to work the following day or loose a month’s pay; rather than simply close the factory for a couple of days (or maybe an afternoon) while checks could be carried out. (This is a practical example EXCESS and a lack of moderation in the desires of the factory owner.)

Does Wallmart and Beneton and the others still buy their stuff from that company and other companies like that ? We don’t know – and actually – we don’t really want to know. We didn’t even ask or find out….

You see - we should never forget that Platonic philosophy, with all its elegant and sometimes beautiful myths - and its many clever arguments, is all to do with how to improve the lives of people in the real world today. It is not just about intellectual discussions in classrooms about the finer details of ancient books and abstract ideas. The discussions and details are only just a pre-cursor to changing lives for the better in practical and more fundamental ways in the modern world. It is for philosophers to examine ‘what’s going on in the world – and understand how it is – and how it all works’ - and then, only then, can they can suggest realistic ideas where improvements and updates can be made. If philosophers don’t do this - then who will?

To summarise these few short paragraphs about Nothing to Excess or Living Moderately, I think you can now see that when those tourists in Delphi just nod their heads immediately after being told that the two Delphi Maxims of Know Yourself and Live Moderately, there is a bit more to it than just understanding what the various words mean. Both phrases hold much deeper meanings, and I hope we have now at least begun to scratch the surface a little.

[Note: The above blog is the second part of James’ Monday night philosophy talk in Athens - and also appears on Pages 183 – 189 of his paperback book ‘Life Choices’. ]

Is the purpose of a human being (or a human soul if we have one) simply to make a profit? Perhaps it is ?

When you think about it most things you see around you are only made for profit.  A car tire actually has no purpose in itself..... its purpose is what I will refer to as 'deferred'. That is, its purpose relates to an activity obviously unknown to the tire, which is to be used by a more complex system, and to go  on a motor car; which will take people from A to B.

However, if you think that the tire simply has a deferred real purpose to help get people from A to B this is a mistake. The people who made it in their factory did so in order to make a profit as a their motive and had no special interest in getting you or me from A to B.  And when you look around you, most things (when you think behind the first 'apparent' purpose to the 'underlying' purpose or 'real' purpose) are really all made simply for economic profit.

So one might conclude,  and mistakenly again in my opinion at least, that the logical deduction is that the only real and underlying purpose of a human being is also to make a profit..... And you would not have to walk far down Wall Street in New York, or Oxford Street in London on a busy shopping Saturday, to find lots of people (perhaps even most of the people) who would agree with you.

Let me just say at this point that this making and doing stuff only for profit is not quite as bad or shallow as it seems, since the human being (at least in modern western style societies - and indeed modern eastern, southern and northern societies as well while we are at) has moved on from being 'hunters and gatherers'; we simply do not do it that way anymore.  If you take a bow and arrow on Wall Street and shoot the first 4 legged animal you see for your lunch - you will not even go to jail; probably you will go straight to the funny farm.

Yes these days we make stuff and sell it for profit, in order in the first instance, to feed and support ourselves and to buy the things we need; but all to too often as well these days .... lots of 'stuff' (i.e. unnecessary consumer items ) that we really do not need at all.

One furthur small point on economics before I quickly make the main point of this blog post and finish....  is that for most of us (i.e.  people who work for someone else) what we contribute to the economic or capatalist system (which I am not against at all per se) is our labour and time.  That is, we get paid by someone for our time and labour to make things and provide a service.

So let me return now to the main point of this blog and its title: 'Is the sole purpose of a human being simply to make a profit?  Well, yes I suppose that in part it is.....  unless we are going to take our bows and arrows to the park on Sunday mornings and risk the consequences. However, it is my contention that the human being's purpose is not 'only' to make a profit, but as a rational conscious being, it is 'also' to do stuff that is not for a profit.  This may through necessity get less hours and attention in the week (whether we like it or not) to making a profit of some kind to support ourselves; but this 'not for profit' activity is just as important, or even more so to a human being I believe.

It is when we are helping with the kids local soccer team on a Sunday morning, singing in the local choir, fixing up the garden, reading a book and thinking about stuff, or volunteering for a day here and there for some good cause, that we are really fulfilling our real or underlying purpose; or I would suggest an important part of that purpose.

