Results for 2005-02
a man whose allegience
is ruled by expedience.
Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown.
"Hah, Nazi, schmazi" says Werner von Braun.
Don't say that he's hypocritical.
Say rather that he's apolitical.
"Once ze rockets are up, who cares where zay come down?
Zat's not my department" says Werner von Braun.
Some have harsh words for this man of renown,
but some say our attitude
should be one of gratitude,
like the widows and cripples in old London Town,
who owe their large pensions to Werner von Braun.
You too may be a big hero,
once you've learnt to count backwards to zero.
"In Eenglish or German I know how to count down,
and I'm learning Chinese" says Werner von Braun.
- Tom Lehrer
Listen to MP3 song
Fjandinn hafi það, mig er strax farið að langa í nýja tölvu. Afhverju getur maður aldrei bara verið sáttur við það sem maður á? Neytendasamfélagið er að heilaþvo mig, ég sver það...
Hvað gæti verið sorglegra en "wannabe" listaspírur sem vingast og sleikja sig upp við ráðamenn í von um að kjötbita verði fleygt í þeirra átt þegar viðkomandi ráðamenn beyta áhrifum sínum? Svarið er: ekki margt.
Það er ekkert jafn ófyrirgefanlegt og falskleiki.
Ég hef nýlega gert mér grein fyrir því að hugsi ég mér að starfa í akademíska samfélagi Íslands þarf ég að betrumbæta íslenskuna mína, bæði skrifaða og talaða. Ég geri ráð fyrir því að mönnum sé kunnugt hversu enskuskotin mælta íslenskan mín á það til að verða, og hef ég nú í huga að bæta úr málum. Því hef ég það nú fyrir stafni að lesa fleiri íslenskar bækur, og er einmitt að lesa núna bók Þorsteins Gylfasonar, Tilraun um manninn. Þetta er eintak sem ég fékk hjá föður mínum og er frá 1970, með z-um og öllu (sem innskot, þá þykir mér hin argasta skömm að sá glæsilegi bókstafur hafi verið sneyddur úr málinu og kastað á brott líkt og vændiskonu með sárasótt. Málið er fagurra í prenti með z-um). Hvað um það, þá er Þorsteinn afbragðs stílisti, og skemmtilega grimmur þar að auki:
En nú bar svo við, á tímum tveggja byltinga vestan hafs og austan, að til varð í Þýzkalandi tegund svonefndrar heimspeki sem á sér enga líka í öðrum löndum. Segja má með nokkrum rétti að þessi þýzka heimspeki 19du aldar hafi æ síðan tröllriðið veröldinni sem var þó nógu hrjáð fyrir.
Já, greyið veröldin. Eins og hlutirnir hafi ekki verið nógu slæmir án þess að bæta þýzkri díalektískri heimspeki við...
Ég vil síðan leggja til að nýyrðinu "mannfræðislömmari" verði formlega bætt við hina íslenzku tungu. Nú eru menn eflaust forvitnir að vita hvað þetta orð þýðir. Það skal ég fræða ykkur um: Mannfræðislömmari er manneskja sem fylgist með svona "popular phenomena" eins og Ædólinu, og horfir á VH1 og cheesy en vinsæla sjónvarpsþætti, en segist ekki njóta þeirra heldur gera þetta "sem mannfræðilega tilraun" eða "af mannfræðilegum áhuga", setur sig sem sagt á einhvers konar akademískan háhest til að afsaka vúlgar ánægjuna sem hann fær af lýðsskrumsruslinu.
(Sindri)
Þegar ég gekk heim úr prófi í dag fékk ég hugmynd, nefnilega eftirfarandi: tónlist er einskonar fíkniefni, hún er "mood-altering drug". Ég hef nefnilega komist að því að ég get stýrt skapinu mínu með iPodinum þegar ég er að ganga heim úr skólanum. Ef spilað er eitthvað hressandi er ég mjög hress þegar ég kem heim, eitthvað þungt þá er þyngra yfir mér, og ef eitthvað glæsilegt eins og sálumessu Mózarts þá langar mig til að lesa heimspeki og nema nýlendur í nafni Vestrænnar menningar.
