Monthly Archives: July 2017

Omnipotence at the price of nihilism – Patheos (blog)

Posted: July 7, 2017 at 1:59 am

The bestselling bookHomo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrowby Yuval Noah Harari argues that our species homo sapiens (man the wise) is evolving into homo deus (man the god).

Our technology is progressing at such a rate that human beings will merge with our machines. The resulting cyborgs will be omnipotent.

So far, this is just more fantasizing towards the new cyber-religion. But then Harari gets more original and more interesting: He says that the alliance between science and humanism that has held ever since the Enlightenment will break down.

The era of Homo Deus will no longer have a basis for justice, freedom, human rights, or any kind of moral ideals. So we will have to learn to live without them.

Harari takes for grantedthat religion has been disproven by science. Not only that there is no God, but that there is no soul, just the physical brain. And not only is there no soul, but there is no free will, no moral agency, and no meaning to existence.

That science has proven all of this is completely unfounded. But, as Michael Gerson points out in his review of the book (after the jump), Harari is at least intellectually honest in facing up to the implications of his ideas, which lead to utter nihilism: Omnipotence is in front of us, almost within our reach, Harari says, but below us yawns the abyss of complete nothingness.

From Michael Gerson, Humans reach for godhood and leave their humanity behind The Washington Post:

Much analysis of Yuval Noah Hararis brilliant new book, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, focuses on the harrowing dystopia he anticipates. In this vision, a small, geeky elite gains the ability to use biological and cyborg engineering to become something beyond human. It may upgrade itself step by step, merging with robots and computers in the process, until our descendants will look back and realize that they are no longer the kind of animal that wrote the Bible [or] built the Great Wall of China.. . .

Yet the predictions are not the most interesting bits of the book. It is important primarily for what it says about the present. For the past few hundred years, in Hararis telling, there has been a successful alliance between scientific thought and humanism a philosophy placing human feelings, happiness and choice at the center of the ethical universe. With the death of God and the denial of transcendent rules, some predicted social chaos and collapse. Instead, science and humanism (with an assist from capitalism) delivered unprecedented health and comfort. And now they promise immortality and bliss.

This progress has involved an implicit agreement, In exchange for power, says Harari, the modern deal expects us to give up meaning. Many (at least in the West) have been willing to choose antibiotics and flat-screen TVs over the mysticism and morality behind door No. 2.

It is Hararis thesis, however, that the alliance of science and humanism is breaking down, with the former consuming the latter. The reason is reductionism in various forms. Science, argues Harari, revealed humans as animals on the mental spectrum, then as biochemical processes and now as outdated organic algorithms. We have opened up the Sapiens black box and discovered there neither soul, nor free will, nor self but only genes, hormones and neurons.. . .

But Harari has one great virtue: intellectual honesty. Unlike some of the new atheists, he recognizes that science is incapable of providing values, including the humanistic values of Locke, Rousseau and Jefferson. Even Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker and the other champions of the new scientific worldview refuse to abandon liberalism, Harari observes. After dedicating hundreds of erudite pages to deconstructing the self and the freedom of will, they perform breathtaking intellectual somersaults that miraculously land them back in the 18th century.

Harari relentlessly follows the logic of reductionism as it sweeps away individualism, equality, justice, democracy and human rights even human imagination. . . .

This is the paradox and trial of modernity. As humans reach for godhood, they are devaluing what is human. Omnipotence is in front of us, almost within our reach, Harari says, but below us yawns the abyss of complete nothingness.

[Keep reading. . .]

Illustration 2014 Luna Sea.Medusa Cyborg Vampire from Space. Licensed underCC-BY. Unchanged. via Sketchport.

See original here:

Omnipotence at the price of nihilism - Patheos (blog)

Posted in Nihilism | Comments Off

The Philosophy of the Coen Brothers – Film School Rejects – Film School Rejects

Posted: at 1:59 am

What are Coen Brothers films all about?

Nihilists. Fuck me. I mean, say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude at least its an ethos. Walter Sobchak, The Big Lebowski

The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of this problem. (Is not this the reason why those who have found after a long period of doubt that the meaning of life became clear to them have been unable to say what constituted that meaning?) Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

To write about the Coen Brothers is to confront, head on, lifes hardest problem. Im not talking about the problem of film criticism generally, nor of identifying why Joel and Ethan Coen are among our greatest living filmmakers. These problems, though they confront me presently, are not all that hard. But usually, when one studies a filmmaker, there emerges in the work a distinct perspective on life a philosophical point of view, which style and story jointly reveal. And although countless words have been spilled on the philosophy of the Coens films, no one has yet produced a summary that the Brothers themselves would endorse. Themes and motifs recur, but meanings are elusive. The most one can say is that the work is so meticulously well-crafted that it feels meaningful, even as conclusive statements of purpose escape us. Thus in a Coen Brothers film, as in life, were left asking: is all this meaning merely apparent?

