Journeyman Philosopher

Hey everyone! Big news!

I have decided to move my blogging to blogspot. My new blog is entitled ‘The Happy Colour’ and can be found here. I have moved sites for various reasons all derived from the hope to be more than simply a means to another’s end. My new blog will continue to contain writing of a similar topic as contained is this blog. Whats good about the move however, is I will be able to branch to more varied topics without being concerned of focusing every post strictly on philosophy.

Thank you for all your loyal reading, come visit me at ‘The Happy Colour ‘ sometime!

Today’s post is about the current state of politics in Canada and a personal perception of how and why the current events have come about.

A Short Update

If you don’t live in Canada allow me to fill you in on what’s going on in our government. Currently in Canada we have a minority government run by the Conservative Party of Canada led by Stephen Harper. As of a week ago Stephen Harper announced a planned budget which really made distraught all of the other political parties in the minority government (there were two main reasons for this reaction; a lack of an economic stimulus package, and the removal of parties being given funding for each vote they received). As such two of the parties have threatened to unify as one and attempt to run Canada as a coalition government, following a vote of no confidence, if allowed by the Governor General of Canada. As we sit now our government has been proroged until January 26th in order to give Stephen Harper time to adjust the budget in the hopes of regaining the confidence of the other parties in parliament.

What I See

I think there are only truly two ways to look at these events; either Stephen Harper is stupid and all the problems stem from that, or Stephen Harper is not stupid and all the problems stem from a hidden agenda. I don’t think Stephen Harper is stupid, I do think he is an intelligent strategist that is intent on manipulating public opinion in order to secure more seats for the Conservative party.

Lets do a quick flashback. Initially the Conservative party came into minority power due to scandals in the Liberal party; simply put the Liberal party had had a majority government for far to long (non-deservingly), as such their majority led to lax of supervision and thereafter various Liberal financial scandals.

Earlier in this year the Conservative government reported that parliament wasn’t running efficiently because all the other parties refused to play ball. As so an election was called; it should be noted that every other party said that in reality it was the Conservatives that refused to play ball. Throughout this election Stephen Harper really emphasized that the other parties weren’t respecting Canadian voters wishes by making parliament run ineffectively. He criticized that in essence the other parties were attempting to fulfill their own agendas despite the wishes of the people. This argument was relatively persuasive to the average voter who had come to know of the old Liberal financial scandals. Many voters could only see the Conservative perspective that of the other parties being selfishly motivated individuals who were in essence just trying to hold on to the old corruption. As such during the election the Conservatives were given more seats in parliament than before by the voters, although they were still given a minority government.

Now we snap to present day. Stephen Harper announces a budget that clearly will piss off the other parties, it in no way has compromised to the other parties wishes and in its removal of funding for votes it in essence debilitates the weaker parties in their ability to campaign effectively in the next parliamentary election. Are we to truly believe that Stephen Harper would be surprised by this turn of events? If he was an idiot, yes, but surely he is not an idiot.

What has Stephen Harper really done in this situation? In essence he has created another catalyst for change that is very effective at manipulating the views of the masses to further favour the conservative party.

Lets zoom out for a second. What has recently been dominating the news of the world? The presidential race in the United States of course. Its safe to say at least 80% of our media in Canada is of American origin, and as well its safe to say that more people in Canada understand the American system of politics than the Canadian. So when Stephen Harper says “Canadians did not give Stephan Dion their mandate to run this country.” what does this imply? If you as a voter were framed within an ‘American Voter’ framework of knowledge you would believe that, fundamentally, someone was getting into office who was not voted into office and that’s damned well unconstitutional. Hence many Canadians horrible reactions to the concept of the coalition government (the reality is however in Canada we don’t vote in a Prime Minister but instead MPs who then vote in a Prime Minister).

What I Think

In essence what Stephen Harper is doing from my perception is taking advantage of Canadian’s misinformation of our own political system that is consequently imported to us through our addiction to American media. I don’t mean to imply that Stephen Harper is necessarily an evil man with evil purposes, but I do mean to say that he is using very scandalous means to bring about his agenda be it good or not.

Wrap Up

I think when you look at the current political situation you can only assume two things; either Stephen Harper is an idiot completely unaware of the other parties wishes, or Stephen Harper is making a calculated decision in which he is gauging the reactions of the other parties in order to promote his own interests.

So which is it?

The following is an interesting excerpt from Nietzsche’s essay ‘On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life’.

“Socrates took it to be a malady approaching insanity to imagine that one possesses a virtue when one does not possess it: and certainly such imagination is more dangerous than the opposite delusion of suffering from a shortcoming, from a vice. For through this delusion it is perhaps still possible to become better; the former imagination, however, will daily make a man or an age worse…”

This is an interesting opinion, what do you think about it? Is imagining you have some trait more detrimental than imagining you don’t have it?

