On Humor

I have come to a mind-boggling conclusion, and that is, comedians make the best moral teachers. I have never been more contemplative than after coming in contact with some of their work. So I thought I'll just list a few of the comedians who have left their mark on me.
In no particular order or preference: George Carlin, Louis C.K., Jimmy Carr, Jim Jeffries, Dave Chappelle, Eddie Murphy (Standup), Rowan Atkinson, Ricky Gervais, Stephen Merchant, Karl Pilkington, Chris Rock, Zack Galifianakis and Bill Burr. Other influences were of course the entire Monty Python contribution, P.G. Wodehouse, Douglas Adams, Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie and Tim Minchin.

on Attitudes

It is that time of the year, when I visit my doctor complaining of a stupid throat infection, possibly from screaming and arguing too much about much too trivial topics or from alcohol, so that I can get a prescription from some antibiotics to cure the pain. But as it turns out, this is not an easy task. First you want find a doctor. And a quick search for one online lists the top 3 of 4 doctors to be experts in homeopathy and natural medicine. Leaving aside the question what these people mean by experts, why or how did these chaps even get so high up in the ranking. It is not like they were cured of it. Hence it is a little tough for me to find a normal science-based doctor. Thankfully I did find one around the corner and the next problem was at the pharmacy. Every pharmacy that I know of in Munich has big displays on homeopathic medicines and what not. From ayurvedic medicines to acupuncture, you'll find them all. And the cherry on the pie is when they see I am from India, they want to start a conversation how the Indians alone are braving the capitalistic pharmaceuticals with our alternative medicines. I feel like jumping over the counter and giving them a piece of my mind quite physically. I never saw this exhibited in so open a fashion as here in Munich. I am not saying there should be a correlation, but the south is far more religious and conservative than the north.
But now I am slowly starting to feel that I am losing my temper too often at people. I end up calling them names, and wishing them some very painful accidents. And that is not a nice thing to think of for other people. There is an interesting talk online (i.e. Youtubehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrFRbGjUtJk) given by Phil Plait (aka Bad Astronomer) in TAM 8 (aka. The Amazing Meeting) about how not to be a dick. It is quite spot on. The odds are against people with a skeptical outlook. "Skepticism is a self annihilating message. How do you convince someone they are not thinking clearly when they are not thinking clearly?" or another line from Michael Shermer "Our Brain is not wired for skeptical thinking. It is wired for faith". The message we have as consolation is most definitely not comforting "of no magic, no afterlife, no higher moral authority, no security and no happy ever after!". And almost everyone including myself had to shed off much of our beliefs, before even understanding what it means to think skeptically. It didn't happen overnight. And it didn't happen by people calling me an idiot. It happened because of the discussions we had among friends and the books we read of other views contrary to our own. I personally carry two scars very close to my eyes which my mom swears by was cured by homeopathy. I used to use the term gay for men in a very derogatory way when I was still in school. I used to say my prayers, and actually think that part of my grades were because God was helping me. You hear of haunted houses as kids and how there was a ghost in one of the apartments close to school and some of us boys used to climb over to get a glimpse and run back scared on seeing a moving shadow. But thankfully, whether they intended it or not, and perhaps they regret it now, my parents never objected to me reading books. And asking stupid questions. Such as "If I am sick today, will the birds outside be sad? Or will they keep singing their songs oblivious to my existence?". Or if the elders in history thought that burning widows on the husbands funeral pyre was the right thing to do, is there a chance that current elders have a few things wrong as well? Or why is dowry wrong? Slowly and gradually these questions made me realize that I am more insignificant than I thought I was, and more stupid that I thought I was.
So you start reading on how to think. You start learning the tools of trying to argue the negative, or assuming that everyone will do it. What will happen for example if every single parent killed the daughters, as it is still common in some parts of the world? There would not be any women left a generation later and the whole race will die. Or questioning, when someone says you got better because god is watching over you, did I fall sick because he was not watching over me? Thinking is much harder and scarier than many people think it is. The scientific method is such a boon and such a new tool, but the rationale behind it is derived from reason and from thinking. I hope people do not start forgetting that.
I still need to practise how to react when people I know tell me "girls should be married of when they are 16" or "sometimes a woman needs a few beatings" or that you can't expect men to be loyal to one single woman. I feel like punching these hypocrites, who go to churches and temples every bloody week, and have the audacity to tell me that I am going to hell! I cant take it when people tell me that jesus died for our sins, that adam and ever were the first humans, and that there is a life after this. They can't know that for sure, and they still act like they have more knowledge than is available to everyone else. It is so frustrating.
I am sure I still have a few stupid ideas that still need to be thrashed out of me, but I am open to it. Till then I better start searching for a pharmacy with no homeopathic globules.

On Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassement

Due to repeated interactions with women on this subject I just thought I'll jot down a few pointers I would like to share with any women within my circle, such as my sister and my friends. If anyone has absolutely no idea about these two terms or what differentiates them, it would be best to first invest some time looking it up online.

Sexual Violence:
This includes everything that is physically harmful and damaging to a person, be it woman or man. Examples are rape, physical abuse, genital mutilation, for that matter mutilation of any part because of sex and sex trafficking. What this should be telling everyone, and especially victims, is that sexual violence is classified as a crime by all justice systems in all democracies. And another thing is that a crime is settled in a criminal court. And in criminal courts the level of evidence required for conviction is "beyond reasonable doubt". This means even if a crime has taken place, in order to be able to prosecute the perpetrator, evidence and corroboration has to be accurate. Even though this standard seems atrocious at first sight, it is this same standard that is making sure that innocents are given protection by this system. A common saying that would reflect this philosophy is to rather let a guilty man walk than convict an innocent.
So what does this mean to women and other victims of sexual violence (I will focus on women from now on, since they are statistically more likely to be preyed upon than other groups). They have to report immediately to the police. Not to your priests, not to your parents, not to your friends but only to the police. And this should be done immediately. Before taking a wash, before changing clothes, before losing any evidence. Hair, bodily fluids, scratches, bruises are all to be collected for evidence immediately. There can be no excuse for not doing this step. Many agencies dealing with rape victims are very hesitant to advice women who have just been raped, and leave the decision making process to the victim, in what she feels comfortable. Though this is understandable, this is the most wrong thing to do from my personal point of view. And for the following reasons.
Sexual violence is not and never has been because of the victim. Victims of sexual violence should try to deal with this crime like any other crime, such as pickpocketing or burglary. There need not be any shame in being the victim and there is nothing you could have done to avoid it. It is just a very horrible thing that happened. But unlike an exploding volcano or an earthquake, there is a human being behind this deed. And this is the information every girl needs to hear when things are fine, not after she has been subjected to this experience. Girls need to understand that it can be their fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, neighbours, colleagues, friends and lastly strangers. Famous strangers, professors, doctors, men in respectable positions like presidents are all included. This has to be known to women as soon as they enter puberty. And not going to the police because you don't want to ruin his life and family is the worst argument to make or hold on to. That person is a liability to society and all his dear and near ones, and should be punished accordingly.
So all that I can implore every woman, is to think about these things in the comfort of her home when things are calm and peaceful so that she may do the right thing were this to happen. Doing anything else is like hiding your head in the sand.
Sexual violence is a crime and has to be brought in front of the justice system. And you should do all that you can to ensure that the crime is "beyond reasonable doubt".

@note to men: There is never a situation where sexual violence is acceptable. Not when she is drunk, not when she is passed out, not when she is lying naked in your own bed but is unable to give you her consent. Walk away, and save yourself a load of trouble. Never ever have fornicate with someone who is incapable of making a judgement call.

Sexual Harassment:
In contrast to sexual violence, sexual harassment is not classified as crime. Meaning, the most important difference is that the cases are settled in a civil court. This in turn means that there is no longer a requirement for "beyond reasonable doubt" and "beyond probable doubt" is sufficient for a conviction. Furthermore, the viewpoint of the victim has a higher significance when the probability of the harassment is being investigated. This has a simple enough explanation. In most cases, it is fundamentally hard to collect evidence, or always search for corroborating witnesses. A slap in the butt, or a lewd remark can never stand the test of a cross examination. So men and women, who have tendencies to misuse their power, should be warned about what it means to be accused of sexual harassments. Furthermore, since this is not a crime, the first instance of reporting a sexual harassment at work is your manager. If the actions taken by the company are not reasonable, you have the option to move a civil court. There is a long list of things that can be classified as sexual harassment, including commenting on looks, figure, clothing, enquiring of ones personal life. Sexual harassment is even when a pin up woman is found in your factory floor and a woman employed who is not working there happens to walk by it and is offended.