Notoriously resistant interview subjects, the Coens have managed to ascend through the ranks of the cinematic canon without ever showing their philosophical hand. Theyve now claimed every accolade: Oscars for Best Picture, Director, Original Screenplay, and Adapted Screenplay; the Palme DOr, Best Director, and Grand Jury Prizes at Cannes; Best Director from the DGA; Original and Adapted Screenplay from the WGA. Their films have inspired multiple books, including one that explicitly claims to deal with their philosophy. But when pressed for insights about their work, they tend to downplay its significance. one that explicitly claims to deal with their philosophy. But when pressed for insights about their work, they tend to downplay its significance. Asked in 1998 about his philosophy of filmmaking, Ethan replied, I dont have one. I wouldnt even know how to begin. Asked in 2001 about his creativity, Joel quipped, I guess it beats throwing trash for a living.

So what are we to make of the fact that these masters of the craft claim, or at least imply, that they have nothing to say? One option is to let the work speak for itself. Beginning with their startlingly assured 1984 debut, Blood Simple, the Coens have produced three decades worth of highly distinctive work. Their films span many genres and tones, yet all retain the clear signature of their makers. That Coen style, such as it is, has more to do with rhythm, tone, and characterization than visual flair. Its a feeling of faint tragedy amid the humor or faint humor amid the tragedy. Consider Anton Chigurhs sardonic use of the word friendo for his future victims in No Country for Old Men, or the Folgers tin used to hold Donnys ashes in The Big Lebowski.

One topic about which the Brothers are forthcoming in interviews is the many influences that feed into their work. Although they dont consider themselves film fanatics of the Tarantino variety, their love of Old Hollywood noir and screwball in particular is everywhere on display. 2003s Intolerable Cruelty is an out-and-out screwball film, while 2000s O Brother, Where Art Thou? takes its title from Sullivans Travels, directed by the great screwball master Preston Sturges. Aided by longtime collaborator Roger Deakins, the Brothers elegantly revived the black-and-white noir in 2001s The Man Who Wasnt There. And just last year, they released Hail, Caesar! a noir-screwball film about Old Hollywood.

Though theyve made many period pieces, the Coens use the past in much the same way as their genre predecessors, as fantasy rather than historical reality. Its not about reminiscence, they have said, because our movies are about the past we have never experienced. Its more about imagination. Such fantasizing makes the problem of meaning all the more vexing because the Coens cant be accused of commenting on a history they never claimed to represent. Hail, Caesar! in particular, was accused of ignoring topics like race and gender in the 1950s altogether a critique that the Brothers rebuffed by claiming this is not how they think of stories. It often seems that the Coens wish their films could be seen in a vacuum, as self-contained pockets of meaning without reference to the larger world.

And yet their two greatest films (at least by award-count) Fargo and No Country for Old Men are also among their most realistic. Both films invite the viewer, in their opening sequences, to regard the films as more than mere stories. Fargo bears an opening placard announcing, This is a True Story a choice the brothers made specifically so that audiences wouldnt see the movie as just an ordinary thriller. And Sheriff Ed Tom Bell in No Country concludes his opening monologue with the evocative phrase, OK, Ill be a part of this world.

No Country, in particular, is worth dwelling on, not only because its a perfect piece of filmmaking, but also because it provides insight into the brothers ambivalence about meaning. Ed Tom Bells speech at the films opening expresses a fear that the Coens seem to share: namely that, if he agrees to engage with the violence and tragedy of the world, it may overcome him. It may force him to say, as he does, I dont know what to make of that. Similarly, it would seem that the more of the real worlds senselessness they allow into their work, the harder it might become for the Coens to make meaning. Such meaning might not be there at all.

Of late, the Coens appear to be rebounding back and forth between addressing and ignoring this problem. No Country was followed by the farcical Burn After Reading. A Serious Man, the Coens most direct treatment of meaninglessness, gave way to True Grit, a downright pious film. And Inside Llewyn Davis, which directly mocks arts pretensions of meaning, was followed by Hail, Caesar!, which embodies that very mockery, by being (seemingly) meaningless itself. If the trend holds, we should expect the Coens next outing to tackle the question of meaning head-on once more, trying again to be a part of this world.

There is wisdom to be found, perhaps unsurprisingly, in The Big Lebowski. Many mistook that films sage ethos of acceptance for nihilism, but the Coens resisted this label. For us, the nihilists are the bad guys, Joel told Michael Ciment and Hubert Niogret in 1998, and if theres a preferred moral position, itd be that of Jeff Bridges, though its difficult to define! Though theyve grown to doubt it in recent films, the Dudes fluid perseverance his abidance, as it were might be a solution to the specter of nihilism that haunts the Coens. Not unlike Marge Gundersons down-home goodness in Fargo, it does not oblige one to make sense of the horrors of the world only to persist in being good despite them.

Jeff Bridges summarized it well: I think [The Big Lebowski]s a film about grace, how amazing it is that were all allowed to stay alive on this speck hurled out into space, being as screwed up as we all are. Like, Fargo had a moral resonance to it. This one, I think, does as well. It may not be apparent to most people at first. But working in it, kind of bathing in this thing, it rang for me. Its not a real clear thing that you can say, Thats what it means. Its a little different. Perhaps we can say, then, that the Coens philosophy is summarized in the Wittgenstein quote above (Ethan wrote his thesis at Princeton on Wittgenstein). Or, less pretentious, and more concise: the Dude Abides.