Best að ég láti þessa hugmynd mína ekki berast til stjórnvalda -- annars færu þeir að skattleggja allt sem viðkemur tónlist. Ég get alveg alltof auðveldlega ímyndað mér eitthvað svona Fahrenheit 451 samfélag, þar sem leynilögreglan ryðst inn og tekur iPoda af fólki, og þar sem Steve Jobs er eins konar arch-leader of the resistance... Jæja, I've taken this far enough. I was feeling silly today.
B.A.-ritgerð
Jæja, nú er ég að leggja drögin að B.A.-ritgerð. Leiðbeinandi minn verður Þorsteinn Gylfason og ég er búinn að velja mér efnið: Sameiginlegir þættir Marxisma og nýfrjálshyggju, og gagnrýni á þá. Þetta þykir mér mjög áhugavert efni, ef satt skal segja, og ég hlakka til að fást við það. Reyndar er þetta efni mun stærra heldur en ég ræð við í einni 40-60 bls. ritgerð, og ég á eftir að velja mér hvaða atriði ég mun taka fyrir. Lítum á nokkra sameiginlega þætti þessara stjórnspekikenninga, í grófum dráttum:
1. Fullkomnunarkenningar
Báðar, í algengustu myndum sínum, setja fram einhvern einn hlut sem er öðrum æðri og ber að hámarka: í tilfelli Marxismans er þetta "ófirrt vinna" (e. unalienated labour), en í nýfrjálshyggjunni er þetta "frelsi". Þetta eru semsagt "fullkomnunarkenningar" (e. perfectionistic theories).
2. Rétturinn til afraksturs vinnu
Báðar halda fram algeri sjálfseign einstaklingins, og þ.a.l. rétt hans til alls afraksturs vinnu. Í tilfelli Marxista þá er kapitalistinn arðræningi sem misnotar hinn vinnandi mann, en í tilfelli nýfrjálshyggjunnar þá er það skattlagning og tekjudreyfing ríkisins sem er arðrán.
3. Efnishyggjukenningar
Báðar kenningar eru efnishyggjukenningar, þ.e.a.s. líta á manninn út frá stöðu hans sem framleiðandi vera, einhvers konar leikmaður í efnahagslegu spili.
4. Útópískar, öfgafullar
Báðar eru útópískar. Báðar kenningarnar boða öfgafulla breytingu frá hefðbundnu frjálslyndu markaðsvæddu velferðarríki. Marxisminn vill ríkisvæða öll atvinnutæki, en nýfrjálshyggjan vill markaðsvæða allt, þ.á.m. svo að segja alla starfsemi ríkisins. Viðkomandi breyting, samkvæmt þessum kenningum, er sögð skapa réttlátt, útópískt samfélag.
5. Rangar
Síðast en ekki síst, báðar kenningar hafa rangt fyrir sér. :D
Já, ég hlakka svo sannarlega til að takast á við þetta.
(Einar Örn)
Latin Names
Sveinbjörn = "Juvenis Ursus"Vilborg ="Voluntas Urbis"
Arnaldur = "Potentia Aquilae"
Aðalsteinn = "Optimus Silex"
Brynjar "Loricatus"
Haukur = "Buteo"
Hjalti Snær = "Capulum niveus"
Steinn = "Calculus"
Svanur = "Cygnus"
Hrafn = "Corvus"
Þorbjörn "Fortis Ursus"
(Great)
I will in all likelihood lose my hosting at Vefsýn within the next few weeks, which means that my website will no longer be accessible via the current subdomain, sveinbjorn.vefsyn.is. The new DNS address is:
The site is accessible through the new domain name as of now. Remember to update your bookmarks, if you have any.
Var að endurbæta þýðingu mína á Afhverju ég er ekki kristinn eftir Bertrand Russell. Takk Alli!
"Suppose we wish- as I certainly do- to find arguments against Nietzsche's ethics and politics, what arguments can we find? . . . The question is: If Buddha and Nietzsche were confronted, could either produce an argument that ought to appeal to the impartial listener? I am not thinking of political arguments. We can imagine them appearing before the Almighty, as in the first chapter of the Book of Job, and offering advice as to the sort of world He should create. What could either say?