@note to women: Please stop saying no with a smile. Please do not act coy when you are brushing off advances. Please raise your voice when your aggressor has trouble hearing you. Please practise this in front of the mirror. Do not go to a guys place alone after a party, for drinks or for a cup of coffee and a night chat, if you have absolutely no intentions of letting him touch you. And please do not listen to other women, to tell you when to start getting offended. Every woman has her own views of what men are and what she can tolerate. And on another note; try not to be offended when a guy compliments you for your looks or when he wants to invite you to a cup of coffee. Not all men are jerks, and most will just move on if they hear a no.

@note to men: If you ever hear a no, walk away, even if she is a goddess walking on this planet. It is not worth the trouble. And do so without emotion. The more emotions you invest into this, the more credibility you are giving to her decision.

With all this said, I hope we can still all live together with a bit of flirting, coyness and gallantry. 

on Definitons

After a wonderful evening at the pub it occurred to me that I need to write down my use of definitions. Even though it is a valid argument that what matters is that the others know the definitions of the terms I am using, I feel it is important for myself to list a few things down.

So on the assumption that you are already a non-believer in the supernatural let me write down a set of definitions. (my very own opinion)

Theist: someone who believes in the existence of an intervening personal god. A god who responds to prayers and who is actively involved in the workings of everyday life.

Deist: without falling foul to oversimplification I think I can be excused in defining a deist as one who believes in a god who created the universe and the laws but does not actively involve in the workings of everyday life. A non-interfering kind of god.

Pantheist: Also known as Spinoza's god and that of Einstein. Suffice to say at this juncture that this is also not an interfering god.

So with the help of the above definitions we have

Atheist: Someone who does not believe in an interfering god. And that is all. This definition is embedded in the term. It does not include being a nice person, or a moral person or any other things required to a socially acceptable person. So theoretically an atheist can still be a deist or a pantheist. And the atheist movement, if one can call that, is only interested in highlighting the detrimental effects of believing in an intervening god.

Anti-Theist: in the words of Hitchens is someone who actively does not wish for a theistic setup were it offered in the first place. The whole concept of big brother and unending adulation is an offence to the human spirit.

And so defining someone as an atheist does not tell us much about that person, other than the single fact that this person does not believe in an interfering god. And this then brings us to the larger concept of supernatural, meta-physical and the spiritual. You could say you are an atheist and still believe in vampires, or in fairies, or ghosts, or unicorns. You could believe in karma, or in influential energy or what ever the human mind is capable of making up.

And that is why I choose to use the term naturalism (as opposed to supernatural) to define the boundaries where I can have a conversation with. If you start talking to me seriously about any of the superheroes, or supernatural or metaphysical all I hear is "bingo bongo bing!".

That being said how do we figure out what is possible and what is not. We right now have one tool at our disposal. Skepticism making use of the scientific method, logic and reason. The scientific method is the easiest tool in the belt and should be used with caution. Not every person capable of wielding a hammer is automatically a carpenter, so just throwing around the term is not going to get you anywhere. Logic and reason are far harder to learn and practice. But as the philosophers of time immemorial have shown, this is the more powerful of the two. And skepticism is the attitude to prefer and require a level of proof before accepting something.

So we now have crossed from atheism, to anti-theism, to naturalism with the help of skepticism. But would defining oneself as a skeptic be enough? What about instances where the scientific method, logic and reason fail. What about concepts of trust and belief? What about social interactions? Skepticism will not be the best approach to a social relationship. Imagine a childs disbelief and loss of confidence every time the parents want proof of its statements.