I agree with him, rather under-confidence than over-confidence; our world is full of those who speak firm-footed on nothing, hence problems.

A very interesting thought entered my mind the other day while discussing the concept of scripture in the classroom. Scripture (writing), as we all take for granted, is a technological invention. It is a technological invention that permeates all of our society. In order to be able to write and to understand someone’s writing it is necessary to be trained in it, without this training our own writing becomes disjointed and nonsensical whilst the writing of others becomes alien.

Ask yourself why it is that when you read someone’s blog whom you disagree with you find it inherently more offensive than when you encounter the same opinions verbally? This has to do with more how we perceive writing than with the content of the words themselves. Plato commented that writing was in a sense ‘inhuman’ as once thoughts were transferred on paper they became separate from the individual thinking them. This separteness in essence put them on a different plain of reality than the verbal words and opinions the writing stemmed from. You can’t argue with text, all text is a statement of truth in some manner or another. If you read ‘The dog ate the cat’ you can reply ‘No it didn’t’ but this in essence does not change the composition of the text ‘The dog ate the cat’ is still ‘The dog ate the cat’ regardless of your objection to it.

To understand and cope with this concept human beings have taught reading and writing for centuries and in essence it has transformed how we see the world (as a matter of fact our world would not exist without writing). A technological invention came about that we in essence societally evolved ourselves to use efficiently. In such a manner we evolved through technology. Take this line of thought to the present day. Currently we depend on huge amounts of technology to live our daily lives, but one fundamental difference between how we have adapted ourselves to understand writing and how we have adapted ourselves to deal with technology is that in essence technology although becoming more complicated and powerful is progressively being made more human user friendly, whereas writing was a system adopted because of its advantage despite its lack of user freindliness.

With writing we adopted an efficient system of technology for the transmitance of knowledge and maintained it through generations ‘by teaching ourselves how to work with it’, however now computer technology is being adopted and used in society as an efficient means of a varied amount of things yet fundamentally ‘it is being taught how to work with us‘. There exists an important transference of power, initially human beings evolved through the technology of writing however now the technolygy of computers is evolving through us!

This I believe is very important. If artificial intelligence does ever come into existence human beings are in some ways going to be an evolutionary ancestor of their species, just as in some ways the technology of writing has become an evolutionary ancestor of ours.

Quote for thought:

“If one were to imagine a house consisting of basement, ground floor and first floor, tenanted or planned in such a way that there is, or is meant to be, difference of social class between the occupants of each floor — and if now one were to compare being a human being with such a house, then the sorry and ludicrous fact with most people is, alas, that in their own house they prefer to live in the basement. Every human being is the psycho-physical synthesis planned as spirit; this is the building, but he prefers living in the basement, that is, in the categories of sensation. Moreover, he not only prefers living in the basement — no, he loves it so much that he is indignant if anyone suggests he occupy the fine suite lying vacant for him; after all he is living in his own house!” Soon thereafter “The truer a person’s conception of despair, while still remaining in despair, and the more clearly conscious he is of being in despair, the more intense the despair”

These excerpts are found in the book ‘The Sickness unto Death’ written by Soren Kierkegaard, in which he examines the concept of despair in our person (’despair is the sickness unto death’). He makes some very interestingly relevant observations. What immediately jumps to my mind is the use of narcotics and intoxicants in our societies to cover despair, or as Kierkegaard would put it ‘living in the categories of sensation’. I find it very interestingly true, as well, that the deeper our conception of despair the more intense; hence why one must acknowledge that they are the creation of their own despair thus freeing themselves from it (although I believe Kierkegaard would disagree with me).

What do you think?

I wanted to post an interesting video which I first encountered in a ‘Social and Political’ philosophy course, and just now stumbled upon in my ‘Women Studies’ course entitled ‘Who’s Counting?’. Its a documentary which discusses ideas of gendering and segregation of the work force, a flawed economic system, and various other issues. It’s a three part with a total length of under 30 minutes. Watch it and tell me what you think!

Part One can be found here.

Part Two can be found here.

Part Three can be found here.

Safe to say this idea and similar ideas such as Richard Laynard’s concept of economic ‘happiness’ have really assisted in shaping my views and values when looking at our current economic model and problems.

How does this make you feel?

Hey everyone!

Just wanted to give a quick reminder to all my Canadian readers. Tomorrow is our federal election, remember to vote. If you don’t know where to vote and/or haven’t gotten your voting card in the mail yet you can reach elections Canada at 1-866-432-1027 for information on where to vote in your area and what ID you need to bring. Voting takes place from 7:30am-7:30pm on Tuesday October 14th.