I have to admit that after several years of contemplating what the real and underlying purpose of a human being is, I am still unsure and decided about this.  However, I think Aristotle was right (in part at least) when he suggested that the human purpose is about the good use of quality leisure time and living well.  Incidently, he acknowldged that some people get very little choice about life owing to poor health or resouces; but if we can, he suggest we should use our leisure time (our not for profit time) productively and live well.

Some readers of this blog will be fairly certain what real human purpose is; but many other like me will wonder whether, like that new tire stacked on the factory floor, the human being has a deferred purpose, as yet unknown to us, and part of a more complex system.  This line of thought and contemplation, or the many lines in could take,  will to some extent at least depend on what we think a human being is.  This was why Socrates urged his students and friends to 'Know Thyself' - meaning to know where we are in life's journey, and more importantly still, what we are.  This will be developed a little in my next blog post on the 'The Delphi Message and Maxims'.

Bed Blocking in NHS and time to broaden the brief of the NHS

Time to Rebrand the NHS for the next century

Bed blocking by elderly patients in National Health Service wards is just one illustration that it is now time to ditch the NHS in favour of the 'National Health and Well-Being Service'  (NHSWB ?)  This new service should incorporate elderly onward (transitional and on-going) elderly care within its planning and budgeting, and indeed look at the Health and Well Being of the nation as a whole. This new role for the re-branded NHS could truly support people from ‘cradle to the grave’ and could move away from being the place you go when you are sick; and leave either when you are better, or staff feel they can no longer improve your physical health with treatment.

Such a bold move as outlined above while sounding expensive and untenable might on investigation prove not to need as much extra funding as one might first expect. The rational for this is briefly outlined below.

A re-branded NHS that had responsibility to provide better social care for the elderly, would at the same time be able to free up many hospital beds that had been previously blocked by elderly patients following hospital clinical treatment – for minor as well as more major issues. In addition, a slightly different ethos to health by the government; that is, a greater emphasis on prevention and well-being after treatment to avoid re-admittance, would be preferable for many reasons than simply providing treatment after people get sick or have accidents.

The fact remains that for all users of the NHS both young and old, once someone has actually been admitted to hospital bed the treatment one receives in hospital ward is generally very good. The problem for most people is to get admitted in the first place and not turned away from A & E or have an unreasonable time to wait on the dreaded ‘waiting lists’ if referred by the GP. 

For example, after several visits to A & E with my elderly mother (requiring an ambulance to be called each time, and A & E staff time to be taken up) she was finally admitted to a hospital bed and received the treatment she needed. Another quick example worth mentioning is the elderly mother of a friend of mine who following her hospital treatment would need social care for when she left hospital.  An appointment with the social care staff was arranged three days after her clinical treatment finished. The social care member of staff went to the wrong hospital for the appointment and so another appointment was arranged a couple of days after that.  This meant that the elderly lady had taken up a hospital clinical bed for a minimum of five nights before even receiving any first consultation with social care staff about what would happen to her next when she left hospital.  This is not a big deal in itself were it an isolated example, but I suspect this kind of waste of valuable clinical bed nights in hospital wards is prevalent throughout the NHS, and possibly no real fault of their own making, since they are relying on the local government social services department in order to progress the matter and clear the bed for the next patient.

There is nothing particularly difficult about arranging onward social care for these elderly clients.  It is not rocket science, particularly for a service like the NHS that can arrange complex operations and aftercare for tens of thousands of clinical patients each month. Why then do they need to be slowed down by different social services departments across the country to free up the beds.

The only problem about the current NHS arranging social care for the elderly (and onward placements for clinical patients) is that it is not in the brief of the NHS, and not part of its planning and budgeting for the years ahead to provide this kind of provision and service.

There is no need to outsource this social care provision (particularly for patients who have finished their clinical treatments in hospital) to expensive private care providers, or large cumbersome often parallel government social services departments with their own cumbersome staffing arrangements, office administration's, and priorities on their budgets and resources.  For the NHS, surely being able to clear 5 - 10,000 (?) hospital beds each night across the country would be much higher up their priority list, since it would allow in a single stroke the NHS to meet many of its other targets and goals much more easily.  Whereas care for the elderly leaving hospital is much further down the list of priorities for social services departments with many other calls on their limited resources.