The Philosophy of the Coen Brothers - Film School Rejects - Film School Rejects

Posted in Nihilism | Comments Off

Steve Vizard’s Vigil at Arts Centre Melbourne reveals trauma … – The Age

Posted: at 1:59 am

THEATRE VIGIL Book & Lyrics: Steve Vizard, Music: Joe Chiadamo Arts Centre Melbourne, Until July 8

Eddie Perfect lambasted the lack of support for Australian musicals on social media recently. He was right to be angry. When something as sparkling and original asVigilcomes along (nurtured to fruition by institutions like the Adelaide Cabaret Festival and The Arts Centre) you get a sense of what we're missing out on.

The talent pool underVigilruns deep indeed. It has sprung to life from Steve Vizard's witty character-based comedy, his brisk gift for lyrics and narrative and emotional intelligence; from Joe Chiadamo's melodic songs, which range through terrain as diverse as parody and heartfelt ballad; and the divine Christie Whelan, whose star quality is no secret, but who gets to spread her wings as a performer here embracing a rare chance to make the audience ache with sorrow, as well as cackle with delight.

Careening between hilarity and desolation, this intense one-woman musical compresses a gamut of conflicting emotion into one final evening between mother and daughter.

Whelan plays Liz, a wild child who rocks up to her mum's hospital ward on Christmas eve, after a long stint overseas. She plans to whip out overdue gifts, borrow some money and bugger off again, but the spectre of death intervenes.

As Liz holds vigil over her silent mother, a welter of grievance and memory, love and pain pours out of her. Trauma lurks underneath her rootless hedonism, and fortunately for us, Liz is a whiz at defensive humour giving Whelan an opportunity to showcase sharp comic impersonations, sketch comedy inFast Forwardmode, and musical hijinks, including a scream of a song (a kind of solo duet) where she embodies male and female lust at a suburban barbecue.

Under the laughter, suffering. Whelan is deeply moving when her character's guard drops, and nails Chiadamo's strongest melody, One More Breath, through three clever variations that capture the shock of unexpected grief, regret at time wasted, and resolve to seize the day.

A few weak spots exist moments where the comedy is slightly overstretched, one confessional number where I heard an uglier, more bitter song in my head than what Whelan performed butVigilremains a captivating new musical.

Get the latest news and updates emailed straight to your inbox.

With brilliant composition, writing, acting and vocals, with direction and design that augment intimacy at every point, the show makes you want to laugh and weep, sometimes both at once. A must-see for music theatre fans, and anyone who has ever lost a loved one will well up at the labile emotional odyssey it portrays.

This review was written from a preview.

View original post here:

Steve Vizard's Vigil at Arts Centre Melbourne reveals trauma ... - The Age

Posted in Hedonism | Comments Off

Australia’s most religious and non-religious postcodes based on who answered the Census question regarding religion – NEWS.com.au

Posted: at 1:58 am

The latest Census release show those ticking "no religion" rose to 29.6 per cent, and for the first time in Australia's history it has overtaken Catholics. So are we becoming a nation of non-believers?

New South Wales has our most religious suburb, according to Census 2016 data.

AUSTRALIAS most religious and non-religious postcodes have been revealed in the latest Census data by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

Ninety-three per cent of residents in the New South Wales postcode 2190, which encompasses the suburbs Greenacre and Chullora, in Sydneys south-west,stated they had a religious, secular or other spiritual belief, according to information consultants at the ABS.

The area has been identified as Australias most religious.

Nearly half (41.4 per cent) of the population claimed a religious affiliation to Islam and the same percentage spoke Arabic, while 23.1 per cent identified as Catholic.

Only 6.1 per cent stated they had no religion.

Also included were 11 people (0.04 per cent) who said they had a secular belief which the ABS said could include agnosticism, atheism, humanism, rationalism and others not classified.

According to Census stats, the most common ancestry of residents in the area was Lebanese (31.1 per cent), followed by Australian (10.1 per cent) and English (7.1 per cent).

While 53.3 per cent of residents were born in Australia, 68.6 per cent had both parents born overseas, with the highest percentage coming from Lebanon.

The figures were based on postal areas with at least 100 usual residents, and based on persons who answered the question regarding religion (which is not compulsory).

Census stats reveal an insight into Australias most religious postcode.Source:Supplied

A whopping 72.7 per cent of households spoke a language other than English, while the median age was 33 years old. Children aged 0-14 made up almost a quarter of the population. (24.1 per cent).

One of the suburbs, Greenacre, is home to Australias largest Islamic School, the Malek Fahd Islamic School, which is fighting to keep its federal government funding.

According to The Conversation, Muslims were almost entirely absent from many neighbourhoods and suburbs, and there were only a few (located in Melbourne and Sydney) where they made up more than 50 per cent of the population. This includes the neighbouring suburb of Lakemba.