This is an astronomically important election, as Stephen Harper himself called the election because he felt the government wasn’t running efficiently (or rather because we wasn’t getting his way in my opinion). We’re currently at a time in our coutries development in which me must choose a leader that will represent Canada on the world stage as we wish to be represented.

As I thought may be of interest to you as a voter, following are the main political parties leaders education:

Stephen Harper (Conservative): Masters of Economics from the University of Calgary.

Jack Layton (NDP): Doctorate in Political Science from York University.

Stephan Dion (Liberal): Doctorate in Sociology from the Paris Institute of Political Studies.

Elizabeth May (Green Party): Law Degree from the Dalhousie Law School.

What does this tell you, and how does this matter to you as a voter? Our leaders’ education is a huge determining factor in how they intend to represent the country, of course there is also life experience to take into consideration (for example: May is a known Environmental activist), but this is very important to think about; what knowledge do you value and believe is necessary to represent our country on the global stage?

Think about your vote, and get out there and do it (if you hate everyone go void your ballot, this sends a different type of message)! And remember never get disspirited if you live in a heavy politically affiliated riding, by voting for whatever party  you decide ensures that that party gets future funding (even if they don’t win)! Go vote and be Canadian!!!!

For a good source of various campaign information click here.

As stated I wanted to follow up briefly on exactly why I think democracy’s are incompatible with majority governments. As so today I want to issue a question to my readers on the topic of majority governments justifiability.

Here’s what I think generally first: Mature voters acknowledge that no party has all the answers, and the only way to acquire results that fairly represent a nation of different ideals is through discussion by different parties in an environment which ensures they will be taken into consideration. A majority stifles this ability.

Today I had the opportunity to discuss this concept with a friend. We agreed with somethings and developed the following question:

How is a majority government justifiable in a democratic country, when in essence through parliamentary process and the standard unified fronts of political parties inadvertently the minority’s power of government will be stifled? Does this not create a winner/loser mentality of politics which is incompatible with our intrinsic values within a democratic nation?
An example of this follows; party A has a 65% majority while party B has a 35%. When matters of interest are brought to the deemed acceptable house of debate and a vote is taken, due to the unified nature of political parties, party A will always get their way. In such a manner party B is alienated from its political power in the manner in which it is simply not able to create change, and as such the 35% of Canadian voters that were represented by this party are alienated with it.

As a Canadian voter or even a external viewer on the Canadian system, what do you think about this?

After watching the Canadian political debates the other day I was left quite satisfied. There were some decent questions, but the one that held my interest the most was on the topic of trust.

Many Canadian citizens have lost hope in our political system. I personally believe this isn’t necessarily because a lack of positive progress but rather because a lack of empathy. The question that was addressed paraphrased follows “How can the average Canadian, that has lost faith in the Canadian political system, know which politician to trust with their vote?”

This is a great question, and I know it is one I have had to put a lot of thought into myself.

My philosophy has always been to vote for who you find to be the most authentic leader. I do this because it removes skeptical thought to a certain degree. Politicians will promise many things and although they may authentically be trying to make these promises come about, they may not have the ability to fulfill their promises due to the constraints of time and the political process. Not to mention that if a leader is not authentic it won’t matter what he promises. Voting for who you feel is the most genuine is a sure fire way to, at the very least, give yourself confidence in your leaders intent governing his action.

This is a valuable concept, but is not free from problems. Should you vote for the most authentic evil leader? No. One thing that must be taken into consideration is finding a compromise between your values and the authenticity of the leader. For example, although I myself love the concepts of the NDP I do think that Stefan Dion would make a better Prime Minister than Jack Layton. How you determine the right choice between an authentic totalitarian general, and a unauthentic hippie politician is up to you.

Making a decision on who you will vote for is not simple, however it is something that every Canadian should make a commitment to doing.

There are a few concepts I’d like to talk about in the future; the idea of your vote being wasted, the concept of majority governments being incompatible with the theory of democracy, and how I believe the voting system should be modified to represent this accordingly.

Hopefully this has been of some help to all those not feeling completely comfortable with voting. Take your time, think about it, and get out there and vote!

“Religion is indeed the self consciousness and self esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself or has already lost himself again.” Karl Marx

Today in my studies I came across this quote. I found it very interesting and I wanted to share it with you to see what you thought about it! The quote is found in a talk about Marx’s perception of religion and how it affects individuals and society.

Ask yourself a few questions: ‘What is he implying about religion?’ ‘What is Marx implying about individuals?’ ‘What type of religion is Marx referring to?’ I’m very interested to hear what you think.

 What do you think?