It seems to me therefore, that the NHS is ideally placed, ideally staffed at management and ‘hands on’ level, ideally resourced and already set up to easily factor in to its planning and budgeting this simple provision of onward social care for elderly clients who are blocking valuable clinical beds.

I strongly suspect that a similar situation prevails in residential mental health provision, especially for younger people where clinical beds on psychiatric wards are very scarce indeed. Are these valuable bed places also being blocked once clinical care has come to an end because the onward journey of the patient is delayed several days at least owing to social services departments acting slowly and without any sense of urgency or priority to quickly facilitate the appropriate aftercare for the mental health patient?

It is time to do away with the NHS as soon as possible and welcome the creation of the National Health and Well Being Service, which will have a broader range of responsibilities including onward social care for all patients leaving clinical hospitals. In addition, it should give a new and greater emphasis on prevention and wellbeing within the nation as a whole, rather than the 'let's wait until you get sick - and then fix you up' approach that we seem to be adopting at the moment. This latter approach that we are currently adopting may well come at greater (not less) expense, with greater disruption to lives, and greater other inconveniences to all concerned.

01 Real Sustainability - Lions or Humans ? Snakes and Bees ?

Regarding the environment I want to start a new concept of 'real sustainability', within my broader idea of 'practical philosophy'; where real philosophy includes intellectual but also practical actions by us all so that any intellectual investigations we may pursue have a definite purpose and positive effect in the real world.

While walking on the hillside in Delphi I was reminded of the need for us 'to share the space' of our environment and its finite resources both with one another, and other species.  As I walk along the country paths I tap my walking stick regularly to warn any snakes and other animals to move away as I approach. This is a tiny example of what I mean by 'sharing' the natural space and resources as human beings and with other species. The snakes can, for example, go back to sunbathing on the path again after I have safely passed. However, someone has just put three illegal bee hives right next to the start of the public footpath. I hope that the bees feel the same way about 'sharing space!

It may be that some people or some species (e.g human beings as a whole) will always take a bigger share of resources than others. After all, the by lion eats first from the pride, eats the most, and takes the best pieces for its meal. If human beings are just very evolved animals (i.e. 'total' Darwinism) then we cannot be surprised that some people take more resources than others. BUT - you cannot have it both ways. You cannot expect better ways of sharing to be adopted by more mere evolved animals. You can only expect and hope for that 'if' you think there is a little more to what the human being is that what Darwinism and some scientists suggest with the process of natural selection and the survival of the fittest. This raises questions about what the human being really, whether we have a human soul, and at very least, whether we should expect a species of animal like us to adopt preferable ways of living as individuals and societies that somehow have shades of 'ethics' and a higher spirit within them.

How Did The Universe Begin - What Main Options Are There ?

Is the Big Bang (or Big Blob) Theory Still the Best Scientific Explanation ?

[These short paragraphs above I hope will be sign posts for young travellers, new philosophers, and older searchers to start an enjoyable and possibly on going investigation into what the universe really is; and what our place and purpose is within it.]

If we want to know what our place is in the universe and whether we have some purpose as well as place; then from time to time all new philosophers should spend a little time at least on a regular basis, considering how the universe came into existence and what our place is in it.

Quite often people start such a process of investigation by considering the very big and cosmological theories put forward by both science and established religious traditions. It seems to me that all these theories of which there are many can be grouped into just four or maybe five main categories or types. I would like to outline these categories very briefly to you now and would welcome your suggestions and comments, especially if you think I have overlooked any category that we should included.

1.  There is the possibility at least, that the universe is eternal and unchanging. What I mean by this is a that the universe had no beginning and will have no end. It always was and it always will be the same. Well I am going to rule this possibility out straight away in my own mind, because I know that stars come to an end and go supernova, scattering their dust across vast distances in the universe and that new generations of stars are created from this dust. I also know that the galaxies are moving outwards from us - or so they say; so perhaps I should be cautious about saying I 'know' this – when I have only 'heard' this. So even if the universe is eternal, and always was and always will be, it is certainly changing and evolving as time passes by.

2. Let us also say that one possibility is that the universe is eternal, but it is changing and always evolving. If this is the case, and I am certainly not suggesting that it is; then we need to ask ourselves a few further questions in order to clarify things; or perhaps give this suggestion a few sub-categories:

   a) Did this eternal yet evolving universe have a beginning, and will it have an end?

   b) Was there a beginning, but will there be no end?

   c) Was there no beginning and will there be no end?

   d) Was there no beginning, but will it have an end at some point?