Buddha would open the argument by speaking of the lepers, outcast and miserable; the poor, toiling with aching limbs and barely kept alive by scanty nourishment; the wounded in battle, dying in slow agony; the orphans, ill-treated by cruel guardians; and even the most successful haunted by the thought of failure and death. From all this load of sorrow, he would say, a way of salvation must be found, and salvation can only come through love. . Nietzsche, whom only Omnipotence could restrain from interrupting, would- burst out when his turn came: 'Good heavens, man, you must learn to be of tougher fiber. Why go about sniveling because trivial people suffer. Or, for that matter, because great men suffer? Trivial people suffer trivially, great men suffer greatly, they are noble. Your ideal is a purely negative one, absence of suffering, which can be completely secured by non-existence. I, on the other hand, have positive ideals: I admire Alcibiades, and the Emperor Frederick II, and Napoleon. For the sake of such men, any misery is worth while. I appeal to You, Lord, as the greatest of creative artists, do not let Your artistic impulses be curbed by the degenerate, fear-ridden maunderings of this wretched psychopath.'
Buddha, who in the courts of Heaven has learnt all history since his death, and has mastered science with delight in the knowledge and sorrow at the use to which men have put it, replies with calm urbanity 'You are mistaken, Professor Nietzsche, in thinking my ideal a purely negative one. True, it includes a negative element, the absence of suffering; but it has in addition quite as much that is positive as is to be found in your doctrine. Though I have no special admiration for Alcibiades and Napoleon, I too have my heroes: My successor Jesus, because he told men to love their enemies; the men who discovered how to master the forces of nature and secure food with less labor; the medical men who have shown how to diminish disease; the poets and artists and musicians who have caught glimpses of the Divine beatitude. Love and knowledge and delight in beauty are not negations; they are enough to fill the lives of the great men that have ever lived.'
'All the same,' Nietzsche replies, 'your world would be insipid. You should study Heraclitus, whose works survive complete in the celestial library. Your love is compassion, which is elicited by pain; your truth, if you are honest, is pleasant, and only to be known through suffering; and as to beauty, what is more beautiful than the tiger, who owes his splendor to fierceness? No, if the Lord should decide for your world, I fear we should all die of boredom.'
'You might,' Buddha replies, 'because you love pain, and your love of life is a sham. But those who really love life would be happy as no one can be happy in the world as it is.'
- Bertrand Russell, "The History of Western Philosophy"
(Björnsson)
From The Guardian:
"Two out of five Britons now live alone, according to the Mintel report. Among all singles aged 25-70, women are happier with life than men, with almost 56% claiming to be "very happy with their lives as they are", compared to 46% of men. Both male and female singles say one of the main advantages of living alone is having control of the TV remote."
I think this paragraph speaks for itself.
(Magnusson)
I would also like to congratulate said bouncer for his use of the word rambunctious:
rambunctious
adj : noisy and lacking in restraint or discipline; "a boisterous crowd"; "a social gathering that became rambunctious and out of hand"; "a robustious group of teenagers"; "beneath the rumbustious surface of his paintings is sympathy for the vulnerability of ordinary human beings"; "an unruly class" [syn: boisterous, robustious, rumbustious, unruly]
(Aðalsteinn)
Hahaha....
Morgunblaðið presents: The Thrill Of Politics!
"Halldór sagði, að svo virtist sem verkaskipting forustu Samfylkingarinnar væri sú, að formaðurinn sæi um fortíðina og varaformaðurinn um framtíðina. Sagðist Halldór hafa verið síðustu daga á ferð úti á landi og sagði að fólkið í landinu hefði engan áhuga á þessu máli og engan áhuga á [stríðinu í Írak] heldur hefði það áhuga á framtíðinni. Sagðist Halldór síðan vilja biðja þingmanninn að hætta þessari vitleysu"
Já, mér þykir nú írónískt að formaður flokks með 8-10% fylgi á landsvísu þykist geta talað fyrir hönd þjóðarinnar. En varla hefur lýðræðið brugðist okkur? Nei, slíkt gerist ekki.
