The Little Book of Humanity; 2010, I-VII

8/9/2019 The Little Book of Humanity; 2010, I-VII

1/187


2/187

Table of ContentsThe Little Book of Humanity.............................................................................................................................1

Philip K. Dick on reality.....................................................................................................................................2

Bertrand Russell on war.....................................................................................................................................4

Bertrand Russell on certainty............................................................................................................................6

Ryszard Kapuscinski on achieving goals..........................................................................................................8

Richard Feynman on not fooling oneself........................................................................................................11

Feedback for Post "Richard Feynman on not fooling oneself"..............................................................13

Bertrand Russell on reason and courage........................................................................................................14

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on reason and courage"...............................................................16

Molly Ivins on confusion in democracy..........................................................................................................17

Feedback for Post "Molly Ivins on confusion in democracy"...............................................................19

Thomas Jefferson on democracy.....................................................................................................................20

Friedrich Durrenmatt on state as mythical entity.........................................................................................22

George Orwell on truth as a revolutionary act..............................................................................................24

William Hazlitt on love of liberty....................................................................................................................26

Thomas Paine on renouncing reason..............................................................................................................29

Feedback for Post "Thomas Paine on renouncing reason"....................................................................31

Bertrand Russell on virtuous and wicked nations.........................................................................................32

Robert G. Ingersoll on happiness...................................................................................................................34

Feedback for Post " Robert G. Ingersoll on happiness".........................................................................36

Robert Owen on the interests of human race.................................................................................................37

Feedback for Post "Robert Owen on the interests of human race"........................................................39

Steven Weinberg on farce and tragedy of human life...................................................................................40

Jared Diamond on patriotic and religious fanatics........................................................................................43

Baron May of Oxford on danger of fundamentalism....................................................................................45

John Stuart Mill on discovering new truths...................................................................................................48

i


3/187

Table of ContentsMarcus Aurelius on death................................................................................................................................50

Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on death".....................................................................................53

Epicurus on need of natural science................................................................................................................54

Robert Owen on spirit of universal charity....................................................................................................56

Bertrand Russell on man as a credulous animal............................................................................................58

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on man as a credulous animal"...................................................60

Mark Twain on traditions................................................................................................................................61

Stephen Weinberg on good and evil................................................................................................................63

Feedback for Post "Stephen Weinberg on good and evil".....................................................................65

John Stuart Mill on want of ideas..................................................................................................................66

Bertrand Russell on exact truth.......................................................................................................................68

George Orwell on war-propaganda................................................................................................................70

Epicurus on myths and pleasure.....................................................................................................................73

Kurt Vonnegut on noticing happiness.............................................................................................................75

Feedback for Post "Kurt Vonnegut on noticing happiness"..................................................................77

John Stuart Mill on exercising power over individuals.................................................................................78Feedback for Post "John Stuart Mill on exercising power over individuals"........................................80

Marcus Aurelius on crime................................................................................................................................81

Robert G. Ingersoll on tyrant in heaven.........................................................................................................84

Bertrand Russell on dogma and natural kindness.........................................................................................87

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on dogma and natural kindness".................................................90

Marcus Aurelius on giving and wealth...........................................................................................................91

Sinclair Lewis on woes because of the devil....................................................................................................94

Thomas Paine on national institutions of churches.......................................................................................97

Epicurus on events in the boundless universe..............................................................................................100

Mark Twain on being dead............................................................................................................................102

Feedback for Post "Mark Twain on being dead "................................................................................105

ii


4/187

Table of ContentsMarcus Aurelius on change...........................................................................................................................122

Marcus Aurelius on rejecting the sense of injury........................................................................................125

Thomas Paine on securing liberty.................................................................................................................128

Bertrand Russell on science and philosophy................................................................................................130

Bertrand Russell on good life.........................................................................................................................132

Mark Twain on loyalty to petrified opinions................................................................................................134

Bertrand Russell on authority in science......................................................................................................136

Bertrand Russell on being cocksure..............................................................................................................138

George Orwell on highly civilized human beings trying to kill him...........................................................140

Feedback for Post "George Orwell on highly civilized human beings trying to kill him"..................143

Bertrand Russell on advances in civilization................................................................................................145

George Orwell on revenge..............................................................................................................................147

Feedback for Post "George Orwell on revenge"..................................................................................150

Thomas Paine on owning earth.....................................................................................................................151

Feedback for Post "Thomas Paine on owning earth"...........................................................................154

Bill Bryson on the unity of life.......................................................................................................................155

Feedback for Post "Bill Bryson on the unity of life"...........................................................................157

Bertrand Russell on relying upon authority.................................................................................................158

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on relying upon authority"........................................................160

Robert G. Ingersoll on ignorance..................................................................................................................161

George Orwell on atrocities...........................................................................................................................163

Bertrand Russell on skepticism and dogma.................................................................................................166Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on skepticism and dogma"........................................................169

Seneca on crimes committed by nations.......................................................................................................170

Feedback for Post "Seneca on crimes committed by nations "............................................................173

Marcus Aurelius on pain................................................................................................................................174

Karl Popper on correcting errors in science................................................................................................177

iii


5/187

Table of ContentsAuthor's friends..............................................................................................................................................180

About the author.............................................................................................................................................181

Pageviews.........................................................................................................................................................182

iv


6/187

The Little Book of Humanity
http://fix.blog.de/


7/187

Philip K. Dick on reality

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

Philip K. Dick is of course putting in words a very basic truth. In fact it is so basic truth that

we need somebody to put it in words to really appreciate it. After reading this sentence we

may even think that everybody naturally understands it. However a harsh fact of life is that

there are a lot of people who believe that not thinking about something makes it go away or

that just wishing very hard for something to be true really makes it true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick

by jaskaw @ 01.01.2010 - 14:14:50

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/01/reality-is-that-which-when-you-stop-believing-in-it-7672157/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/01/reality-is-that-which-when-you-stop-believing-in-it-7672157/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/01/reality-is-that-which-when-you-stop-believing-in-it-7672157/


8/187


9/187

Bertrand Russell on war

"War does not determine who is right - only who is left." - Bertrand Russell (attributed)

There is no certainty if this quote is really by Bertrand Russell, but it fits his character so

exceedingly well, that I for one am quite willing to believe that he was the originator of this

great quote. The saying shows a quick wit that he certainly had and Bertrand Russell was a

pacifist all his life and he opposed violence in its all forms.

This quote is important in reminding that nations do not win wars because they are morally

more advanced or because they have the only true ideology. A feeling of moral superiority

can of course help the war effort, but in the end wars are won by nations that are more

capable in the battlefield.

So the fact that Islam now holds sway over a billion people is not because of its moral

superiority or the greater truth-value of its message, but because the Arab armies storming out

of the Arabian deserts into the Christian Byzantine Empire and Zoroastrian Persia were

militarily superior to their opponents. If the Byzantine army would have been stronger, Islam

could be a small time religious enterprise in the Arabian Peninsula ands its immediatevicinity.