But then again, what is trust? How is trust different from belief? and how is belief different from faith? From a personal point of view, the easiest definition is that of faith. to believe in something without any evidence, but purely based on the trust invested in the messenger. So the more you trust someone the more you are prone to have faith in what he or she tells you. So the person has a higher moral responsibility, such as parents, friends, and people in power.

Trust is something you accumulate over time. You trust someone more the more you know him, and the more his or her actions correspond to your moral framework. You start trusting in your knowledge the more that knowledge that stood the test of time. You trust in theories start increasing the more they withstand the inspection.

Belief however is a little tricky. You are always believing something or the other. Some belief that is shown to be true in the future becomes knowledge. And some beliefs that have been shown to be wrong should be discarded. You start to believe in things only if the are possible with the knowledge you already have accumulated. If all your life you have never seen someone fly, and you know the fundamentals of gravity, then when someone says that they saw someone fly, you are bound to not believe the story initially. If however it was explained to you that the person flew in a plane, then the things takes a more believable stance. Similarly, with the knowledge we have of gravity, as experienced on earth, and on the moon, if someone were to say you will weight lot more in jupiter, even though noone has been to jupiter, one can believe that statement because of the knowledge we have of gravity.

In a similar way, when a girl says she was harassed, it is easier to believe her, if you have knowledge about how often this can occur. Asking for proof or evidence in this case is not going to get the conversation far. So where does that leave us in our definitions.
A naturalist covers quite a bit, and skepticism covers the tools but what term could cover the social and human interactions. I have settled on the term humanism (through no small influence from Carl Sagan). I am not sure if this term covers what I want to define myself with, but it is more neutral than feminism, and a much better word than brights.

I would only require one not to blindly follow the scientific method and lose sight of all the arts, music and poetry that make being human so wonderful. But that is my two pence worth of thought about this.


p.s. for any random person stumbling onto this blog, my apologies for writing so badly in the english language. You however did land on psychedelic thoughts. What did you expect!

On Arguments

“I respect you as a person too much to respect your ridiculous beliefs.”

― Johann Hari

I have always tried to keep this in mind when I am arguing about something dear to me to someone who may not see it my way. But it gets a lot more difficult as time goes on. And the problem is because, unlike myself who will cast off my opinions as easily as shedding dandruff, some people define themselves through their opinions. So invariably when disrespecting someones beliefs, you are invariably causing an emotional attack on the person, through no fault of yours.

And so I have figured, that being right is only half the solution. The other half is to learn a skill to get this across without making them feel like idiots. Sadly I am still way off this mark.

I wish the statement "When was the last time you were wrong?" would open a few minds to the absolute incredulity of being right all the time.

P.S. And for all the things beautiful in this world, learn to properly listen and respond, instead of just spewing the things that someone has spewed on you.

Humanism

When 140 words are not enough to give credit to one's thoughts being thrown into the open forum, I remember this blog. So why do I call myself a humanist? A.C. Grayling published a wonderful book this year (The God Argument) that highlights many of the points concerned with humanism. But to summarize my own thoughts on the matter, is the purpose of this entry. First off, I make the statement that we are bound to decide our ethics with what can be known. This cuts out the entire supernatural domain, to which many others revert to, to explain the reasons for behaving one way or the other. Second, I see and accept the enormous improbability with which life is possible on this planet, to be mindful of its significance. So do I want to scream more when a whale is hunted with spears, or when complete rain forests are burned down, for the sake of some peoples tastes? Yes I do, and even more than when I read about the atrocities committed by humans on their own fellow humans. So to call myself a materialist, which is to say I believe in the measurable, and to say I am a humanist, to rely on the human ability to reason, is self explanatory.
But the buck doesn't stop there. People then want to know if I am an atheist or a naturalist or a feminist and on and on and on. The thing is simple. Being an atheist is as simple as being an afairist, or even better a aharrypotterist. I can't define myself through things that I do not consider existent. But to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, one has to have a few tools up one's sleeve to counter the innumerable ways one can fall prey to false beliefs. This would in principle make me a skeptic, but being is skeptic is only a tool and it doesn't define my ethical or moral outlook. So having gone through the material part of the definition, with slight references to my non-belief and my skepticism, why would I choose the term humanism to define my ethics.
A.C.Grayling states in his chapter defining the term: Humanism is the ethical outlook that says each individual is responsible for choosing his or her values and goals and working towards the latter in the light of the former, and is equally responsible for living considerably towards others, with a special view to establishing good relationships at the heart of life, because all good lives are premised on such. Humanism recognises the commonalities and, at the same time, wide differences that exist in human nature and capacities, and therefore respects the rights that the former tells us all must have, and the need for space and tolerance that the latter tells us each must have.
And further, humanism requires no commitment to teachings beyond its two fundamental premises and it imposes no obligations on people other than to think for themselves.