3. My third main category is that the universe came into being at some point in the past. Again I would like to suggest two further questions for contemplation to clarify this:

   a) Was it made from something? (......but then what was it made from - just smaller bits of something, in which case where did the little bits come from? This then gets us no closer to understanding really where the universe came from. It just peels another layer off the question we are trying to answer; like peeling another layer off an onion

   b) Was it made from nothing? (.... but how can something be made from nothing at all – not even specs of dust? ) Is there really such a thing as 'nothing' in science?

4. From category 3 b above there seems to be the possibility at least that the universe was suddenly made from nothing in some kind of miraculous way. My two sub categories (or rather further questions to ask oneself) in this case are

  a) Was there was some divine or mystical intervention as suggested by various religious dogmas and spitual paths through the ages?

  b) Was there was some kind of scientific, albeit metaphysical and not understood yet, explanation that caused the universe to be created in the past, but created from nothing. Keep in mind - that there is a whole line of scientific inquiry exploring what 'nothing' actually is. (Apparently, according to many top scientists, nothingness is a very strange place and does not really exist, however well we create a vacuum. There will always be electrons appearing from nowhere and then disappearing again to goodness knows where. Books have been written by top scientists about what 'nothing' actually means.

  c) Thirdly, under this main heading of the universe being made from nothing; we could I suppose consider at least a combination of my two previous sub categories above that the universe was made from nothing by some divine or at least intelligent artificer or intelligent being - but of course still adhering to basic scientific principles whether we understand that these principles or not yet.

5. Finally, we must of course mention the prevailing main scientific theory at the moment being the 'big blob' theory - or sorry - I meant to say 'big bang' theory. Essentially, this theory suggests that there was a singularity (whatever that is - but I understand it is as a big blob of very dense stuff or matter) and that this blob suddenly exploded in some unexplained and miraculous way, and gave rise to the universe and everything within it. To make the mathematical equations fit, supporters of this theory need to assume that space and time did not exist before this miraculous explosion of 'the blob' occurred.

My only problem with this theory, is where did the big blob come from, and did this big blob not exist in time and space before it went 'bang' ? For me, if you are not explaining where the blob came from then once again you have not got to the heart of the onion; and are only taking off another layer. You are merely looping back into my earlier third category above - that the universe was made from something, in this case a big blob, and not a little bits of dust or rock or whatever. So for me the big blob or big bang theory does not really get the heart of the problem. What do you think?

The above is my first group of first considerations that I would encourage any new philosophers to contemplate as part of their inquiry into the creation of the universe. Certainly, my main list of categories above still omits some important issues that we need to consider.

These secondary but important considerations include:

  a) When we think of the creation of the universe we tend to think of it in purely material ways; e.g. when did the rocks, dust, planets, and stars come into being? However, there are things in the universe that have no material substance such as radio waves, sound waves, heat and other forms of energy etc. Some people would also include 'ideas' in these non material but very real items that do not have material substance. These non-material things are important and usually we have no hesitation in saying that they exist as well as rocks stones planets etc. So the question is did the material and immaterial universe come into existence at the same time. Another way of looking at this would be to clarify a little exactly what we mean and include in the term 'universe'

   b) Another extra complication with my above list of the possible explanations for the existence of the universe is, that like most people, I have looked upwards to the stars and cosmos when thinking about this, and seem to have only considered the very big and 'cosmological' ways that the universe may have been created. One cannot really get a real grasp on how the universe was created I fear without also having an understanding and looking at the very small and mysterious world of quantum physics and the very small particles that are the basis of every material thing around us. As philosophers investigating how the universe was created, does it have any purpose, and what the place of the human being is in that universe; we are obliged to also have some basic knowledge at least of what an electron really is; and importantly, what it really is not. We must have some understanding through investigation of he very small as well as the very big.