Similarly the line separating the Protestant and Catholic parts of Europe was not decided on

moral or ideological grounds, but in the battlefields of the 30 Years War.

by jaskaw @ 02.01.2010 - 17:27:38

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/02/bertrand-russell-on-war-7678285/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/02/bertrand-russell-on-war-7678285/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/02/bertrand-russell-on-war-7678285/


10/187


11/187

Bertrand Russell on certainty

"Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality." -

Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell is here setting one of the most difficult tasks any man or woman can face;

the need to avoid absolute certainty, as only then one can really see all new evidence in a

rational and open way.

One is however so very easily and so very often tempted to think that one has found the only

possible answer and only possible solution to different questions in life. Overcoming this very

human feature is not easy and I do not think it is always even possible, but I think setting

unreachable goals is part of the way we really can improve human existence.

We can however be certain of very many things, even if we are not absolutely certain that

these things are unmovable and eternal truths.Think about it, there is a difference; this is the difference between scientific truth and a

religious truth.

A scientific truth is never absolute, as it can and must change if new better information is

obtained, but new information has never had similar effect on religious truths, as they tend to

be marketed as absolutes.

by jaskaw @ 04.01.2010 - 21:12:56

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/04/bertrand-russell-on-certainty-7692296/
http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/04/bertrand-russell-on-certainty-7692296/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/04/bertrand-russell-on-certainty-7692296/


12/187


13/187

Ryszard Kapuscinski on achieving goals

"Our salvation is in striving to achieve what we know we'll never achieve." - Ryszard

Kapuscinski

I was nearly overwhelmed by this quote when I first stumbled into it, as it collects in one

sentence so much of the things that also I personally do see as the essence of humanity.

Firstly I see that Ryszard Kapuscinski is saying that humans should or even must have higher

goals in life and I do wholeheartedly agree with him.

Secondly in my mind he is saying that striving to achieve those goals is the important thing,not reaching them, as reaching any real goals in human enterprise is impossible, as the

real-world goalpost keep going further and further, the more we fight to reach them.

And this is as it should be, as every time humans have started to think that they have reached

a goal, the big trouble has started and social development has stagnated into standstill.

Also all too easily people who are seen as threatening these achieved goals are soon seen as

dangerous and defending these reached goals can get even to be the prime function of society.

I think that Ryszard Kapuscinski is saying that we must definitely have goals, but we never

must let ourselves fall into the trap of thinking that we have already reached them.

One can have higher goals in life, even if one knows as Kapuzinski suggests that one cannever really reach them. The life-goals people do have do not become null and void because

of that knowledge, but they can become greatly enhanced from accepting this fact.

It is also all about rejecting absolutes, which of course are so dear to mathematicians, but

unfortunately non-existent in human societies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryszard_Kapu%C5%9Bci%C5%84ski
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/05/ryszard-kapuscinski-on-achieving-goals-7698454/


14/187

by jaskaw @ 05.01.2010 - 21:26:18

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/05/ryszard-kapuscinski-on-achieving-goals-7698454/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/05/ryszard-kapuscinski-on-achieving-goals-7698454/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/


15/187


16/187

Richard Feynman on not fooling oneself

"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not

fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman in lecture

"What is and What Should be the Role of Scientific Culture in Modern Society"

This quote collects in one sentence so much of the contradictions and also the greatness

inherent in science. Science tries to be impersonal, but all the things that people do in the real

world are personal in the end. When a scientist thinks that he or she has discovered something

really new, he or she will inevitably create a personal relationship with that discovery,

whatever it is.

There is no escaping the fact that science is a personal thing also, but the greatness of modern

scientific method is in the fact, that these personal feelings do not matter in the long run. In

the end all scientific findings are put though the grueling test of peer review, before they can

be accepted as part of the scientific explanation of the world.All truly important findings are rigorously reviewed by people who are not friends of the

originators of the original idea or can even in many cases be even their worst competitors for

scientific glory.

This system makes sure that the personal attachment to an idea by the originator of the

scientific theory does not matter in the end. Because of this system science can be truly a

system for attaining a truer view of the world, even if all of the scientists are just human

beings, with all the failings of human beings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

by jaskaw @ 08.01.2010 - 00:48:19

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/07/richard-feynman-on-not-fooling-oneself-7712099/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/07/richard-feynman-on-not-fooling-oneself-7712099/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/07/richard-feynman-on-not-fooling-oneself-7712099/


17/187


18/187

Feedback for Post "Richard Feynman on not foolingoneself"

Mike Layfield [Visitor]

08.01.2010 @ 08:51

Great quote! There is a typo in the commentary. second line: "ion" s/b "in".

jaskaw pro

http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi

08.01.2010 @ 10:34

Thanks Mike, its corrected now!

Hrothgir [Visitor]

08.01.2010 @ 15:48I'd add Feynman's comments on Challenger

"[... R]eality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/07/richard-feynman-on-not-fooling-oneself-7712099/#c11964535http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://pro_account.php/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/07/richard-feynman-on-not-fooling-oneself-7712099/#c11964832http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/07/richard-feynman-on-not-fooling-oneself-7712099/#c11967197http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/07/richard-feynman-on-not-fooling-oneself-7712099/#c11964832http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi/http://pro_account.php/http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/07/richard-feynman-on-not-fooling-oneself-7712099/#c11964535http://fix.blog.de/http://fix.blog.de/


19/187

Bertrand Russell on reason and courage

"To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage to proclaim what reason

shows to be true." - Bertrand Russell

I fear that this idea by Bertrand Russell is very hard to understand wholly, especially as the bad word "faith"

creeps into the discussion.

I however think that crucial point here is to understand what Bertrand Russell really means by "faith". A fact

is that to really understand that for example air consists of collection of different gases you need faith in that

science can really resolve this kind of things.

At deep down in the very bottom there is always the issue of "faith". I however think that trust would be a

much better word in this case.

That trust is in the case of science built on real world achievements and concrete results in making our lives

easier and explaining the world in meaningful ways, but in the case of religions faith is built on mostly

wanting things to be like religions so soothingly claim.

If we do not think that problems are best solved with rational processes, what do we have? We have a

situation where can start accepting all kinds of things at face value, just because we so dearly want them to be

true as is the case with religions.This does not mean at all that humans would be rational creatures, far from it. It is is bout trying to harness

our inherent irrationality to a certain degree, so that decisions in a society could be based on rational

arguments when these are available and not for example on irrational claims and ancient texts written in

strikingly different societies.

I believe that humans are irrational beings who can however strive for greater rationality when they want to,

even if perfect and full rationality is quite unattainable.

by jaskaw @ 09.01.2010 - 00:53:04

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/08/bertrand-russell-on-reason-and-courage-7718350/
http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/08/bertrand-russell-on-reason-and-courage-7718350/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/08/bertrand-russell-on-reason-and-courage-7718350/


20/187


21/187

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on reason andcourage"

bakrds [Visitor]

10.01.2010 @ 19:27

Speaking of irrationality, isn't it both irrational and a wee bit arrogant to assume that Betrand Russel wasn'taware of the connotations of the word 'faith' when he said 'faith in reason'. And what of assuming that your

readers are not capable of separating faith in reason from faith in religion?

