Steen Laugesen Hansen, er træt af at være gymnasielærer – men kan ikke analysere sig frem til det grundlæggende problem

Det er et eklatant svagt punkt for “moderne” mennesker (dem der er vokset op med en enlig-mor-stat siden 60erne), at de har et komplet blindt punkt når det kommer til at analysere sig frem til hvor roden til et problem er omkring de aspekter som nævnte stat er involveret i.

Det er ligesom når der sker et uheld på vejene. Så opfattes det sådan at det kun er de to (eller flere evt.) bilister hvor iblandt at skylden skal findes for miseren … ikke dem der har ansvaret for vejene. Det er der det blinde punkt er … så snart det har at gøre med ens “herskere” så ryger klappen ned.

Steen Laugesen Hansen i en artikel i Berlingske Tidende mfl. har givet udtryk for en stor utilfredshed med standarden af nutidens unge i Gymnasierne.

“Der er nærmest ingen motivation at finde blandt eleverne. Det er som om, at det ikke er gået op for dem, at de frivilligt har valgt gymnasiet. De fleste virker totalt ligeglade. Også med at få dårlige karakterer. De er egentlig meget søde og venlige alle sammen, men der er bare intet engagement nogen steder”, udtaler han.

Og ja det kan jeg sagtens sætte mig ind I er frustrerende, men som mangeårig akademiker, burde han være bedre til at analysere sig frem til hvor kilden til problemet egentlig ligger.

Meeen …problemet er nok snarere at han godt instinktivt ved hvor problemet er men at han ikke kan pointere det af frygt for at dem der sikrer at “gratis gymnasie” kan fortsætte også har magten til at opsige ham hvis han analyserer sig frem til den korrekte sandhed.

Symptomatisk er det også at han lancerer snuptagsløsninger for hvordan de problemer HAN har, kan fixes. Og som altid er det noget med at gøre de svasgeste i det arrangement til prügelknabe, nemlig eleverne. Ikke systemet, for det kunne jo gå ud over ham selv.

Problemet er bare at et problem aldrig vil blive løst før man anerkender hvor det i virkeligheden ligger. jeg har lavet et podcast om artiklen og kommenterer mere i tråd med hvad jeg har skrevet her.

Read More

Idealism and mysticism

In a podcast in danish I argue about the delineation between a rigid, sceptical, metaphysical idealism and when that idealism tends to end up with mysticism.

The “weakness” (so to say) is that idealism leaves a “large” unknowable “space” where individuals who want to inject their supernatural beliefs can roam free.

But since philosophy in the end deals with what is knowable, a metaphysical realm that is impenetrable by the senses cannot be known either. To paraphrase Socrates … “The only thing I know is what I experience”.

Read More

“New idealism”

I may be making a premature anticipation (if that is not a misnomer) about claiming a present or coming movement of “new idealism”. But let me make the case.

Idealism deals with the greatest and most long standing controversy in philosophy and for good reasons. It is the foundation on which you argue for your epistemology, which is the academic term for “how do I know” (anything).

I have argued for the past 18 months or so, for an idealist approach (your experience is different from the things it describes) to metaphysics as the correct one instead of the naturalist (your experience is the same as what is).

The problem, to me at least, arises when you have to combine the notion that your consciousness is all you ever experience while, when you recognise the structure of consciousness, it seems to only deal with what is outside your mind (and thus consciousness).

The structure of has the mind in a sort of black area in the middle that is not perceived, while the rest seems to describe something that is outside your body (and thus mind).

The problem is that perception is a part of the mind and the mind is only inside your brain. So whatever you perceive and recognise is only something that can be “presented” within the bounds of your brain. But that is clearly not the structure of conscious perception, which as I stated before deals only with “things” outside your consciousness, mind, brain and body.

So how do I square this circle. Well the only possible solution is that what you experience is not what the things are in themsleves but a kind of “derivative”. The radical sceptics would even say that you only have the experience and can say nothing about what they are based on (Kant: The things in themselves).

But I would axiomatically decide that the structure of this perception of external “reality” is always the same whenever I perceive, I can at least axiomatically deal with it. Metaphyscis comes before epistemology so i can never claim knowledge on this level, only state axioms (this is my philosophy).