At this point, I shall stop quoting Grayling and just say, this book gives a good first indication of the term in use. But since the term humanism is a relatively new term, one can be justified in asking why not pick and stick with one of the older ones, such as feminism, which is a valid argument to begin with. Trouble is only that, at least in the western democracies, the feminists have had their day and have significantly got their message across, for which all of us are eternally grateful. But events such as the elevatorgate and random abuses hurled at men for finding women attractive has given the term more negative headlines than it deserves. Furthermore, the feminists were right to call themselves that, because they were at that time fighting primarily for the upliftment of women in the society. You don't call the anti-apartheid movement a feminist movement, just as you wouldn't be calling the gay movement (for LGBT) a feminist movement. Granted, a feminist movement is still much needed in countries that are still stuck in the middle ages, but at least in the western world, calling yourself a feminist, arguing that it caters to gender equality, just doesn't cut it. You are most welcome to call yourself a feminist, where such issues are still a major social issue.

On a more personal note, knowing fully well that this view is not there to substantiate any claim but since this is my own blog (I say what the heck), I have noticed almost every woman I meet to call herself a feminist. And every single one has her own definition, as it suits her. I am yet to meet a woman, who won't raise her eyebrows when I say, I demand my future better half to earn and contribute equally. Most women want this to be their choice! Feminists want equality and when we expect it, it is mind-boggling.

So the term humanist is my choice, at the moment, to define my ethical outlook.

Of Sports

Alright I am on leave now, at least officially. Means I get to catch up all on the youtube videos I have been saving up, start reading books I have been tagging to read for later, and most especially open this blog again.

And since being on leave, one singular thing has happened that made me think for quite some time

And that was Vettel overtaking Webber in Malaysia.

The issue with Vettel is actually straight-forward. He acted like a spoilt brat, and is probably going to pay for it one way or the other. But interestingly enough the reaction is what is mildly surprising. For one, I for my part do not look to Vettel or the other world champions of any brand of sports to derive my morality or sense of reason from. It starts from all the superstitious beliefs they hold, to the way they define themselves by their ability to win. Anyway long story short, I think people should stop expecting celebrities to be moral compasses. 

But this race, made me ask myself why I am watching the sports in the first place, and that is in the order of priority, pushing the limits of man and machine, the influence of strategy, and how this is a team sport. But in that order. So playing it safe, on the wear and tear and on the fuel consumption is like watching a few old ladies driving sensitive cars back home. And for that I could go as far as to be grateful for Vettel. He knew by disobeying that he may lose the tire and lose all points, but he still went for it and that is I think what may be commended. The fact that he was on a completely different tire strategy than Webber also doesn't help the situation. He actually saved his tires in qualifying for the last leg of the race, and it should not have surprised the commando stand that his tires will go the distance. But that still does not absolve him of being an idiot in the last race.

So why does anyone watch sports? I like to think I am watching people do superhuman things, not through magic, but through dedication and training. Like watching the top four tennis players, hit the ball where ever they want on the lines. Like snooker players finishing complete frames in one go. Or in F1 where a single mistake will cost you positions, or a single mistake by the entire team has an impact. This would probably include all sports where the athlete is competing alone or in unison. Like a pitstop, or rowing. This can be trained over and over again, and that training will be noticeable in the results. That is why I am willing and cherish to waste my time in front of the television watching such people perform. And this is one of the reasons I cant get myself to appreciate any team sports like football or basketball, where the performance level of individual players can differ and I for one cant judge how good or bad that team just performed. 

So that is 2 cents worth for anyone stumbling across here.

cheers