I am sorry if this seems harsh, but I find this assumption a bit insulting.

Science is built on faith just as much as religion is, in some ways even more. True, trust is a similar word but

does not capture the leap - the 'inspiration' that drives the lifetime of toil and belief it sometimes takes to find

the answers in science.

Faith is just a word. Why are you afraid to let it stand?

| Show subcomments

jaskaw pro


10.01.2010 @ 21:15

My comments are in fact based on my earlier publication of this quote in a different context, where some

readers were outraged by the fact that Bertrand Russell even dared to use the word "faith" in the context of

science.

I however really do think that the "faith" Bertrand Russell is speaking of here is not the kind of blind and

unblinking "faith" religions are demanding from their followers and I wanted to clear up this fact.
http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://pro_account.php/http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/08/bertrand-russell-on-reason-and-courage-7718350/#c11987847http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/08/bertrand-russell-on-reason-and-courage-7718350/#c11987847http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi/http://pro_account.php/http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/08/bertrand-russell-on-reason-and-courage-7718350/?comment_ID=11986777&comment_level=1#c11986777http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/08/bertrand-russell-on-reason-and-courage-7718350/#c11986777http://fix.blog.de/http://fix.blog.de/


22/187

Molly Ivins on confusion in democracy

"The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires

a certain relish for confusion." - Molly Ivins

Molly Ivins is hitting the head of the nail here, I think. The big problem in democracy for

many is that it is often not so easy to predict the outcomes of democratic processes.

Democracy can fail miserably and produce a lot of wrong and mistaken decisions.

The big thing in democracy is however that it is the only form of government that includes a

inbuilt system of error-correction.

The only alternatives to democracy are some forms of totalitarian systems of government and

all totalitarian systems do also produce similar errors of judgment and wrong decisions as

democracy does.

The big thing why democracy in the end wins over totalitarianism is the question ofcorrecting the mistakes that have been made. In a democracy errors can be brought up and

discussed, but in a totalitarian system they are all too often swept under the rug.

In a democracy a failed government is simply elected out, but in totalitarian systems you need

violence and raw force to do the same, see Iran.

/p>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Ivins

by jaskaw @ 10.01.2010 - 12:08:27

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/10/molly-ivins-on-confusion-in-democracy-7725856/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/10/molly-ivins-on-confusion-in-democracy-7725856/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/10/molly-ivins-on-confusion-in-democracy-7725856/


23/187


24/187

Feedback for Post "Molly Ivins on confusion in democracy"

Paul Stillman [Visitor]

10.01.2010 @ 22:49

Actually, republicanism is an alternative to democracy and a positive one at that. Our Founding Fathers

rightly feared giving too much power to the unwashed masses and created a republic when they drafted theconstitution. They created a Chief Executive who was to be selected by an electoral college, a senate that was

to be elected by the state legislatures, a House of Representat,ives that was to be elected by the people, and a

Judiciary that served for life whose members were nominated by the president with the advice and consent of

the people. Today, we have the voters, who frequently pay very little attention to the issues of the day, directly

amending their state constitution based on political commercials that appeal to their emotions rather than their

intellect. california, the most ungovernable state in the country, grants its voters the power of intiative,

referendum, and recall. Consequently, in the 1970's, California amended its constitution with Proposition 13, a

measure that permanently affected the way property taxes are raised in the state. Thirty years later, the state is

plagued by huge deficits and underfunded schools. If we returned to our republican roots, we would elect

people, arguably, who had the time, temperament, and knowledge to make rational decisions for us. Each

branch of the federal govt would act as a check and balance on the other two so that no one constituency

gained too much power; similarly, the states would act as a check on the powers of the federal govt and vice

versa. While the founders didn't create a perfect system, they did create a system that, in my opinion, is

preferable to the one that has evolved. We have become a virtual direct democracy where the whims of the

majority ride roughshod over the rights of the minority. People who lack the education and knowledge to be

decisionmakers threaten our elected officials and frequently prevent them from acting in the best interests of

the nation rather than in the interest of the loudest and most vocal faction. What we have become is not what

our Founders intended and, frankly, is inferior to what they bestowed on us. We have become a democratic

tyranny rather than a republic ala Cicero and Rome.

Daniel [Visitor]

11.01.2010 @ 22:23

That's a fair point.

The article posits a bit of an "either or" argument without really considering all of the possibilities.
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/10/molly-ivins-on-confusion-in-democracy-7725856/#c11988906http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/10/molly-ivins-on-confusion-in-democracy-7725856/#c11997783http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/10/molly-ivins-on-confusion-in-democracy-7725856/#c11997783http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/10/molly-ivins-on-confusion-in-democracy-7725856/#c11988906http://fix.blog.de/


25/187

Thomas Jefferson on democracy

"The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the

rights of mankind." - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Hunter (11 March 1790)

It can be now hard to remember that Thomas Jefferson was a extremist radical in his time. As he did slide on

the revolutionary road he necessarily questioned all the things that had been thought to be god-given and

eternal for centuries.

This process of radicalization on all fronts was quite inevitable. The British government and ruling form of

Christian religion were intertwined as one great whole and renouncing the other one part necessitated giving

up also the other. In fact the Anglican Christian religion of that day was only a support arm of the

government.

He had no certain religious affiliation, but is widely seen as being a deist. Deism is a religious and

philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this can be determined using reason

and observation of the natural world alone, without a need for either faith or organized religion.

He saw clearly also the inherent inequality that was inbuilt in the feudal form of government and his words

ring true to this day. Experience shows that all totalitarian forms of government have in real world ended up

harming and oppressing some part of the population under their rule. There is no real reason to expect that the

future totalitarian governments could be any better.

All people can of course never be happy in a democracy either, but we have real world evidence that the

median level of contentment is at a higher level in democracies in the long run, as democracies are capable ofchange and development in a way that is mostly unachievable in totalitarian systems, like Saudi-Arabia or

Iran.

by jaskaw @ 11.01.2010 - 23:01:46

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/11/thomas-jefferson-on-democracy-7736911/
http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/11/thomas-jefferson-on-democracy-7736911/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/11/thomas-jefferson-on-democracy-7736911/


26/187


27/187

Friedrich Durrenmatt on state as mythical entity

"For people who have no critical acumen, a state is a mythical entity, for those who

think critically it is a rational fiction, created by man in order to facilitate human

coexistence. " - Friedrich Drrenmatt

There exists a strong belief that some things need to be as they are in a society because of

some kind of higher or even divine plan and not because they are necessary for the well-being

of human inhabitants of that society.

There really are people who think that some things should be labeled as sacred and outside

any scrutiny, because that they see them as so useful for themselves or the society that they

must never be allowed to change.

There are people who may think that even evaluating and analyzing central social phenomena

threatens them, as they see that any kind of of questioning of the established basic principles

of society may cause its downfall and make the established social order crumble.

Friedrich Drrenmatt is however stating the fact that states and nations are useful tools, butthere is nothing divine or sacred in them. They are human creations that are created to serve

humans, not the other way around.