01 - Thoughts from Greece - June 2016 - Brexit and Know Thyself

Thoughts and Ideas from Greece

June – 2016

Most people vote in elections according to what they think is best personally for them - or rather what is best for themselves.   So what is best for the one’s self in the English referendum this June 2016 – to vote for Britain to stay in the European Union (EU), or to vote to leave the EU and ‘Brexit’ ?   I think Socrates would say that it all depends on what the ‘self’ actually is. (Know Thyself)

I have just attended the wedding of an old friend of mine in Poland. It was a wonderful few days – and on the last night I was there – a small group of wedding guests went out for a final drink together. One young man, who I had not met previously, persisted in asking me which way I would vote in the Brexit EU vote – and seemed to get more and more angry when I continued to say when asked that I was not that bothered either way about the vote, and that it would not make a lot of difference to me whatever the result.

It seems to be normal (or fashionable) these days to be on one end of the spectrum of opinion on any debate – either very much for something or very much against it. I think the media encourages us to have polarised opinions. However, most things, including the EU stay or Brexit vote have pros and cons either way. There are advantages and disadvantages of Britain staying in the EU; and there are advantages and disadvantages of leaving - or at least this is what I tried to explain to the young man. The sensible position, as far as I was and indeed am concerned, was on the fence – and that probably it would not make a great deal of difference in the end either way. (Don’t worry – you will still be able to go to France for you holidays and buy German cars if we leave the EU - and you will not have to drink Greek coffee if we stay...)

In the end we both agreed – most people will vote for what they believe or perceive is best for them selves…… Unfortunately, the media coverage of this EU Brexit vote, like so many other important issues, is a marketing exercise to vote one way or another, and very dependent on soundbites. People might vote to leave the EU because: ‘… the immigrants are taking all the jobs’, and other people might vote to stay in the EU because: ‘… we won’t be able to play European cup football if we leave’ or ‘… the French security services won’t tell us about terrorists if we leave…’  So most of the ideas and soundbites we are getting from the media are complete nonsense anyway: just take your pick on the soundbites and vote as you see fit...

The young man seemed at a complete loss at my outlook – how could anyone be so uncaring and not have a strong view at either end of the spectrum on such an important issue as whether Britain should stay in the EU or not. He then began to try and bolster his position by mentioning the important ‘ethics’ of the matter – and that people must and should care about such things – and that since we were in Krakow (just a short drive from Auschwitz) I was obliged to take a moral stance on the matter. Personally, I could not see how the inhumanity perpetrated at Auschwitz was related to the EU Brexit vote – but if it was – surely that was a convincing reason to stay in the EU? (I should have mentioned that this young man was vehemently in favour of Britain leaving the EU. )

I tried to explain to the young man that the EU Brexit vote did not concern me much because I was more interested in questions like whether I had a soul or not, whether it was immortal, and whether the kind of life I live with this human body makes any difference at all to what happens to my soul when my human body dies. Well, this really got his feathers ruffled – and he informed me with complete certainty that we had no soul and it was all to do with science, and that we were just an electrical network in the brain….. Friends who know me well will see the trap he had just fallen in to…..

So I asked him just to clarify the discussion so far….

- What you actually are, according to you, is a bundle of electrical networks in the brain?

- Yes, he replied

- And in the EU Brexit vote you will be voting, like most other people, for what is best for you?

- Yes, he agreed

- So is it better for your bundle of electrical networks in the brain to vote for Britain to leave the EU or to stay?

He did not answer, and walked off in a huff; but I believe he began to understand why I do not think it makes a lot of difference what happens (to me or anyone else) on June 23 rd when the British people ‘supposedly’ vote to stay in the EU or leave.

The above piece is no indication of whether I will vote to leave or stay – since as I suggest I am on the fence and can see advantages and disadvantages of voting either either way. I do however feel that Angela Merkel and her German colleagues have got too powerful within the EU power base – and I am coming around to voting for Britain to leave the EU simply in order to re-set the balance of power within the European corridors of power. This I feel is very important in the longer term for 'everyone' in Europe – including the Greeks, Italians, Spanish etc as well as the people of Britain; and after all the above conversation did take place in Krakow. And in a way... maybe the young man was right; we should care - but we must not allow the media to trivialise and confuse the discussion with its inane soundbites dished out every evening on the news channels as we eat our evening meals.

https://www.oraclesfromdelphi.org/

The Big Greek Export They Stoped Making

In hindsight, one has to ask why Greece stopped making one very special and successful export it had – and sold in vast quantities around the world just 11 years ago. Yes; I am talking about little bits of paper with the word “Drachmae” printed on them which many people from around the world for some reason all wanted and were happy to pay for in GB pounds, US dollars, Japanese yen and many other leading currencies. Whether an American wanted a beer in Crete, or an English man wanted a hotel room in Thessaloniki; they both needed to effectively have these little bits of paper with “Drachmae” on them to pay for the items.