Despite fears Australia is becoming a Muslim country, those ticking no religion in the Census has now overtaken the number of Catholics.

Its the first time in Australias history the number of people who claim no religion has overtaken Catholics, although the number of Christians in total still made up 51 per cent of the population.

The least religious suburb according to the ABS is found on the other side of the country, in a small, sleepy town in Western Australia with the postcode 6705, where 66.5 per cent of the population in Gascoyne Junction stated that they had no religion.

The area includes heritage-listed sites from early colonial Australian days and has a high proportion of indigenous people.

More than half (58.4 per cent) of the 278 people who live in the area, identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

Other suburbs that have been identified as particularly unholy include Melbournes terrace-lined North Fitzroy, while Fairfax is reporting Erskineville in Sydneys inner-west was now officially Australias most ungodly suburb.

Nationally, the latest Census drop showed those ticking no religion rose from 22.6 per cent to 29.6 per cent nearly double the 16 per cent in 2001.

Meanwhile, those identifying as Catholic dropped from 25.3 per cent to 22.6 per cent.

The number of Christians in total still made up 51 per cent of the population, but this is much less than the 88 per cent in 1966 and 74 per cent in 1991.

Islam (2.6 per cent) and Buddhism (2.4 per cent) were the next most common religions reported.

Those who did not answer the religion question, which is a non-compulsory question in the Census, was 9.6 per cent, up slightly from 9.2 per cent in 2011.

We remain a predominantly English speaking country, with 72.7 per cent of people reporting they speak only English at home. Tasmania had the highest rate of people speaking only English at home with 88 per cent, while the Northern Territory had the lowest rate at 58 per cent.

An earlier release of Census data in April showed the typical Australian was now a 38-year-old married woman with two children.

View original post here:

Australia's most religious and non-religious postcodes based on who answered the Census question regarding religion - NEWS.com.au

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off

Valentino Couture Fall 2017 – WWD

Posted: at 1:58 am

Years ago, John Fairchild had a name for the type of fashion editor who early on embraced the shroudlike avant-garde side of the Eighties, and who appeared to fall into a state of rapture at shows she loved. That name: fashion nun. It wasnt a compliment.

Would that Mr. Fairchild were around today, to sit down with Valentinos Pierpaolo Piccioliover a good bottle of red andengage in some serious guy talk about fashion. Perhaps the younger might convince the older that theres nothing wrong with a little fashion religion.

Hed at least make an impressive case.Piccioli believes genuinely in the power of fashion, couture in particular, to elevate the spirit. Some may find that thought itself profane. At a preview, he explained his premise. Inthis moment, everything is digital and about rationalism, Piccioli said. I think all of us are looking for something more spiritual, beyond reality. This is really close to the idea of couture because every aspect of the sacred is expressed by rituals, and couture is made by rituals. Sacred is what is beyond reality, what you dont see but you just feel, you just perceive. What makes couture special, unique and magical is what you dont see all the ritual to arrive at the piece.

Piccioli called his fall collection a reflection about the sacred. He was inspired by ecclesiastical garments and the religious portraits of 17th-century painter Francisco de Zurbarn, but also by the prettiest of pagan deities, Venus.

The results were Heaven-sent. That Piccioli turns out a spectacular evening gown is hardly a surprise. His Valentino has made covered-up evening dressing not only alluring, but also cool, no small feat in this era of the social media sexpot on endless display. What intrigues now and whats essential for the brand is the way hes advancing the look. For fall, he scaled back significantly on the decorative flourish so expected in couture, to work more with an iconoclastic minimalism based on dramatic volumes that fall away from the body, some with that monastic aura. Yet hes no religious zealot; Piccioli also showed a number of intricately collaged gowns and a pair of billowing beauties one pink, one red to befit the chicest of storybook heroines.

Still, the collections bigger news was its daywear, cut with all of the obsessive perfection inherent in couture, but not a trace of madame attitude. Rather, Piccioli took a separates approach, layering on piece after piece: long unfettered coats or more statement-y capes over vests over dresses over shirts over pants, all in slightly dissonant colors. Will the couture client go for it? Lets hope; lets pray. No, lets not pray. Theyre fabulous, but as Mr. Fairchild would say, theyre only clothes.

More From ParisHaute CoutureWeek Fall 2017:

Chanel Couture Fall 2017:Karl Lagerfeld focused on an essential tenet shared by the Eiffel Tower and couture itself: perfection of structure.

Backstage at Christian Dior Couture Fall 2017:Peter Philips and Guido Palau fashioned the beauty look of the show.

Atelier Versace Couture Fall 2017:The collection blended Baroque references and rock n roll with a soupon of 3-D printing.

Iris van Herpen Couture Fall 2017:For her 10th anniversary show, the designer sent out aquatic-themed creations to a performance by underwater group Between Music.

Paris Couture Gains Extra Day as Confidence Returns: Frances Chambre Syndicale de laHaute Couturehas welcomed five brands as guest members on this seasons schedule.