A great deal of all the things we choose to believe in of course fiction, which we choose to

believe because it is so useful to us. Acknowledging that fact is however very hard, as fiction

that is believed hard enough often becomes quite indistinguishable from the reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_D%C3%BCrrenmatt

by jaskaw @ 12.01.2010 - 22:03:18

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/12/for-people-who-have-no-critical-acumen-a-state-is-7743037/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/12/for-people-who-have-no-critical-acumen-a-state-is-7743037/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/12/for-people-who-have-no-critical-acumen-a-state-is-7743037/


28/187


29/187

George Orwell on truth as a revolutionary act

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George

Orwell

It is fascinating how often a very simple and basic psychological process happens. When a

crucial decision is made, very soon all evidence starts pointing in ones mind that the decision

that was made was the only one possible and there simply is no information telling otherwise

to be seen.

We don't even notice when this happens, as we just don't notice the contradictory evidence

anymore.

In the level of individual this is often quite harmless and even necessary, as otherwise we

could be stricken be remorse for ages after every major decision we make. On the level of a

society this process can however lead to situations where public view of reality is warped to

accommodate the official policy that is in use.

This in turn can lead to situations where policies are driven long after they have turned into

something harmful and even evil, as world and reality have changed, but our perception of it

has not.

In situations like this we need people like George Orwell to raise their voices.

by jaskaw @ 13.01.2010 - 21:50:39

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/13/george-orwell-on-truth-as-a-revolutionary-act-7749570/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/13/george-orwell-on-truth-as-a-revolutionary-act-7749570/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/13/george-orwell-on-truth-as-a-revolutionary-act-7749570/


30/187


31/187

William Hazlitt on love of liberty

"The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves." -

William Hazlitt

This is a extremely strong sentence that is loaded with many meanings, but one central theme

for me is the fact at the core of freedom is responsibility. When one gives away his or her

freedom he is also relieved from responsibility, as this responsibility is handed over to the

authority controlling your life.

This is of course a very tempting preposition for many, even more as one is simultaneously

relieved from the need to think about the motives and reasons for doing things in certain way.

The success of radical Marxism, radical Islam or radical Christianity shows clearly how very

many people want this liberation from the need to think for themselves and from building

their own opinions.

On the other hand freedom and liberty require responsibility, as without responsibility

freedom simply does not work. When a person is not forced to do certain things in a certain

way he or she must reflect over what are the consequences of one's actions in a quite different

way than in a authoritarian system, where somebody else can always be blamed for ordering

things to be done in a certain way.

The big paradox is that totalitarian system is a for many a very easy place to live, as you

always know your place and your future, but a free society can be personally much more

demanding place to live in. However I see that Hazlitt is saying that a totalitarian system is

egoistic, as the ease of life is in the end accomplished by taking away the possibility of choice

from all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hazlitt

by jaskaw @ 14.01.2010 - 20:55:08
http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/14/william-hazlitt-on-love-of-liberty-7755865/


32/187

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/14/william-hazlitt-on-love-of-liberty-7755865/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/14/william-hazlitt-on-love-of-liberty-7755865/


33/187


34/187

Thomas Paine on renouncing reason

"To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead." - Thomas

Paine in the "The American Crisis" (1776)

This quote of course needs no explanation as such, as the message is clear; there is no point in arguing with a

person who lets adherence to a dogma wholly dictate his or her thoughts and ideas.

Thomas Paine was not of course familiar with the Internet debates of today. However anybody familiar with

the world of religious debate raging in thousands of mailing lists, chats and comment-pages will instantly

recognizes the type he is speaking about, it is the person who is splurging out endless streams of dogmatic

liturgy spiced with endless quotes from some holy book.

Even over 230 years ago it was quite plain to Thomas Paine that there is no point in arguing with them, as the

truth is in the old saying: "You can't teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig."

by jaskaw @ 15.01.2010 - 21:45:25

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/15/thomas-paine-on-renouncing-reason-7762228/
http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/15/thomas-paine-on-renouncing-reason-7762228/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/15/thomas-paine-on-renouncing-reason-7762228/


35/187


36/187

Feedback for Post "Thomas Paine on renouncing reason"

Brenda P [Visitor]

15.01.2010 @ 22:29

This is hilarious and great timing. Thanks.

Anders [Visitor]

15.01.2010 @ 23:27

I know the type all too well.

This is another good quote;

"What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair

hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?"

-George Orwell
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/15/thomas-paine-on-renouncing-reason-7762228/#c12036283http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/15/thomas-paine-on-renouncing-reason-7762228/#c12036876http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/15/thomas-paine-on-renouncing-reason-7762228/#c12036876http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/15/thomas-paine-on-renouncing-reason-7762228/#c12036283http://fix.blog.de/


37/187

Bertrand Russell on virtuous and wicked nations

"No nation was ever so virtuous as each believes itself, and none was ever so wicked as each believes the

other." - Bertrand Russell in "Justice in War-Time" (1916)

Bertrand Russell of course points here to the life-blood on jingoistic nationalism. In it one's own nationality is

presented as something better and nobler than others, even if there mostly would no real reasons for that

elevation. The simple accident of birth is changed into something that has a higher meaning.

Of course there is also differences between nations, but the biggest differences are always transient things that

are results of accidental historical processes and unique situations than very often evaporate as time and

history goes by.

To say that for example Germans as a nation would have been wicked because the Nazis were able to take

hold of the political power in that country for a decade is not a reasonable thing at all.

For a bit over decade the machinery of the German state was hijacked by a ruthless gang of political

psychopaths, who misused that machinery for their own ends. Of course they persuaded and also forced with

the power of the state a great deal of their fellow countrymen to take part in their evil and bad deeds.

It would however have been even an absurd thing to say that every German of that day would have beensomehow evil. The nationalistic view of world however inevitably leads into this kind of generalizations,

where members of different nations are seen just as stereotypes and the incredible variety of individuals in

every society is in purpose hidden from view.

There is a simple reason for this; to reach a true nationalistic fervor of hating one's neighbors one needs to be

able to forget that the other hated nations are made up of quite similar individuals as you.

On the other hand accusing some kind of "national character" for the bad deeds of the Nazi state machinery

relieves the pressure to analyze what was the role of the state in all this.

We need not think why the law abiding, decent citizens of Germany were so easy to lure and most of all order

into committing all the atrocities the German Nazi state did commit.

Then we need not think that it was not in the end the evil Nazi party that made people do these things, but that

without the machinery of the state that had fallen into their hands they would not never had a chance of doing

most of what they finally did.

If we fall tha blame on the "national craracter" we do not need face the terrible possibility that a ruthless

enough gang of political psychopats would succeed again in a thing like this and take over an state machinery

that is geared into obedience for the current regime whatever it is.

by jaskaw @ 16.01.2010 - 18:46:01

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/16/bertrand-russell-on-virtuous-and-wicked-nations-7767061/
http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/16/bertrand-russell-on-virtuous-and-wicked-nations-7767061/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/16/bertrand-russell-on-virtuous-and-wicked-nations-7767061/


38/187


39/187

Robert G. Ingersoll on happiness

"The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others

so." - Robert G. Ingersoll

Colonel, American political leader, and orator Robert G. Ingersoll (1833 1899) can be rightfully considered

as the grandfather of the modern freethinker movement.