When times were good – and lots of tourists wanted these bits of paper – the Greek Government could choose to print a few more of them – and this was very useful to exchange for foreign currency to pay for all sorts of things, and indeed to pay a few bills back home as well.

These days, the only way the Greek Government has to get a little more money is to ask Angela Merkel and the rest of her cronies if they can borrow some euros – which will need repaying and with interest.

Any independent nation state needs a language and culture, a land to call its own, and an independent currency that it has control over. Solving Greece’s economic problems over the medium and long term is not a question about shall we have the euros, shall we have the drachmae, can we borrow more money to add to the mountain of debt that we already cannot afford to repay. It’s about taking control of its own currency and money supply again. For this to happen – there is only one logical solution, and that is definitely not borrowing more euros – which is only a bad fix in the very short term.

James

Is There Such a Thing As The Human Soul, and Is It Immortal?

‘Only fools, fanatics, and madmen do not have doubts….’ (Anon.)

Well if we are going to examine this question in a fairly contemporary way, yet hopefully a mildly Socratic way as well, then we had better start with a few short words about what we actually mean by a ‘soul’ since the word must surely mean different things to different people. It is perhaps the word in modern English usage that carries the most baggage of all. My first comment would be to suggest that ‘should’ we have a soul, then it does not necessarily need to be a religious or somehow sacred thing, but could just as easily be a rational scientific thing - as I suggest in one of my points below. This is not to say that I believe it is myself, but clearly in the absence of firm proof, all options must presumably be on the table?

The ancient Greeks used the word psyche (meaning literally breath) for the inner self or rational conscious mind. Someone was thought of as being alive from one’s first breath until the last. This word psyche has been rather clumsily translated by the word ‘soul’ for most translations of ancient writers such as Plato and Aristotle into modern English. However, for the ancients the word psyche did not necessarily have as much or the same religious or spiritual baggage as the word soul holds for us today. As mentioned above, the existence of the soul does not necessarily have to be a leap of faith but could just as easily be physical scientific phenomena as yet to be discovered. (Of course, it might still be a leap of faith as well for many people J

Having given, albeit briefly, just a few words of caution about the nature of the word soul and what I am trying to discuss in this blog, let me now proceed to give you some reasons which lead me to believe that the soul probably does exist, and whether immortal or not, probably has a longevity beyond this mortal life span. I will make references to ancient Greeks sources in one or two of these paragraphs, but try and give more contemporary reasons in others.

Firstly, I would like to tell you what Socrates discusses with a young man called Alcibiades as recorded in Plato’s book with that name. Socrates asks Alcibiades if he thinks a musical harp is the same thing as the actual musician him or herself, or whether the knife a shoemaker uses is the same as the shoemaker him or herself. Alcibiades obviously agrees that the musical instrument or knife is not the same thing. Socrates then asks about the eyes and hands a musician or shoemaker uses – and once again Alcibiades agrees that these things are not the same thing as the musician and shoemaker themselves. (We only have to see seriously wounded soldiers returning home from battle zones with missing limbs to understand that the young soldier is not simply his hands, legs, or battlefield equipment).

Finally, Socrates asks Alcibiades whether a man simply uses his whole body and his young student once more agrees. Finally, Socrates asks that if a man merely ‘uses’ his whole body, what then is a man? To this question Alcibiades replies: ‘I do not know’.  Now for discussing complicated and uncertain matters like the existence of the soul I think that to say: “I do not know for sure” is an excellent starting point – and that is why I have taken the liberty to start a contemporary discussion of the soul by referring to this recorded conversation from more than 2,400 years ago. To clarify my point, if we do not think that we have a soul, psyche, inner consciousness, we have to describe what the actual ‘self’ is in one way or another or offer an alternative answer. (Socrates simply suggests the self is something different to the body which is merely used by the self.)