Read the original here:

Valentino Couture Fall 2017 - WWD

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off

Seven businesswomen on what would change if more leaders were female – Women’s Agenda

Posted: at 1:58 am

Its no surprise that men continue to dominate major leadership positions across almost all industry sectors in Australia.

Meanwhile, most women continue to go un-recognised for their efforts, with more than two thirds of major, non-gendered accolades going to men.

But, what if it were the other way around?

We posed the question to a number of Australian businesswomen: What would change if there were more women in leadership?

Katrina Barry, Managing Director at Contiki, the travel company that has perfected the art of travel for 18-35 year olds

If there was a balance of women and men in leadership, traditional gender roles of breadwinner and homemaker would be shattered with the sexes needing to share responsibility.

In the current environment, more pressure is placed on men to be the sole or majority earner and this often leads to sub-optional career choices based on securing the right path or highest paying job.

If both men and women had the ability to break stereotype and pursue passions rather than financial outcomes then both might find better fit and greater satisfaction, also a greater productivity and economic performance that correlates to more women in leadership.

Kate Morris, CEO and founder, Adore Beauty Australias leading online shopping destination for beauty and cosmetics.

With more women in leadership, Australian companies would all be more successful!

There are numerous studies showing that gender-diverse leadership produces better business outcomes, including profitability, innovation, customer experience, and employee retention. Particularly in retail where women are responsible for 85% of purchasing decisions there is a very strong business case for having more women in leadership positions.

Rebekah Campbell, co founder of Hey You, the order ahead app

Becoming a mother has fundamentally changed my outlook and the way my brain works. Mothers have hyperactive empathy programming. We couldnt tolerate harm to anyones children and were all someones child.

Mothers are also very future focussed. We value theworldwere passing on to our children over the lifestyles we lead today. Ifmore womenand mums were in leadership rolesthen climate change, environmental protection, the fight against infectious diseases, peace and equality would outrank economic rationalism and small-minded protectionism.

Taryn Williams, Founder & CEO, theright.fit

I think the world would improve if more women were in leadership, because we would build better, more balanced and representative workplaces.

As a tech founder, Im incredibly passionate about increasing the number of women who study STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) and helping them to see that working in a tech company is a viable (and exciting!) career option for them.

When a business of any kind, but especially a technology company, has a good representation of different ages, ethnicities, and importantly genders, working in the company, we build better products that serve the needs of the client better because all the needs of the market are understood and represented. This makes for more successful and more profitable companies, so to me, its a no brainer!

DrAmantha Imber, Founder and CEO, Inventium, Australias leading Innovation Consultancy

Women have been shown to be decidedly more suited to management positions than their male counterparts, naturally ranking higher in general than men in their abilities to innovate and lead with clarity and impact.

Having a more balanced female view would bring much-needed diversity to the discussions. Diversity is hugely beneficial for innovation, and the world can always do with more of that.

JulieDemsey, General Manager, SBE Australia delivering the Springboard Enterprises Accelerator program supporting female lead tech companies ingrowing and scaling their businesses.

Having more women leading businesses will help us eradicate gender bias bothconsciousandunconscious.

Young girls and boys alike benefit from seeing strong, successfulfemales leading healthy profitable businesses. They will expect this to be the norm and see this as how the world is rather than how it could or should be. As these beliefs change, so too will the tendency for bias and we will find an equality in the workplace. I hope to see this in my lifetime.

Kristy Chong, CEO & Founder of Modibodi, the revolutionary womens high-tech underwear company that empowers women of all ages, shapes and sizes to live a better life.

As for major changes, we paint women out to be nurturers and peacemakers but I do not think these qualities are female specific. The major beliefs and attitudes between men and women in Australia are mostly the same, but the resources to support women and the education around equality and what that means is still lacking.

As a result Australia is still a male dominated society.

So if more women leaders we would achieve equality, because ultimately we have more to gain.

See original here:

Seven businesswomen on what would change if more leaders were female - Women's Agenda

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off

Campus free speech bills advanced around the country — but Texas’ bills died in committee – Chron.com

Posted: at 1:57 am

Photo: Michael Ciaglo, Houston Chronicle

Keep going for more images from Richard Spencer's controversial speech at Texas A&M.

Students sing the Aggie War Hymn in front of riot police outside the Memorial Student Center as they protest white nationalist Richard Spencer speaking at Texas A&M University Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016 in College Station.

Keep going for more images from Richard Spencer's controversial speech at Texas A&M.

Students sing the Aggie War Hymn in front of riot police outside the Memorial Student Center as they protest white

Law enforcement officers come face to face with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face off with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers come face to face with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers come face protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

A flier speaks out against Richard Spencer at Texas A&M on Tuesday.