He rose to oppose the religious dogmas, which by his day was again having the field wholly for themselves,

as after the hectic days of the American Revolution the Deism of the founding fathers had more or less

evaporated and by his day American society was becoming more and more infatuated by Christian religious

ideas.

Robert G. Ingersoll had also a deeply humanistic agenda of caring for others and most of all for caring for

those who were not able to take care of themselves. He was a friend of the down-trotten and a friend of the

working man in general.

Robert G. Ingersoll picked up the torch where Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and other

more or less Deistic founding fathers had left it, and continued even further into full-blown agnosticism,

which rejected even the Deistic idea of a god as a vague world-spirit that does not however interfere with the

matters of the mankind.

Deists had already rejected the established religions, but Robert G. Ingersoll doubted also the very idea of a

god. He however believed in the inherent goodness embedded in mankind, if it just is allowed to blossom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll

by jaskaw @ 17.01.2010 - 18:17:17

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/17/robert-g-ingersoll-on-happiness-7773488/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/17/robert-g-ingersoll-on-happiness-7773488/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/17/robert-g-ingersoll-on-happiness-7773488/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/17/robert-g-ingersoll-on-happiness-7773488/


40/187


41/187

Feedback for Post " Robert G. Ingersoll on happiness"

Mikel [Visitor]

http://atheistyogi.com

17.01.2010 @ 19:51

Lovely blog! I will check back here often.
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/17/robert-g-ingersoll-on-happiness-7773488/#c12050249http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/17/robert-g-ingersoll-on-happiness-7773488/#c12050249http://atheistyogi.com/http://fix.blog.de/


42/187

Robert Owen on the interests of human race

"Is it not the interest of the human race, that every one should be so taught and placed,

that he would find his highest enjoyment to arise from the continued practice of doing

all in his power to promote the well-being, and happiness, of every man, woman, and

child, without regard to their class, sect, party, country or colour?" - Robert Owen(1841)

Robert Owen was a humanist, philanthropist, the founder of modern co-operative movement

and in the end one of the first forerunners of the modern western democratic socialism.

He was also a practical man who did run a successful business where he did show with his

own example that he could earn a good living, even if he cared for his workers and arranged

decent conditions for them. This kind of compassion was absolutely not the norm is his days,

when factories were often horrible and cruel places of physical torture.

He developed more and more idealistic ideas in his later days. He was deeply involved in

building up idealistic community experiments that did in the end fail.

After these failures he did eventually end up in the rising spiritualist circles of Victorian

England, but he always rejected the established religions and saw that the human race had

only itself to rely on to improve its lot. He however always believed that human race really

was capable of improvement, just if it takes matters in its own hands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen

by jaskaw @ 18.01.2010 - 12:58:52

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/18/robert-owen-on-the-interests-of-human-race-7779141/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/18/robert-owen-on-the-interests-of-human-race-7779141/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/18/robert-owen-on-the-interests-of-human-race-7779141/


43/187


44/187

Feedback for Post "Robert Owen on the interests of humanrace"

jose joseph [Visitor]

http://www.atheistnews.blogs.fi

18.01.2010 @ 13:33

every human being should live for the good of other fellow beings.othewise what is the meaning in callingone a human being. make money for oneself,eat.defacate,sleep,procreate and die like a dog.it is better such a

person doesn't come to this earth.love is the true religion. if there is love in your heart,you cannot hoard when

your fellow beings are starving.all organized religions are doing harm to human race.the leaders enslave their

felowmen their mental slaves and make them lick the leaders feet. they preach terrorism of hell and

damnation.no goodness in their heart.they are the real terrorists.all brothers and sisters of this universe get

away from the clutches of these crooks.be simple,love everybody,try to help the needy and enjoy the life.
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/18/robert-owen-on-the-interests-of-human-race-7779141/#c12055857http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/18/robert-owen-on-the-interests-of-human-race-7779141/#c12055857http://www.atheistnews.blogs.fi/http://fix.blog.de/http://fix.blog.de/


45/187

Steven Weinberg on farce and tragedy of humanlife

"The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things which lifts human

life a little above the level of farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy." StevenWeinberg in "The First Three Minutes" (1993)

There is incredible beauty and poetry in nature and in our universe, but there is also a deep

sense of mystery in the when one looks at the origin and character of our universe at a deeper

level. With science as our guide we can marvel freely at the remaining mysteries of nature, as

we know that do not have the whole answer yet on how our physical world was formed and or

even what are all the laws and processes that have guided its development.

Only religions can make preposterous claims of having all the final answers on the origins

and the nature of our physical universe, but science can and will never make claims like that.

Science is all about accepting the fact that our knowledge will always be limited by what we

are, by where we are and what we can observe from the universe.

Science bows its head humbly on the sight of all if new marvels of the universe it reveals bit

by bit, as scientists do know that the answers they can give are just the best answers for the

moment, and those coming after them will provide even better, deeper and more magnificent

answers.

Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg is well-known for his strong support for the scientific way of

thinking and his strong opposition of force of irrationality. He was awarded the Nobel prize in

Physics in 1979 for his contributions with Abdus Salam and Sheldon Glashow to the

unification of the weak force and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg

by jaskaw @ 19.01.2010 - 21:25:27
http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/19/steven-weinberg-on-farce-and-tragedy-of-human-life-7788821/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/19/steven-weinberg-on-farce-and-tragedy-of-human-life-7788821/


46/187

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/19/steven-weinberg-on-farce-and-tragedy-of-human-life-7788821/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/19/steven-weinberg-on-farce-and-tragedy-of-human-life-7788821/


47/187


48/187

Jared Diamond on patriotic and religious fanatics

"Naturally, what makes patriotic and religious fanatics such dangerous opponents is not the deaths of

the fanatics themselves, but their willingness to accept the deaths of a fraction of their number in order

to annihilate or crush their infidel enemy. Fanaticism in war, of the type that drove recorded Christian

and Islamic conquests, was probably unknown on Earth until chiefdoms and especially states emerged

within the last 6,000 years." - Jared Diamond in "Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fate of Human

Societies"

Jared Diamond is one of the real big current names in Big History, or in the scientific attempt to find and

examine the often quite hidden real big trends in human evolution and human history. His books have opened

at least my eyes into seeing many things that I would in some cases may have never seen without him.

Jared Diamond has studied many wildly ifferentiating cultures and very found many themes that are common

to them all, as all humans are basically very alike.

The basic psychology and physiology of the human species has been formed during the millions of years of

evolution of our ancestors.The rulebook however changed dramatically first with the invention of speech and then even more with the

invention of writing, as one could develop complex local ideas that changed the landscape of humanity

forever for the better and for the worse in some things. This is the big change to which Jared Diamond is

referring to here.

by jaskaw @ 20.01.2010 - 23:26:34

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/20/jared-diamond-on-patriotic-and-religious-fanatics-7843687/
http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/20/jared-diamond-on-patriotic-and-religious-fanatics-7843687/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/20/jared-diamond-on-patriotic-and-religious-fanatics-7843687/


49/187


50/187

Baron May of Oxford on danger of fundamentalism

"Punishment was much more effective if it came from some all-seeing, all-knowing,

all-powerful deity that controls the world, rather than from an individual person. In

such systems, there is unquestioning respect for authority. Faith trumps evidence. But if

indeed this is broadly the explanation for how co-operative behaviour has evolved andbeen maintained in human societies, it could be very bad news.