Let us now jump forward 2400 years from ancient Greece to modern science which in spite of huge developments in all sorts of areas of biology and bio-chemistry is still undecided about what consciousness actually is. Science has made several discoveries to suggest what the inner self is not; but as yet there is no definite consensus or explanation of consciousness. Therefore, if someone is going to suggest that there is no soul (religious or scientific) I think it is necessary to express some opinion on what the consciousness or the ‘self actually is. If someone is unable or unwilling to do that, I think the prudent thing to do would be to keep an open mind at least while the scientific jury is very much still out in the area.   

Now my final (I promise) paragraph mentioning Socrates and Plato on this matter is to tell you that in Plato’s book Phaedo, Socrates is sitting in his prison cell age 70 on the very day his death penalty is about to be enforced, and he is chatting to a small group of close friends about the existence and immortality of the soul. Some of his close friends and students, who we presume have benefited from many years of companionship, friendship and teaching from Socrates, still have doubts about the soul’s existence and its immortality. (We should not be too hard on ourselves then if we also have doubts…..) Socrates gives five ‘reasons’ why he thinks the soul exists, some of which I find fairly convincing and others I find much less so. One point that I do find convincing is that “if” something is immortal (or let us suppose with hundreds of years of longevity at least) then it cannot be made of finite and mortal things like flesh and bone or wood or leather.  Obviously these materials perish over time as does anything that they are made into. Something immortal must be made of ‘other stuff’ if it exists at all; and this I find an interesting point for contemplation.

Now this immortal ‘other stuff’ does not have to be that exotic, strange or fantastic from a scientific point of view. After all, there are many wavelengths of light we cannot see such as gamma rays and infrared.  There are many wavelengths of sound we cannot hear as any dog owners will know. Atoms of most things are for most parts indestructible (unless bashed apart in a collider or bomb) and many of the atoms on the planet are re-cycled time and time again over hundreds of years. This includes all the atoms that make a human being. Apparently we all contain a few recycled atoms of William Shakespeare which will no doubt be good news to any budding playwrights or bloggers like myself.  J  My point is only a small one, and that is, that the stuff of mystery, invisibility, and immortality is not necessarily so strange and could easily be all around us.

Another small point that makes me wonder about the existence and longevity of the soul is that human beings (and indeed most other animals for that matter) seem to be born with certain essential ‘pre knowledge’ on how to do some important things. Of course we now know that DNA holds the blue print by which our stem cells ‘grow’ arms and legs and all manner of other body parts; but those basics memories like babies suckling, or those little new born kangaroos that climb up their mother’s stomach to find that snug little pouch; it is as if someone or something told them exactly what they have to do. This essential information or memory seems to have been passed on in some way. Of course, scientists will explain it all away as a mere ‘survival instinct’ based on Darwinism, and no doubt they are correct most of the time; but I just wonder whether they are right all of the time?

A further point with DNA is that hardly a year goes by without another major announcement of a new understanding of the information contained in the DNA – such as whether a child will have black or blonde hair, be gay or straight, or have a greater risk of cancer in later life. However, there is still so much we have yet to decipher about DNA and the enormous amounts of information it holds about us. I understand that human DNA holds something like 6 billion bits of information and I must ask someone more technical how many gigabytes that is equal to in computer terms. (Addendum: It’s 715 megabytes apx. which would all fit uncompressed on a normal CD – slightly disappointing in some ways J  See Footnote 01 ) Anyway, I still cannot help wondering what other secrets our human DNA’s might hold?

Let us jump from kangaroos to more human characteristics. In every part of the globe..... and during every epoch of time….. people have been spiritual or religious in huge numbers. Why? Well sociologist and behaviourists will have their own theories which include the human need to belong, or to believe in something greater than ourselves. Many modern commentators accuse spiritual people of weakness and the need for a crutch to cope with the world…. I wonder whether this is why most spiritual people are the way they are. Did these commentators ask the people concerned, or do they know religious people of various persuasions? One wonders why these commentators feel the need to comment in the first place. Can it be that it is they who need the crutch or defence mechanism? After all, there have been many traditionally ‘successful’ spiritual people as well as a few who are less so. Perhaps it is more important what any individual thinks about these matters rather than what other people or commentators have to say. Just to clarify the point I want to make, I wonder given such vast numbers of believers over the centuries and millennia – is it just possible that there might be something in it all?