Protesters march at the Memorial Student Center at A&M on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

A woman is taken into custody as law enforcement officers confront protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Demonstrators march at Texas A&M in College Station as they protest white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators argue at a march protesting white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Kortland Finley, of Dallas, left, argues with a man at a protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers stand by as demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Jamil Brown signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Steven Anderson signsan Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Susana Magdalena Mata signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Texas A&M graduate student Harsimran Singh signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's visit to the College Station campus on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Jamil Brown signs the Aggies United board on Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016, in College Station.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

Rabbi Matt Rosenberg questions of white nationalist leader Richard Spencer at a news conference before Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

Continued here:
Campus free speech bills advanced around the country -- but Texas' bills died in committee - Chron.com

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off

Protecting truly free speech is hard work – GlobalComment.com

Posted: at 1:57 am

Recently I undertook a final year undergraduate class in political philosophy. The opening lecture commenced with a trailer from1984(1984). This film adaptation of George Orwells original dystopian novel (1949) imagines a society monitored pedantically by an all-encompassing omniscient totalitarian super state (Oceania).

My lecturer subsequently discussed her upbringing in formerly USSR-controlled East Germany. East Germany was a microcosmic manifestation of Airstrip One (Britain rechristened in1984). It was a relatively small communist province managed maliciously from Russia.

What dangers can transpire when a singular overriding ideology is bequeathed an exclusive cultural and legislative precedence?

Stringent protections of free speech (the right to dissent) are an important guarantor against any potential monopoly of power. When free speech is unjustifiably curtailed, democratic societies are threatened. Enabling disparate voices to participate in political and academic life ensures that current orthodoxies become neither lackadaisical nor presumptively unequivocal. Unpopular schools of thought, strong opposition parties and a variety of editorial slants constrain intellectual egomania and unhealthy political power grabs.

Most people will acknowledge this principle to some extent. At a base level, many Republicans recognize that they need Democrats. Often, academics are more indebted to their detractors than they would care to admit. But should disparate fascist cohorts and militant Islamic groupsbe given a hearing in democratic societies? Should extremist spokespersons be allowed to benefit from the privileges which they would seek to suppress in alternative circumstances?

What if particular radical tenets exploited susceptible listeners? Surely some measure of benevolent paternalism is warranted. In practice, many developed nations do place limitations upon free speech.

Recently, Ursula Haverbeck, a prolific revisionist historian and neo-Nazi, was imprisoned for denying the Holocaust on German soil. The British government has also introduced anti-extremism legislation. Even views which were oncethemain sway of opinion merely decades ago are now mitigated against legislatively and on university campuses.

In 2016, Angus Buchan (a conservative evangelical South African evangelist) was banned from preaching in Scotland. LGBT groups cited his allegedly homophobic and misogynistic views in justification of the prohibition. Offbeat second wave feminists like Germaine Greer and Camille Paglia have had their invitations to universities revoked by disenfranchised students.

These measures are not only inappropriate, but fundamentally counter-productive. Furthermore, they send a dangerous message to zealous minority factions. Theprima facieobvious ought to be stated: these demarcations are purely symbolic. Everyone knows that the most efficient way to stifle reprehensible opinions merely requires not paying attention to them.

Unsurprisingly; bannings, finings and imprisonment provide frenzied radicals with much larger spheres of influence. Nothing is more ineffectual than bestowing notoriety upon fringe groups which would otherwise have never been given any platform. Attempts to curtail free speech merely ratify the grandiose outlaw status which agitators thrive upon. Outrage just adds fuel to the fire of irrational contempt.

Ifcertain views really are beyond the pale of rational discourse, there is no inherent reason for their adherents to feel any compulsion towards dialogue, compromise or self-critique. Abhorrent positions should be forced to earn their place in an economy of ideas rather than being crowned royalty in a much more lucrative, less competitive, black market.

Why then have coercive attempts to restrict hate speech become so popular? Perhaps attempts to officially proscribe certain opinions pertains to a far more raw, emotive and visceral essence. An ancient human facethas resurfaced: team psychology.

An ability to cooperate in large collectives is one of the characteristics which distinguish humanity from other primates. This remnant of our tribal ancestry is manifest almost everywhere; competitive sports; fashion; political partisanship; etc. Even whenever we are not facing any imminent danger we still sense a pressing need to express particular loyalties and make specific alliances.

However, in his infamous Ted Talk, The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt (N.Y.U.) identified one precarious trait innate to team psychology: The psychology of teams [] shuts down open minded thinking.

This is tantamount to stating the obvious. But Haidts observation should provoke serious introspection. Is it possible to reasonably discard ingroup thinking and pursuethecommon good? Do attempts to officially silence various antagonistic voices actually have a predominantly self-validating function?

Our position within a specific social tribe is reinforced. We are no longer required to critically assess objectionable opinions. The immense pleasure tribalism affords us makes it difficult and painful to distinguish between advocacy and enactment. Acknowledging the practical ineffectuality of anti-free speech legislation feels like betrayal.

Notwithstanding this phycological complication, there remains an immense difference between allowing persons to vocalize positions and possessing a blaze attitude towards the manifestation of such beliefs. Mob psychology has undoubtedly contributed to the rise of populism and social polarization (e.g. identity politics) throughout many Western nations which arose after the 2007-2008 global economic meltdown. Speech regulation provides continuity in an unstable world.