One way of seeing that this is the valid way of interpreting perception is that whenever the first brain cell evolved, whatever it chanced to “perceive” from some vibration on its border, was something that worked towards the survival of the cell. But it never had any idea what it should use the “signal” for or even that it could be understood as a signal, simply because it had never perceived anything before.

The natural consequence is that no brain cell ever had any idea about what it is doing or whether or not it “describes” anything. And add to that. The sense data, as the “signals” evolved into, is not in any case the same as what they may be a “reflection” of, if they are indeed reflections of anything at all.

The only principle that can be responsible for creating a rational and useful consciousness is evolution. In so far as the use and ability to create something that works to further life, it will at some time appear. In the end it is up to individual rationality to figure out what to do with the perception/recognition you have got. Therefore it also has huge ramifications for a definition of knowledge … but that is another story.

In recent years, there has come forth at least a few prominent proponents of an “idealistic” approach to an understanding of consciousness. So as I stated there could be something called a “new idealism” on the rise, even if it sounds a bit bold. It could very well be argued that all possible stances on idealism has been proposed, from Kant to Hegel to Schopenhauer etc. (imho even Hume could be thrown in for good measure as he provoked Kant down that road)

Donald Hoffman has argued about a evolutionarily optimised consciousness by arguing that it makes no sense to think that brain cells would have evolved to describe reality, much less understand it. We have only evolved to focus on particular aspects (concepts), that furthers our survival. Everything else should and would be evolved out of consciousness. even if we do not know if there is something outside, we can say that if there is something, it is not what we experience and further more, we only experience what of it we need to.

Bernardo Kastrup has been arguing more around a fundamental philosophical approach to metaphysics and in my opinion argues correctly for a sceptical stance that must lead to an experience that is disconnected from what it is it may be describing. He accepts that there probably is something beyond our senses so to say, but whatever it is, it is only potentially constant in so far as we are able to conceptually identify what we experience. But since our experience can change we may not even have any kind of certainty of a correlation between conception and what that conception might be based on . I may have slightly misunderstood his arguments, but this is how I understand him.

I am happy that there is a growing interest in thinking idealistic in regards to metaphysics. When people make statements like “A reality independent of consciousness” (a commonly used phrase by so-called naturalists/dualists), it does make alarm bells go off in my head.

Where the “new” comes into “new idealism”, to me, is the combination with evolution, while not entering into neuroscience or anything like that.

Read More

Stefan Molyneux and christianity

I am still baffled about two aspects of Stefan Molyneux´s “presentations” and their relation to christianity.

First of all. Stefan has railed against religion and specifically christianity for ten years on his “show”, from 2006 and to about 2016. Then all of a sudden, he becomes “warm” towards christianity and starts referencing Jesus, talking about theology as a specific category of thought parallel to philosophy, referring to the Ten Commandments as a “foundation” for relationships and so on. What the hell is the matter with him? I can understand someone adjusting their “belief” or “philosophy” in specific corners of it to straighten it out as they get wiser. But making a turnaround of this kind after ten years of basically ridiculing everything that has to do with religion … is something else.

The second thing is, that christian “people” seem to be fine with that, despite those ten years of hard-nosed opposition. What the hell is the matter with christians? have they no pride in themselves and their “beliefs”? What about integrity? Molyneux is making a very suspicious turnaround, but is more or less received as a true believer. Why ? Are christians so pathetically hungry for someone who has lost his faith in reality, and receiving him as “you have fallen but will be safe here among us other losers, who have no pride in principles or integrity!”. Maybe the …“Everyone” is welcome in christianity is a kind of used as “He used to be one of those who criticised us, but now we can claim “victory” over secular philosophy and probably particularly… morality”.

I have no longer any trust in what Stefan Molyneux says or claims. His metaphysics is wrong (the belief in knowledge of a mind-independent external reality), his ethics, UPB (see my critique here) does not work (why would he else abandon it and embrace something as ridiculous as the Ten Commandments, which based on “dictation” from an impossible “authority” in the sky).