Because although such authoritarian systems seem to be good at preserving social

coherence and an orderly society, they are, by the same token, not good at adapting to

change. The rise of fundamentalism, not just in the Muslim world but in the United

States, and within the Catholic church, could actually make global co-operation more

difficult at a time when an unprecedented level of teamwork was needed." - Robert

May, Baron May of Oxford

Religions were created to fulfill a clear need in ancient societies. They were needed to create

a new kind of mental bond between the members of emerging state-like communities.These new communities began to emerge after the innovation of agriculture made it possible

to support armed ruling classes who could live on the surplus produced by others.

This same surplus was of course used to support also the new religious elite that allied itself

with the armed ruling class.

These new societies needed new things that would bond together people who would often

even never meet, but were often united only by common rulers.

The emerging new kind of national religion was a social glue that was needed to bind these

new warrior states together after the stronger communities had started taking over weaker

ones and a idea of a modern state was invented.

This kind of bonding did serve these societies well, but the real problem is that they got too

good in their job. Religions all too often became closed systems, that were good at creating

intensive group cohesion and defining borders between different groups of people, but they

are already a real a problem in sitautions where co-operation with strangers is needed.

Now in a globalized world where everybody is depending on what other people does, this

kind of tribalism is all too often a real liability and not a advantage at all anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_May,_Baron_May_of_Oxford
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/21/baron-may-of-oxford-on-danger-of-fundamentalism-7848701/


51/187

by jaskaw @ 21.01.2010 - 20:24:11

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/21/baron-may-of-oxford-on-danger-of-fundamentalism-7848701/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/21/baron-may-of-oxford-on-danger-of-fundamentalism-7848701/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/


52/187


53/187

John Stuart Mill on discovering new truths

"There is always need of persons not only to discover new truths, and point out when

what were once truths are true no longer, but also to commence new practices, and set

the example of more enlightened conduct, and better taste and sense in human life." -

John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty" (1859)

John Stuart Mill was a follower of the Enlightenment and personally rejected all established

religions as false, but admitted their usefulness for society in certain situations.

He however saw that clinging to any kind of dogma would be always dangerous, as it would

inevitable became a hinder for advancement and development in society.

He saw that societies need to evolve, and he believed that the religions should evolve with the

societies.

By his time the old dogmatic forms of Christianity were already fast losing ground in theWestern Europe and on the rise was a new kind of Christianity that had been immersed in the

ideas of secular humanism.

Among the very same Anglican church that had only a little earlier been a bastion of

opposition to all change in the society, there emerged the new anti-slavery movement that in

the end put the end to the slavery in the British Empire.

This fine example shows clearly how even religions are forced into change, when societies

change enough, given that they are not in the position to prevent the change in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

by jaskaw @ 22.01.2010 - 20:35:03

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/22/john-stuart-mill-on-discovering-new-truths-7854956/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/22/john-stuart-mill-on-discovering-new-truths-7854956/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/22/john-stuart-mill-on-discovering-new-truths-7854956/


54/187


55/187

Marcus Aurelius on death

"He who fears death either fears to lose all sensation or fears new sensations. In reality,

you will either feel nothing at all, and therefore nothing evil, or else, if you can feel any

sensations, you will be a new creature, and so will not have ceased to have life." -

Marcus Aurelius

The fear of death is one of the main selling points of Abrahamic religions, as giving at least a

false hope of something after death gives comfort to many people. Too many are after all not

able to deal with this inevitable and necessary part of life cycle of all living creatures.

We now assume that human species is the only species that spends time pondering about its

own death, even if in reality we do not know if other more advanced species do have ideas of

their own about death.

To be able to think about also of the end of one's life is of course the price we pay for the

highly developed intellectual machinery that makes it possible for us to do a lot of things even

other primates are unable to do.

One of the most basic instincts that any living thing must have is avoiding things and

situations that can be lethal to it. The instinct for survival has been perfected necessarily by

evolution, as those with strongest aversion to death have survived better than others.

This natural and necessarily extremely strong instinct for survival may however lead to a

situation where even idea of the inevitable death becomes too difficult to handle.

This situation is used to to maximum by the Abrahamic religions, who benefit greatly from

heightening this fear of death, as the promise to solve the problem of death is one of their

main selling points.

Marcus Aurelius is so here attacking one of the pillars of Christianity when he reminds that in

the end there is really nothing to be afraid in death.
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/23/marcus-aurelius-on-death-7861315/


56/187

Like a true agnostic he covers all bases with the last sentence. This does not however mean

that he himself would have believed in this kind transformation of the soul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius

by jaskaw @ 23.01.2010 - 22:38:44

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/23/marcus-aurelius-on-death-7861315/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/23/marcus-aurelius-on-death-7861315/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/


57/187


58/187

Feedback for Post "Marcus Aurelius on death"

Julianne G [Visitor]

15.03.2010 @ 15:35

This is a simple truth, really. However most people choose to believe in soothing lies over troubling and

ambiguous truths. It is not this or that, but how we handle these truths, that defines our psychologicalindependence from society and our integrity of character..

Julianne
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/23/marcus-aurelius-on-death-7861315/#c12567892http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/23/marcus-aurelius-on-death-7861315/#c12567892http://fix.blog.de/


59/187

Epicurus on need of natural science

"If we had never been troubled by celestial and atmospheric phenomena, nor by fears

about death, nor by our ignorance of the limits of pains and desires, we should have had

no need of natural science." - Epicurus (Principal doctrines, 11)

/>

This Epicurean Principal Doctrine is not about morality or philosophy as many of the other 39

of the 40 Epicurean Principal Doctrines are, but it is more of an explanation for the very

human thirst for knowledge and in the end also for the birth of modern science.

Epicurus is simply saying that fear of unknown does motivate people to find things out, but

on the other hand really understanding why things do really happen in the world gives a

person also simply more peace of mind.

Epicureans are also saying in this doctrine that if we accept the religious explanations for

things around us, we would not need no more explaining and we would not need to have

science in the first place.

http://beinghuman.blogs.fi/tags/epicurus/

by jaskaw @ 24.01.2010 - 22:28:56

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/24/epicurus-on-need-of-natural-science-7867068/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/24/epicurus-on-need-of-natural-science-7867068/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/24/epicurus-on-need-of-natural-science-7867068/


60/187


61/187

Robert Owen on spirit of universal charity

"I was forced, through seeing the error of their foundation, to abandon all belief in every religion which

had been taught to man. But my religious feelings were immediately replaced by the spirit of universal

charity not for a sect, or a party, or for a country or a colour but for the human race, and with a

real and ardent desire to do good." - Robert Owen in his autobiography (1857)

Robert Owen was a certifiable good person. He did spend his whole life and even his personal fortune in

trying to develop more humane ways to organize production of goods and create a more human model of

society.