Steingrímur J. Sigfússon, formaður Vinstrihreyfingarinnar-græns framboðs, sagði að þeir Halldór, George W. Bush og Tony Blair ættu það sameiginlegt að vilja ekki tala mikið um þetta mál.
Já, það má margt segja um hann Steingrím, en hann kann að koma fyrir sig orði.
(Sindri)
Talaði við nokkra af nemendunum frá Frakklandi í dag. Þeir voru hneykslaðir yfir verðinu á bjór og spurðu "How dejee manache? Een France, we buy biere for one Euro!". Varla líður sá dagur sem ég spyr sjálfan mig ekki sömu spurningar. Death to expensive beer! Gerumst bara allir frjálshyggjumenn og lögleiðum heróin.
(Sveinbjörn)
Also, my Photos are now password protected to prevent my personal photos from being indexed by Google Image Search. The user name and password is the English word for "hvítt". (And yes, I *am* aware of the fact that I could use a robots.txt file to accomplish the same thing. I just choose not to.)
If you...:
then you can email me and ask for it. Also, remember to remove "NOSPAM" if you press the link.
Damn, the Internet is such a dirty, dirty place. All common standards of decency and civility break down when people's conduct ceases to be regulated by law and social censure. William Golding got things partly right in "Lord of the Flies". He should have made it about adults, though...
One more thing: If you link to a news item posted on this website, please use the Uniform Resource Locator you get by pressing the [ Link ] button at the bottom of each item. This will bring up a seperate page with the news item. I've noticed that some people have been linking to the index page when directing people to a specific item. This isn't such a great idea since its contents change every time I post something new.
(Freyr the Anonymous Coward)
The Futility of Eudaimonian Ethics
Eudaimonian ethics postulate the existence of some ultimate goal towards which all human activity strives, whether it be happiness, the good life or something else altogether. This premise is shaky and easily questioned.
Let us imagine that we have a meeting of two would-be philosophers, Jones and Stevens. Jones is a compassionate rule utilitarian, while his friend Stevens is a reserved skeptic. Jones greets Stevens and a converstation ensues:
I say, Stevens, I read in the newspaper today that an old lady was set upon by a group of young ruffians who hit her and stole her purse. What an evil lot they must be!
And why is that so? replies the skeptical Stevens.
Well, imagine how unhappy the old lady must have been. The happiness which the youths may or may not have experienced as a consequence of their actions can hardly counterbalance the old womans feeling that she was done wrong. So, all in all, their actions reduced the amount of happiness in the world.
Stevens grins. Its very scientific of you to idly speculate on the happiness/unhappiness ratio in the affair, but what does that have to do with anything?
You see, the ultimate goal of all human beings is happiness. Since it is that which everyone strives for, an action must be regarded good insofar as it promotes happiness, and evil insofar as it detracts from it. Hitting and stealing generally detract from happiness in the world, and thus the perpetrators of such crimes are not good
My dear Jones, apart from the fact that your theory is unworkable in practice (for who can really know how the old lady feels?), it also involves wild overgeneralizations of which I disapprove. Firstly, you say that hitting and stealing are wrong because they detract from overall happiness. I can easily come up with counterexamples where this is not the case. There is, however, a second, much more serious objection to your theory.
And what objection might that be? asks Jones, brows furrowed.
You claim that the ultimate goal of all human beings is happiness. Regardless of what you mean by happiness, this statement is highly suspicious. What on earth makes you think that there is a single goal towards which all human actions are to strive?"
Well, I observed the people around me and, based on these observations, I concluded that in all their undertakings they were motivated by a desire to be happy.
So your entire theory rests on your own subjective, personal observations?
No, no, no! Not at all. There are plenty of people who agree, and have told me that they too have made similar observations.
Hmm.... Stevens pauses a while to ponder. What if I were, for arguments sake, to tell you that I am not motivated at all by happiness, and do not consider it the ultimate object of any of my actions? In fact, let us imagine that I regarded happiness, in any and all of its forms, as something of no consequence. You now have a counter-example which disproves your theory. If we are to be scientific and rational in our discussion, we must agree that one example to the contrary suffices to show that happiness cannot be the ultimate human end. How will you respond to this?
Jones smiles and replies I should say that you were lying, and that you were in fact motivated by the prospect of happiness.