A philosopher can be in doubt about certain aspects, or even change their understanding of certain central ideas. But they can make very good and easy to follow, valid arguments about how they arrived at new insights and make them intuitively understandible. Stefan has made a few comments like .. “I have gotten older” or “sometimes you need to stop and take a look back…” .. or other likewise empty arguments. This is highly suspicious and a good reason to be incredible sceptical about everything he says .. AND has said.

Stefan Molyneux has become your best example of the idea of thinking for yourself. Become your own philosopher and stop eating raw, what other individuals tell you, no matter what … not even from me !!

I won’t go into their discussion on art other than to say. Just remember not to put too much meaning into it. As Hitchcock said “It´s just a movie” …

Read More

Let’s play …

Et hygge podcast om min personlige “historie” med computerspil. I gamle dage … da jeg var barn 🙂 …var det kortspil, matador og lignende der var underholdningen. Efter computerens indtog op gennem 80erne, begyndte computerspil at dukke op.

Jeg fik min første PC i 1994 og en af grundende var, at jeg ville spille Doom. Jeg måtte dog lige erkende at det krævede en opgradering hvilket var et tilbagevendende problem i den sidste halvdel af 90érne.

For jeg var sprunget med på vognen lige da PC spillenes opblomstringstid var kommet og der kom det ene genredefinerende spil efter det andet i de år. Dem af jer der kan huske det ved hvad jeg snakker om, både hvad spil og hvad hardware angår.

Senere blev jeg hooked på konsol og de muligheder det giver.

Jeg giver her en gennemgang af nogle af mine favoritspil og så håber jeg at det kan inspirere … også selvom det ikke er særligt filosofisk som sådan 🙂

Read More

Seksuel (des)orientering

I det her podcast diskuterer jeg hvorfor der lige pludselig er dukket så mange nye køn op på (sex)markedet. Personligt er min filosofi den, at den eneste kategorisering der er valid er “individ” … alt andet er rent faktisk en social konstruktion, i hvert fald med hensyn til alle de “sociale” forventninger der er til de enkelte “labels”. Og hvis ikke man snakker om forventningerne, så giver alle kategorierne jo ikke mening alligevel for det er netop for at kunne “kræve” noget at man har labels af individer.

Men der er underliggende agendaer der er langt mere problematiske og dem prøver jeg at afdække. Enhver mulighed skal altid endevendes, og eventuelt afvises en ad gangen. Ellers er du sandsynligvis offer for andre “individers” manipulation og forsøg på at drukne din dømme kraft i ord.

Read More

Børn skal have en f**k you mentalitet

Ja det er en kontroversiel overskrift, men giv mig en chance til at forklare hvad jeg mener … og det gør jeg bedst ved at du lige starter med at se de to video podcasts jeg har lavet om emnet, før du læser videre 🙂

Det jeg argumenterer for og om her er, at jeg synes der mangler en fundamental forestilling om hvor målet for “opdragelse” af børn skal “pege” hen og hvordan man fletter etik/moral ind i det (og måske dyd), så det hele ender op i en højere enhed.

Som altid skal moral komme først, da man ellers handler potentielt umoralsk eller opdrager sine børn til at gøre det.

Dernæst skal der være et slags mål der både sikrer at moralen er overholdt og at barnet så vidt muligt både får den bedst mulig mentale og fysiske tilstand og naturligt får en indsigt i hvordan man tager sig af sig selv, mens de ved hvordan man associerer sig med andre mennesker.

Problemet for forældre er at de i mange år har været både afhængige af andre mennesker og ikke har haft noget moralsk princip at forholde sig til.

De er derfor blevet andre individers værktøjer og kan på grund af den uønskede kognitive dissonans, ikke gå i den retning med deres børn som de burde, men former dem som de selv er blevet formet så de ikke skal stå på mål for deres egne mangler.

Read More

The 3 big flaws in Stefan Molyneux´s ethics (UPB)

I have followed Stefan since around early 2011. He was a big inspiration for me and the major reason why I started to philosophize.

I always had the notion that something was missing in his ethics, more precisely his book called “Universally Preferable Behaviour” (aka UPB).

I made an hour long critique of it around a year ago on my YouTube channel and it was not the best video I ever made. I am slightly encumbered by the fact that I don’t speak English in my day to day life and thus sometimes struggle to find certain words. This problem is much less there when I am writing and have time to think the expressions over.

