Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief

Jonathan Miller made a very thought provoking 3 episode documentery about the history of disbelief in 2005.

This program can be seen on youtube but it is cut up into 19 small videos and so I am going to list the episodes (I don't like to embed videos here on the blog) here for better access for the reader and in hope that the videos will stay there and not be removed by copyright issues or some other reason:

Episode 1 (named Shadows of Doubt): Part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6.

Episode 2 (named Noughts and Crosses): Part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6.

Episode 3 (named The Final Hour): Part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6.

Enjoy this remarkable series.

The Enemies of Reason

Richard Dawkins of whom I am a great admirer hosted a two episode documentary about non-science things like astrology, alternative healing and the like called The Enemies of Reason. The shows are available on google video here: Part 1 and Part 2.

Highly recommended.

Two dead directors.

This week two great cinema directors died and one I had never heard of before. These were Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni, the latter is the one I had never heard of before. I have not seen many of Bergmans movies, perhaps only 1 or 2 but I have seen many movies that have been inspired by him and I am sure many movies I have seen have been inspired by Antonioni also, just didn't know it. I allow myself to call them great even though I don't know their work is because they have been inspiration to great directors like Woody Allen, Stanley Kubrick and others that I think are good directors, so their inspiration must be good also doesn't it?

The reason I like these kind of movies much more then movies like Die Hard 4 or The Simpsons is the same reason I like the lyrics of Leonard Cohen, Tom Waits, Nick Cave more then the latest R'n'B/Hip Hop lyrics (beside the fact that most R'n'B/Hip Hop music is just plain boring) and that is that one takes on the hardship of life, tries to categorize it and find some kind of resolution to life and does it in an intellectual manner, the other perhaps tries but fails in a miserable way. Don't get me wrong, entertainment is ok, but that is all it is, just entertainment, doesn't have any substance but the former artists are good at combining entertainment with social issues and a little philosophy, that is good art in my opinion.

Anyway, solong and thanks for all the fish (ehh .. movies), Bergman and Antonioni.

The human rights of property

Was listening to my Sunday show about the future of democracy. There was this man talking about the right to ownership. Now I am an old socialist and have never thought much about the right to ownership, yes, people could own their house and their cars etc etc, but the right to do this was never really high on my agenda. But he was talking about this right and its connection to democracy. He quoted the economist Hernando de Soto who basically is saying that people wont be good participants in a democracy unless they own something. This I think is a pretty interesting point, can you make good decisions about yourself and your society if you don't have anything to loose?

This I relate to a study that was shown in the film The Corporation where they said that a corporation behaved like a psychopath based on the behavioral pattern of many corporations. Now the step from the ownership to corporation is a bit of a step but I think the first incorporates the other so I don't know what to think about this, one the one hand it seems logical what de Soto is saying but on the other hand experience about corporations and when people hide behind the legal document to make their decisions (that is the responsibility of the decision does not lie with the decision makers directly, but goes through the corporation) is a bad one. Is it possible to make a working system out of these two and at the same time ensure the well being of the whole?

Debate

I was listening to a very interesting radio show about democracy. In it an icelandic philosopher came up with the difference between two words, "kappræða" and "rökræða". These two words have the same english meaning as I can tell, and that is "debate". But he made the distinction that "kappræða" was when two opposite sides met and discussed about one matter but they each had a side to defend and were not there to compromise on the matters but to get others to see their point of view as opposed to "rökræða" which means that two sides meet and discuss until they have digested the problem and perhaps found a compromising solution to it. This distinction I find interesting, where the former meaning is what politicians usually participate in and the latter is what I would call the sensible man participates in. The former has its merits, as for instance when candidates to a post meet and try to persuade the voters to vote for them. Then they have to get their points of view forth and let people know what they stand for and what they see is wrong with the opponents view, but we have to then take this "debate" as it is, as "kappræða", not "rökræða".

I find myself taking this "kappræða" point of view way to often, unfortunately (and I know people that do it to :-) ), have to try to stay out of that, it doesn't lead to anything when you don't have any audience to persuade :-)