Leading on from my previous point in some ways, in addition to the many people who simply believe in ‘something up there’, over the years a lot of people have reported strange or unusual experiences of a spiritual or mystical nature. However, I suspect that much greater in number to those people who make these types of claims in public (for varied reasons I agree) are those people who have had these types of experiences and have said absolutely nothing to anyone for personal reasons, including fear of ridicule or being considered weird or even mad.  

A further point to keep in mind when contemplating the existence or non-existence of the soul is that because one may not understand all the details and processes involved in a certain process or complex system (e.g. some extreme weather events, the formation of stars, the spread of some diseases); it does not mean that the process or complex system does not exist. In many instances – even though we do not know all the details – we can still give a likely overview of what is happening and what the effects of any phenomena are. Sometimes we do not need to understand exactly how something works to know that it is there.

There is another observation in nature that makes me wonder about this business of a human soul; and that is those many special qualities and characteristics that make human beings ‘special’ compared with all other animals and species. Yes, human beings have hearts, lungs, blood, brains in a similar way to many other species – but there are many ‘special’ things that humans uniquely have. I am including here things like a sense of humour, kindness, justice, the intelligence to design and make endless commodities and products. We can all think of many different things and examples here. If you do not believe in the soul then you still have to account for these things in a fairly logical way. For me the existence of these special and uniquely human qualities again leaves my mind open to the existence of the soul.

To summarise this blog briefly, if anyone asks me whether I believe in the existence of the soul and its immortality (or even its longevity for a few hundred years) after the death of our mortal bodies, then my honest answer would be: “Yes, on balance I probably do….”. However, I would agree with the ancient writer Xenophon (a contemporary of Socrates) who wrote words to the effect that even if someone was telling us the complete truth about the soul and other ‘spiritual’ things – how we know that for sure – and so in spiritual matters one’s own opinion seems unusually to be the most important factor.

If I am asked why I believe in the soul, my honest answer would be that there is no one single factor that makes me think positively about the existence of the soul, but that rather it is a combination of all  the factors as discussed above being:

a.      The soul may exist in a purely scientific way and does not necessarily need to be spiritual or divine.

b.      That a person (the self) is different to the arms, legs, and eyes that the person simply makes use of, and is therefore something different to the whole body.

c.       Science is still undecided about exactly what consciousness is – and the jury is still very much out.

d.      If immortal things exist at all, they must be made out of different things than mortal things and so we should not expect to see, hear or touch them in the usual way.

e.      Although anything immortal would have to be made of ‘special’ stuff, this ‘stuff’ would not have to be particularly mysterious or exotic. For example, atoms and sub atomic particles are to all intents and purposes immortal….

f.        Human beings appear to be born with essential ‘pre knowledge’ which needs to be accounted for.

g.      Our DNA code, although now better understood, still has many secrets to reveal.

h.     In every part of the globe and at every epoch of time people have been spiritual in very large numbers. One has to account for why, and be more convincing than saying that we spiritual people are all in need of some emotional crutch, since many traditionally ‘successful’ people have been spiritual, and many atheists have had nervous breakdowns and financial problems too J

i.        Many people have spoken about having religious experiences, but many more have remained silent.

j.        We still do not scientifically understand all the details about some complex systems – even everyday examples like the weather. Even with masses of scientific research and data people still cannot agree about global warming and the extent to which it may or may not be caused by human activity. Because we do not understand all the details does not mean that something does not exist, or that we cannot describe what it is like and what its effects are.

k.      We can all observe some very special and unique characteristics that human beings possess such as kindness, justice, creative ability – and although we have physical similarities to many animals our special abilities (and hopefully qualities) need once more need to be accounted for.

My final thought on this matter is to mention the sentiments expressed by a young man called Timaeus who talked with Socrates on these ‘metaphysical’ matters. Timaues said (as recorded in Plato’s book of that name) that there are many theories about all these things and none of them can be proven for sure at this time. He said it is therefore sensible for us to consider what seems probable as oppose to what seems improbable and unlikely; and this leads me personally to believe in the existence of the soul and its longevity – based on the probabilities described above.

(James. London 2014)

Footnotes:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090725135324AApHMlU (megabytes and DNA)

‘Our haploid genome is 3 billion base pairs, so the amount of information would be 6 billion bits, which is about 715 megabytes.’

‘The human genome (haploid, 3 billion nucleotides) fits uncompressed on a CD, so ~700 megabytes. There are organisms with a much, much larger genome than ours.’