From aeon, a piece called, “I still love Kierkegaard,” by Julian Baggini, founding editor of The Philosopher’s Magazine.
Kierkegaard is not so much a thinker for our time but a timeless thinker, whose work is pertinent for all ages yet destined to be fully attuned to none.
From The Chronicle Review:
A surefire way to establish one’s moral superiority—certainly in our society and in most Western nations—is to renounce any interest in revenge. No matter the damage done, the outrageousness of the conduct, or the magnitude of loss, most people will reflexively wave off any suggestion that vengeance is what they desire. Indeed, they will indignantly deny having a vengeful streak, as if nothing could be so shameful as the simple wish to settle a score. Take your pick of maxims: “Vengeance is beneath me”; “I’m not out for revenge, I just want to make sure this doesn’t happen to someone else”; “All I care about is justice, not revenge.”
The author of this piece has a different perspective; and it’s worth reading.
From brain pickings:
Today’s abundance of advice on the art and craft of writing makes the phenomenon appear a modern meta-trope of the written word. And yet it is anything but new. In his 1852 treatise The Philosophy of Style (public library; public domain), Victorian-era philosopher, scientist, and liberal political theorist Herbert Spencer sets out to create a structural framework for good composition, guided by the emergent groundswell of formalist writing. Only 32 years old at the time, he defines language as “an apparatus of symbols for the conveyance of thought” and proceeds to map out its essential machinery.
And note these added links:
Complement The Philosophy of Style with Stephen King’s militant case against adverbs, H. P. Lovecraft’s advice to aspiring writers, F. Scott Fitzgerald’sletter to his daughter, Zadie Smith’s 10 rules of writing, Kurt Vonnegut’s 8 keys to the power of the written word, David Ogilvy’s 10 no-bullshit tips,Henry Miller’s 11 commandments, Jack Kerouac’s 30 beliefs and techniques,John Steinbeck’s 6 pointers, Neil Gaiman’s 8 rules, Margaret Atwood’s 10 practical tips, and Susan Sontag’s synthesized learnings.
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2013 James Ament A wonderful piece, from The Chronicle of Higher Education:
They are, in fact, a compatible couple. What they share suggests that science has not completely destroyed our understanding of free will, as so many critics contend. A philosophy of “human meaning” can coexist quite well with a science of “genetic influence.”
And I liked this:
This uniquely human potential to resist our own genes might help explain why people expend so much effort trying to induce others, especially the young and impressionable, to practice what is widely seen as the cardinal virtue: obedience. To recast Freud’s argument about incest restraints, if we were naturally obedient, we probably wouldn’t need so much urging. And yet, on balance, it seems that far more harm has been done throughout human history by obedience—to Hitler’s Final Solution, Stalin’s elimination of opponents real and imagined, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot’s genocide—than by disobedience.
On the basis of evolutionary existentialism, I would therefore like to suggest the heretical and admittedly paradoxical notion that, in fact, we need to teach more disobedience. Not only disobedience to political and social authority but especially disobedience to some of our troublesome genetic inclinations.
Read the whole thing at the link.
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2013 James Ament From an article titled End of the Mainline about the weak National Council of Churches leaving New York City. An excerpt:
Ironically, nearly all the Mainline denominations housed there would begin their nearly 50-year membership decline just a few years later. A sanitized Protestantism without doctrine or distinctions simply became too boring to sustain. In the early 1960s, about one of every six Americans belonged to the seven largest Mainline denominations. Today, it’s one out of every 15.
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2013 James Ament From UdeMNouvelles: apparently picking up on Christopher Hitchens,
The myth of altruism and generosity surrounding Mother Teresa is dispelled in a paper by Serge Larivée and Genevieve Chenard of University of Montreal’s Department of Psychoeducation and Carole Sénéchal of the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Education. The paper will be published in the March issue of the journal Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses and is an analysis of the published writings about Mother Teresa. Like the journalist and author Christopher Hitchens, who is amply quoted in their analysis, the researchers conclude that her hallowed image—which does not stand up to analysis of the facts—was constructed, and that her beatification was orchestrated by an effective media relations campaign.
Read the whole thing at the link.
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2013 James Ament From The Atlantic, a fascinating article from 1996, referring to a specific 1987 PBS television show, Ethics in America, (which I remember watching) that helps us understand “Why Americans Hate the Media.”
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2013 James Ament From The Browser—FiveBook Interviews. My goodness, there is a lot here to have some healthy arguments about.
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2013 James Ament Reading the article God, Rape and Free Will in Talking Philosophy, I couldn’t help but think that these discussions have been going on for thousands of years, in one form or another, and they are not likely to ever be settled, except for people who think they have the answers.
Beware of people who think they know all the answers to life’s big questions…
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2012 James Ament From brain pickings:
The drama of original choice is that it goes on moment by moment for an entire lifetime.
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2012 James Ament 
follow: RSS