Have you not, then, moved out of the sphere of rational discourse, since you are molding the evidence to fit your theory, instead of molding the theory to the evidence? It seems to me that in order to prove your theory wrong, I need only reject its premise in regard to my own motivations and opinions. And there is nothing you can do about it, except appeal to the fact that many people agree with you. We can hardly regard this as sufficient in establishing the truth of the matter. No, your theory rests on a shaky premise indeed, and I fear you must search elsewhere for solid ethical foundations.
"My contacts with Libertarians always leave me with a certain amount of contempt for their philosophies, which all seem to rely on the assumption that, if you can string together enough vague and high-sounding rhetoric, you can ignore both (1) all of human history and (2) what everyone else on earth now wants." - Anonymous
"To say that governments are evil is on a par with saying that humans are evil. To claim that it is a necessary evil is on a par with saying that cars are a necessary evil. What we are really talking about are subjective preferences which may or may not be satisfied, not some theological notion of right and wrong. The inescapable evils of coercive behavior are not unique to government. Our government is where we choose to channel and regulate them, because the alternative (private, unregulated coercion) gives much worse results, as the history of privately owned states (monarchies, dictatorships, despotisms) and private "law" such as slavery, mafias, warlords, etc. show rather clearly. We have constructed a government that is jointly owned by all, because private ownership gives too much incentive for profit through coercion of others." - Mike Huben
"There isn't much point arguing about the word 'libertarian.' It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word 'democracy' -- recall that they called what they'd constructed 'peoples' democracies.' The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called 'libertarian' here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that 'libertarian,' fine; after all, Stalin called his system 'democratic.' But why bother arguing about it?" - Noam Chomsky
"An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H. L. Mencken
"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." - Adam Smith
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - James K. Galbraith
Fyrr í dag sat ég í tíma hjá Sigríði Þorgeirsdóttur, "Hugmyndasaga 19. og 20. aldar". Umfjöllunarefni tímans var Marxismi, og umræðan snérist á ákveðnum tíma að trúarbrögðum, "ópíumi fólksins". Eitt sem Sigríður sagði vakti athygli mína: að aþeismi (þ.e.a.s. trúleysi) væri ákveðið form af trúarbrögðum í sjálfu sér, nefnilega trúin að Guð væri ekki til.
Með fullri virðingu fyrir Sigríði, þá er þessi athugasemd gömul og þreytt klisja sem fólk virðist aldrei þreytast af að láta út úr sér. Staðreynd málsins er sú að sönnunarbyrðin liggur hjá hinum trúuðu. Í sjálfu sér er enginn praktískur mismunur milli þess að vera "agnostic" (þ.e.a.s. manneskja sem ekki þykist vita neitt um þessi málefni) og að vera aþeisti, því svo framarlega sem ég fæ séð þá er núllstigið í öllum málum að trúa ekki.
Með öðrum orðum: aþeistinn er trúlaus því hann hefur ekki séð neinar vísbendingar um æðri máttarvöld. Sá sem er "agnostískur" hefur enga skoðun á málinu af sömu ástæðum. Þessi "enga skoðun" samsvarar í sjálfu sér höfnun í praxis. Hvort menn kjósa að kalla sig "aþeista" eða "agnostíska" er þá bara spurning um orðaval.
Það væri kannski vit í því að endurskilgreina þessa tvo flokka út frá félagslegu atferli: þá er aþeistinn sá sem beitir sér gegn trúarbrögðum í samfélaginu í kjölfar trúleysi síns, en "agnóstíkarinn" sá sem lætur sig engu varða um þessi málefni og lætur hina trúuðu vera.
Út frá þessari nýju skilgreiningu þá væri ég sennilega aþeisti...
Young Woman or Old Woman
Duck or rabbit
Both white circles are the same size
Vase or silhouettes
Damn those gray spots!
What is this?
Seal or donkey?
All of them are the same height
Centered lines are equally long
Horizontal and vertical lines are equally long
Devil's Fork
What we see here is a picture, and next to it, the digital tracking of the eye movement of a person looking at the picture, which serves as ample demonstration that the way we look at pictures is anything but random or robotic.