He was a philanthropist of the first class, but he did good thing because he wanted himself to be a good person

and make other peoples life easier, not because he would have thought that doing good things would somehow

be rewarded to him in some kind of afterlife. One could even argue that the latter motive would even be a

extremely selfish reason for doing good deeds.

by jaskaw @ 25.01.2010 - 23:10:15

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/25/robert-owen-on-spirit-of-universal-charity-7873636/
http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/25/robert-owen-on-spirit-of-universal-charity-7873636/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/25/robert-owen-on-spirit-of-universal-charity-7873636/


62/187


63/187

Bertrand Russell on man as a credulous animal

"Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good ground for belief, he

will be satisfied with bad ones." - Bertrand Russell in "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish," in

"Unpopular Essays" (1950)

One of the most important original functions of religions was to to give even an some kind of an explanation

to things that simply could not be explained otherwise at that time.

Early religions offered a way to explain why world and nature behaved the way they did behave when no

other explanations were readily available.

Of course religions also served as tools for upholding social rules, building social cohesion and what was

most important for securing the power of ruling elites and the then current type of feudal ownership and

government.

Their role as explanation-giver was only one factor behind their success in taking over whole societies and

later even continents.

As humanity progressed there however emerged real scientific explanations in practice for all of the things

that had been explained with the aid of the religions in the past.

This process slowly ate away one of the crucial founding blocks of religions and religions had two differentstrategies open to them.

They could either deny the role and importance of science or they could adapt to a new world built with the

aid of science, when there finally existed real knowledge of things that had earlier been explained with

explanations provided by religions.

The western protestant Christian state churches of Europe did mostly opt for the latter

course and they slowly but firmly developed into a new kind of social and cultural organizations that

concentrated on giving solace and certainty for people living in a world full of uncertainty.

Mainstream Islam and the many Christian fundamentalist revival movements chose the first path. This road

did however lead them into crashing course with science. The main reason for choosing this difficult route

was that they did not want to give up any of the power the religions used to have.The route chosen by western state churches did also mean ending up in the sidelines in the power-structures of

the modern societies and all religious leaders could not simply swallow this bitter pill.

by jaskaw @ 27.01.2010 - 22:53:13

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/27/bertrand-russell-on-man-as-a-credulous-animal-7887131/
http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/27/bertrand-russell-on-man-as-a-credulous-animal-7887131/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/27/bertrand-russell-on-man-as-a-credulous-animal-7887131/


64/187


65/187

Feedback for Post "Bertrand Russell on man as a credulousanimal"

jpfib [Member]

28.01.2010 @ 18:06

every organised religion perpetrates one or other kind of terrorism.they are created for the leaders and their

cronies.they terrorise feloowmen with hell and damnation. they proclaim they hold the keys of the

kingdom.who are ready to lick their feet will be allowed to enter the heaven.they are the sole custodians of

god.they hate each other and compete for positions among themselves. one religion preach hatred against the

other.love is the true religion.love every other being, human or otherwise.if there is true love one cannot fill

one's stomach when his fellowbeing is starving.here all religious leaders make money in the name of

charity.they committed and committing all kinds of crime.then theyuse money and power to get away from

law and punishment.in india two priests and a nn killed another nun for witnessing their sexual misdeeds and

using money and power to get away from the clutches of law.this is the religion.get away from all theses

wicked people.love is the true religion.if there is love you canot compel your fellowmen to accept your views

and make them your slaves. love expects nothing back.

jpfib [Member]

28.01.2010 @ 18:06

every organised religion perpetrates one or other kind of terrorism.they are created for the leaders and their

cronies.they terrorise feloowmen with hell and damnation. they proclaim they hold the keys of the

kingdom.who are ready to lick their feet will be allowed to enter the heaven.they are the sole custodians of

god.they hate each other and compete for positions among themselves. one religion preach hatred against the

other.love is the true religion.love every other being, human or otherwise.if there is true love one cannot fill

one's stomach when his fellowbeing is starving.here all religious leaders make money in the name of

charity.they committed and committing all kinds of crime.then theyuse money and power to get away fromlaw and punishment.in india two priests and a nn killed another nun for witnessing their sexual misdeeds and

using money and power to get away from the clutches of law.this is the religion.get away from all theses

wicked people.love is the true religion.if there is love you canot compel your fellowmen to accept your views

and make them your slaves. love expects nothing back.
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/27/bertrand-russell-on-man-as-a-credulous-animal-7887131/#c12151647http://www.blogs.fi/user/jpfib/http://www.blogs.fi/user/jpfib/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/27/bertrand-russell-on-man-as-a-credulous-animal-7887131/#c12151653http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/27/bertrand-russell-on-man-as-a-credulous-animal-7887131/#c12151653http://www.blogs.fi/user/jpfib/http://www.blogs.fi/user/jpfib/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/27/bertrand-russell-on-man-as-a-credulous-animal-7887131/#c12151647http://www.blogs.fi/user/jpfib/http://www.blogs.fi/user/jpfib/http://fix.blog.de/http://fix.blog.de/


66/187

Mark Twain on traditions

"Often the less there is to justify a traditional custom the harder it is to get rid it." - Mark Twain in

"The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" (1876)

Author Mark Twain was a skeptic all his life, but he became openly agnostic and even atheistic in his later

years, even if this fact was kept as a tightly kept secret by his family for a long time. His various writings

criticizing religions were kept behind locks for decades before the family secret was finally spilled out.

Mark Twain is in this quote referring to a extraordinary ability inherent in all societies to adopt traditions

whose real meaning is not very clear to anyone. The force of tradition is however one of the strongest social

forces and these traditions are upheld, even if nobody really knows what are the benefits they will give to the

society.

One of the main beneficiaries of this very human failing has of course always been religion, as once a religion

has got the upper hand in any society, the force of tradition has made upholding its power an incredibly easier

task than the original acquiring of the position of power was.

by jaskaw @ 29.01.2010 - 00:19:50

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/28/mark-twain-on-traditions-7894321/
http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/28/mark-twain-on-traditions-7894321/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/28/mark-twain-on-traditions-7894321/


67/187


68/187

Stephen Weinberg on good and evil

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people

to do evil that takes religion." - Stephen Weinberg in "A Designer Universe?

This quote by Nobel laureate Stephen Weinberg is already a classic in freethinker and atheist circles and has

been cited often by professor Richard Dawkins also.

The quote is so popular because it contains an immense truth.

There is always a large group of people ion any society that are good and and well-mannered under all

circumstances and these people are very often drawn to religions as they seem to represent order and certainty

in a world seemingly full of chaos in uncertainty.

On the other hand in every society there are sociopaths, psychopaths and people who just don't fit in the

society and who will very easily end up outside the socially acceptable mode of behavior notwithstanding

what is the ruling religion in any given society.

One could even however argue that the more strict the codes of conduct are in a society, the more people willend up hitting the walls of allowed behavior.