However, preemptively shutting down the possibility of dialogue with others cannot provide long term social security. The War on Extremism will soon be cataloged alongside other failed social Wars (like the War on Terrorism or War on Drugs). If monitoring language is counter-productive, what posture should anti-extremist political engagement take?

Free speech has become a hot button issue in recent years. The rise of cultural libertarianism (embodied by alternative media outlets like the Rubin Report) has remapped the political landscape for many millennials. Its purported free speech fundamentalism resonates amongst people alienated by consensus politics; which characterized both the 90s and Noughties. Cultural libertarianism is a flashy somewhat adolescent protest movement with plenty of uncanny insights and a remarkable lack of real solutions.

The conscientious branding which these star struck demagogues have deployed does their crusade a damning disservice. They have inadvertently capitalized upon the tribal loyalties which underlying anti-free speech regulation in the first place.

Furthermore, this movement has failed to attract much needed cross-partisan support. Left of center socially minded democrats, often disparagingly christened Social Justice Warriors, are presumptively excluded from this more open project. As Milo Yiannopoulos (a recently defamed former darling of the Cultural Libertarian troop) states; free speech is now a conservative issue.

Cultural Libertarianism is too facile. Its unwavering commitment to value facts over feelings reflects a limited awareness of the complexities inherent throughout the historical development of moral and political theory. Social liberalism has produced revolutionary free speech advocates liketheinfamous British Home Secretary Roy Jenkins. Without the Quran political toleration may never have got off the ground.

Yes; free speech is under threat. Democratic participation is difficult. Authentic university life is fragile. The freedom of the press is always somewhat in jeopardy. Protecting free speech involves hard work. It requires putting up with ideas we dislike and hoping that reasonable discourse will win out in the end.

Free speech advocates on the right, left, top, bottom and center should recognizethe importance ofgrey. We must stop painting ourselves and our adversaries in cheap gaudy colors. Unless we are careful, one persons utopia may become everyone elses nightmare.

Photo: John Nakamura Remy/Creative Commons

See the article here:
Protecting truly free speech is hard work - GlobalComment.com

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off

Using ‘free speech’ as a cover for discrimination – The Boston Globe – The Boston Globe

Posted: at 1:57 am

Jack Phillips is the operator of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo. The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from Phillips, who has religious objections to same-sex marriage and had lost a discrimination case for refusing to create a cake to celebrate such a union.

Colorado cake maker Jack Phillips is devout about his artistry in icing and fondant. Hes also devout about his Christian faith, so much so that he believes it would be deeply sinful to prepare a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Last week, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear his case, and arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission one in a series of efforts to fence in the galloping acceptance of same-sex marriage could come as soon as this fall.

Events were set in motion in 2012, when David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who planned to marry in Massachusetts, stopped into Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., to order a wedding cake. Phillips refused to serve them, even though Colorado law says businesses open to the public cant discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Phillips, of course, has a constitutionally protected First Amendment right to profess his faith. And hes made it clear theres no room for compromise, telling The New York Times: I believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and that to participate in a sin is wrong for me. For me to take part in it against my will is compelling me to make a statement that I dont want to make. But theres another right hanging in the balance, rooted in the 14th Amendment and codified by the Supreme Court in 2015: the right to same-sex marriage.

Historically, courts have tried to strike an equitable balance between expanded civil rights and religious expression. Since the Civil Rights Act was enacted, in 1964, lawmakers and the courts have allowed some exemptions but have tended to draw the line when claims of religious freedom are used to justify discrimination. As James Esseks, director of the ACLU LGBT project put it: You have freedom to believe and to preach your faith, until your actions harm other people.

Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:

Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.

The Supreme Courts Obergefell v. Hodges decision two years ago was transformative, addressing vital claims to liberty and dignity for millions of gay Americans. Phillipss protest also comes at a time when national support for same-sex marriage is at an all-time high, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll. A majority of Americans surveyed 62 percent now support gay marriage, including two-thirds of Catholics and 68 percent of mainline Protestants. And while white evangelical Christians arent exactly waving rainbow flags, support for same-sex marriage has grown from 27 percent in 2016 to 35 percent today, according to Pew.

Theres a broader First Amendment principle at stake, however. The Phillips case is another alarming assault on freedom of speech, part of an effort by businesses large and small to turn that most essential constitutional right into an antiregulatory tool. This compelled speech doctrine is already making its way through Congress and the court system, most notably in a case involving business groups fighting a 2010 law that requires them to disclose whether their products contain minerals linked to warlords in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In June, the US House passed the Financial CHOICE Act, which includes a pro-business provision to repeal the conflict-mineral disclosure. The US Senate should reject the bill, which also rolls back Dodd-Frank reforms. And the Supreme Court justices should recognize that the Masterpiece Cakeshop case is not about forcing speech, but about banning discriminatory conduct. The Colorado cakemaker should be free to worship as he pleases, but not to abrogate settled civil rights law under the guise of the First Amendment.