Recently I made a new video pointing out three big problems with his ethics and I think it is much more clearer now what I think the problem is with his argumentation.

I encourage you to watch the videos if you are interested in UPB or ethics and morality in general. I do not present any alternatives I just point out the problems.

Read More

Descriptions of fact versus descriptions of value


You may not be quite sure what I am actually referring to in the title, but it is, in my view, an essential aspect of philosophy and one that is SO often neglected and the foundational reason why most philosophical discussions tend to end up being disagreements about the “meaning” of the terms (words) involved in the discussion, rather than actual philosophy.

One of the glorious examples of this problem is the basic foundations for the idea of meta-ethics. Meta ethics is often discribed as the field of understanding what is the “meaning” of the words “right” and “wrong”, “good” and “evil”, “moral” and “immoral” etc. In meta ethics it all coalesces into the dichotomy … is morality cognitive or non-cognitive.

First of all, whenever philosophy converges towards language/words, I always remind myself what the factuality of those terms really are.

Language, are sounds made by an individual

You may think that this is too simplistic or insufficient. Yes and no. The factual aspect is just that. Whatever else you want to add, are all value based descriptions .. like “… in order to communicate x …”. These are value-imbued expressions, because “communication” is an interpretation or “behavior”, based on the purpose or the valued result of that factual action. Sound is a sensory signal and therefore propositions can be made about it. “Communication” is a value expression and propositions cannot be made about them.

Value and changes in value is a part of the individuals consciousness. A change in value is something like this:

The change of perceived value of two situations related by causality, each described by their factual expressions (true propositions)

Since value is subjective (otherwise trade would be impossible), the value expressions cannot be used to describe any universal “rules” of any kind. They must be described using ONLY factual descriptions. This has HUGE consequences for how one understands human interactions and how ethics is used and the moral principles that it may lead to.

This distinction is the essence in Hume´s “is/ought” gap and where the ideas of objectivity and subjectivity come from.

Podcasts in danish regarding this subject:

Read More

Den sociale “kontrakt” er værre end ikke at have en kontrakt

Hvis du prøver at forestille dig en kontrakt, som er den absolut værst tænkelige, hvordan ville den så se ud?

Det ville være noget i retning af at du bliver tvunget til at deltage, mens du mentalt og fysisk er ude af stand til at sige fra. At du bliver truet på livet til at financiere det som den anden part i kontrakten synes du skal financiere og hvis du ikke vil, kan vedkommende frihedsberøve dig eller i sidste ende myrde dig.

Indholdet af kontrakten er defineret af mennesker der er døde eller nogen du ingen indflydelse har på. Du kan forsøge at kommunikere med den anden part men uanset hvad du kan få dem til at love er de ikke bundet af nogen som helst løfter de afgiver, samtidig med at du skal adlyde, ikke dine egne løfter, men deres ordrer.

Hvert fjerde år får du dog mulighed for at påvirke hvem det er der er den anden part i kontrakten… ved at sætte et kryds på et stykke papir (ligesom en analfabet) og det er hemmeligt sådan at din kommunikation ikke kan spores eller den der er krydset ved ikke kan stilles til ansvar.

Samtidig har mennesker i dine omgivelser den samme kontrakt med den eller de samme mennesker som er den anden part i din kontrakt, og de kan faktisk omstøde dit ønske og gennemtvinge at en anden person skal være den anden part i din kontrakt.

Den anden part repræsenteres typisk af løgnere, psykopater, fascister, kommunister, feminister (kommunister med trusser på) og andre suspekte personligheder, der ikke har nogen som helst form for moralsk kompas.

Det er en “kontrakt” der nærmest er uendeligt meget værre end ikke at have en kontrakt med nogen overhovedet.

Og det er faktisk indholdet af det der kaldes “den sociale kontrakt” og er fundamentet i det folk , med tårer i øjnene og en klump i halsen, hylder som “folkestyret” og “den vestlige verdens frihed”.

Det er sådan set bare slaveri. Det er bare svært at få øje på når alle andre deltager i det og siger at det er helt fantastisk !

Youtube podcast om den sociale kontrakt
mere youtube om den (a)sociale kontrakt
Read More