The main point of Stephen Weinberg however is the religious dogma has in innumerable cases caused good,

peace-loving and law-abiding citizens to attack, torment and kill their similarly good, peace-loving

law-abiding neighbors just because they believe in wrong kind of religious dogma or worst of all at no dogma

at all.

The saddest part of course is that these good fathers and husbands have throughout the history been lauded as

champions of faith and rewarded even by the society, when they kill and maim people just because they have

the wrong kind of thoughts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Weinberg

by jaskaw @ 29.01.2010 - 21:27:11

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/29/stephen-weinberg-on-good-and-evil-7899963/
http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/29/stephen-weinberg-on-good-and-evil-7899963/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/29/stephen-weinberg-on-good-and-evil-7899963/


69/187


70/187

Feedback for Post "Stephen Weinberg on good and evil"

Adelaide Dupont [Visitor]

http://duponthumanite.livejournal.com

30.01.2010 @ 05:08

For good people to do evil, it takes passion + ideology.

Passion blinds us to 'wrong' thoughts and ideology excuses them.

| Show subcomments

jaskaw pro


01.02.2010 @ 23:41

You are quite right Adelaide, in the name of passionately felt communist ideology there has been done even

more harm in numerical terms than in the name of religions.

PS. Gmail has for a while gotten these messages for comments in my blogs in the spam-folder and I did not

know of your comments. That is the reason for the late reply, sorry.
http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://pro_account.php/http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/29/stephen-weinberg-on-good-and-evil-7899963/#c12190208http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/29/stephen-weinberg-on-good-and-evil-7899963/#c12190208http://www.beinghuman.blogs.fi/http://pro_account.php/http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://www.blogs.fi/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/29/stephen-weinberg-on-good-and-evil-7899963/?comment_ID=12165415&comment_level=1#c12165415http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/29/stephen-weinberg-on-good-and-evil-7899963/#c12165415http://duponthumanite.livejournal.com/http://fix.blog.de/


71/187

John Stuart Mill on want of ideas

"God is a word to express, not our ideas, but the want of them." - John Stuart Mill

A great quote is one which can put in one sentence ideas that can take a whole book to explain. For me this

classical quote by John Stuart Mill is one of those things that put a whole section of human endeavor undernew kind of light.

John Stuart Mill is highlighting the fact that a very important function of the religions has always been giving

explanations to things that have had no real explanation. Religion is in fact very often been a substitute for a

question mark, as a answer provided by religions has been better than no answer at all.

Of course this function is still present, even if the mysteries in our physical environment do not need religious

explanations. Science has finally provided real answers and removed the need for using the substitute

provided by religions.

There will however always remain some metaphysical questions that will never have a clear cut answer, like

"Why are we here" and "What is the meaning of life".

Science will never provide answers to questions like this, as they are basically ideological questions and

answers to questions like this are provided based on values and not on bare facts alone, as there is no "truth"

in things like this, but answers are really often chosen by their efficiency in giving comfort.

Religions are seemingly good at giving answers to these deepest metaphysical question. However when these

answers are put under a closer scrutiny it is all too often revealed, that they just seem to be real answers, but in

fact they are just wishful thinking and smokescreens that hide a lack of any real answers.

However the current religions are not only ones giving answers to metaphysical questions. The history of

philosophy is a tale of the brightest minds of their day in search for meaningful answers to these questions.They have also found many good and even magnificent answers, but they are not presented as final and

unswerving dogma as in religions. Modern secular humanism is basically based on these philosophical ideas

and it provides a good set of answers to these question also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

by jaskaw @ 30.01.2010 - 15:38:08

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/30/john-stuart-mill-on-want-of-ideas-7904002/
http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/30/john-stuart-mill-on-want-of-ideas-7904002/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/30/john-stuart-mill-on-want-of-ideas-7904002/


72/187


73/187

Bertrand Russell on exact truth

"Although this may seem a paradox, all exact science is dominated by the idea of approximation. When

a man tells you that he knows the exact truth about anything, you are safe in inferring that he is an

inexact man." - Bertrand Russell in "The Scientific Outlook" (1931)

This idea of Bertrand Russel may seem odd at first glance, as we have very often learned to see science as

something very exact and rigid.

A fact of life is that the current central findings of science are often in real life schools at least presented as

some kind of absolute truths, even if this kind of thinking goes exactly the opposite of the true scientific

method.

True science does not have any final truths, as there just must always be the ability to take every single

scientific fact and theory under new scrutiny and also modify and correct it, if it then proves to be wrong in

some way.

So also the current theory of gravity must be corrected, if we get new information on its nature, even if this

theory has been quite unchanged for a very long time.

Science gives good, great and even magnificent answers about the most important questions concerninghuman life and universe, but they are never final and unchanging answers. As Bertrand Russell says science is

art of approximation based on available facts and as the facts change, must the answers change too.

Of course a degree of rigidity is inbuilt in this system, as to change well-established scientific findings one

needs really compelling new evidence and getting them accepted can be a tedious and long job.

This inbuilt inertia however makes sure that scientific explanation of the world does not change in a whim of

a single genius for example, but the international scientific community makes thorough checks on all new

ideas before they are universally accepted.

However, Bertrand Russell is here referring to those who claim to have found exact and final answers to the

big questions concerning life and universe.They are however normally not scientists at all, but followers of different kinds of ideologies that claim to

know the 'final truth', which is of course different in every single ideology.

by jaskaw @ 31.01.2010 - 22:10:36

http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/31/bertrand-russell-on-exact-truth-7912715/
http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/31/bertrand-russell-on-exact-truth-7912715/http://blog.de/user/jaskaw/http://thelittlebook.blogs.fi/2010/01/31/bertrand-russell-on-exact-truth-7912715/


74/187


75/187

George Orwell on war-propaganda

"All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are

not fighting." - George Orwell

George Orwell was a strange kind of pacifist. He was a man who fought as a volunteer in a bitter civil war

that was really none of his business. He was seriously wounded while fighting in the trenches for a cause that

in the end was not his at all.

George Orwell or Eric Blair was however an ardent believer in democratic socialism and his idealism got him

into the Spanish civil war fighting for the Republican government that was just only turning into a totalitarian

communist regime when he was there.

He fought among the Spanish anarchist and shared with them the violent attacks of the communists, when

they finally turned against their earlier allies.

His experience in Spain made George Orwell lose forever all his illusions on totalitarian communist systems,

but he did never lose his faith in democratic, western form of social democracy.

He was even stranger kind of pacifist, as he always supported wholeheartedly the fight against the Nazi

Germany. He did however never lose the will and ability to question the basic question of why aggression and

wars are openly promoted and accepted in human societies.

It is very difficult for many to understand that one can support fighting the actual forces of evil, but at the

same time question if fighting wars really is inevitable part of humanity.

I however think that one can really ask if mankind could some day evolve to a stage where state-sponsored

violence becomes a disgrace and those promoting it would be treated as common criminals in all societies, as

are those

The Little Book of Humanity; 2010, I-VII

Documents

Transcript of The Little Book of Humanity; 2010, I-VII