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off

Q&A: Free Speech 101 – Traer Star-Clipper

Posted: at 1:57 am

Q: Why did you conduct a hearing to examine free speech on college campuses?

A: On July 4, Americans will celebrate 241 years of independence. We will celebrate our nation's sovereignty and cherished individual freedoms that have been passed down from one generation to the next. As Americans, we are endowed with unalienable rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." As citizens, we are challengedto protect and defend the sacred blessings of freedom enshrined in our nation's founding charters. During tumultuous periods of war and social upheaval, these founding principles have served as an unbending arc to keep America united, from the nation's Civil War and civil rights movement to the Vietnam War and 21st century terrorism. Through it all, the U.S. Constitution enshrines the protection of freedom, liberty and justice for all. The five freedoms of the First Amendment are arguably the most well-known among Americans of all ages and walks of life: freedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of the press; freedom to assemble peaceably; and, freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances. Upholding this legacy and heritage of freedom for posterity depends on the next generation to stand up for and champion the free flow of ideas. Indeed, a consequential dissent written by JusticeOliver Wendell Holmes one year after World War I heralds the "marketplace of ideas" that has influenced the protections of the First Amendment for decades. Opendialogue and diversity of thought are vital hallmarks of self-government. Throughout my public service representing Iowa in the United States Senate, I prioritize constituent dialogue by holding meetings with Iowans in every county, every year. That's why I view efforts to thwart free speech on college campuses as a red flag to self-government. The censorship of ideas on college campuses has a chilling effect on a student's ability to digest, analyze and question opposing opinions. Banning speakers from campus to prevent certain messages from being heard does a disservice to the studentbody. It assaults the First Amendment. Institutions of higher learning should not be in the business of shielding students from opposing views. It poisons the well of democracy and erodes constitutional protections that generations of men and women in uniform have sacrificed life and limb to protect.

Q: What is your takeaway from the Judiciary Committee hearing?

A: We heard from seven witnesses who shared their views about the state of free speech on college campuses. The good news is not all college campuses are censoring free speech or restricting who comes to speak to the student body. However, two college students reported on "free speech zones" and other measures that they say results in intolerance and even fosters violence towards opposing viewpoints. In my opening statement, I referred to Northwestern University's president who supports "safe spaces" for students to avoid uncomfortable debates. Carving out "free speech zones" and "safe spaces" creates a disconnect on college campuses that unplugs young adults from reality. Colleges need to help open their eyes to the world, not muddy the lens through which they see it. Restricting the free flow of ideas at an institution of learning flunks common sense. It fosters a conformist culture that will shrink mindful learning and stunt schools of thought. Expanding tolerance for differing viewpoints comes from exposure to dialogue, not censorship. College administrators who testified raised concerns about limited resources for maintaining campus security and student safety amid recent incidents of violent protests. Certainly, campus safety is critical to families who send their kids off to college and a critical responsibility of a college administration. However, using it as a scapegoat to undercut the First Amendment is a flawed argument. It's very troubling that some college administrators are discriminating against speakers based on their points of view and political ideology. America does not subscribe to one single political orthodoxy. And while it's no secret that prevailing political orthodoxy among many universities leans to the liberal end of the political spectrum, it's unacceptable to prevent students from exploring the free flow of ideas and nurturing their ability to compromise and negotiate differences of opinion with civility and respect. Polarization and gridlock in Washington won't ever improve if the next generation is indoctrinated to shut down free speech and shut out opposing views. Even liberal university administrators agree that conservative views are often unwelcome on campus. A provost from Stanford University has said, "There is growing intolerance at universitiesa political one-sidedness that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for." It's promising that not all schools are adopting the censorship approach. America would be better served if more colleges adopted the University of Chicago's policy. It expressly prohibits "obstructing or otherwise interfering with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe." Instead, it calls for counter-speech and peaceful protest to express disagreement. My takeaway from the hearing confirms what I have long practiced in public office. America is better off when all voices have the freedom to be heard.

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off

Monthly Archives: July 2017

Omnipotence at the price of nihilism – Patheos (blog)

The Philosophy of the Coen Brothers – Film School Rejects – Film School Rejects

Steve Vizard’s Vigil at Arts Centre Melbourne reveals trauma … – The Age

Australia’s most religious and non-religious postcodes based on who answered the Census question regarding religion – NEWS.com.au

Valentino Couture Fall 2017 – WWD

Seven businesswomen on what would change if more leaders were female – Women’s Agenda

Campus free speech bills advanced around the country — but Texas’ bills died in committee – Chron.com

Protecting truly free speech is hard work – GlobalComment.com

Using ‘free speech’ as a cover for discrimination – The Boston Globe – The Boston Globe

Q&A: Free Speech 101 – Traer Star-Clipper

The Prometheus League

Breaking News and Updates

Prometheism

Forbidden Fruit

The Evolutionary Perspective

Transtopia Menu

Library Updates

Library Books

Future Euvolution

Lucid Dreams from Childhood

Genetic Revolution

Speciation + Self-Directed Evolution