It is that time of year when people tend to think about what they have done and what they are going to do. I will take it in small steps. My plan is to give some past highlights of 2011 and some probable highlights of 2012, one of each, for a few blog entries.
Among my accomplishments of 2011 is to get to second place when it comes to the most read opinion pieces in SvD (a major Swedish newspaper). To be honest I had not much to do with its writing or the fact that it became very popular but I still list it as one noteworthy thing I did during 2011. It is not every day you can assist an astronaut to take an overdose of sleeping pills.
To see the list of the most popular opinion pieces follow this link.
To read the original piece (in Swedish) follow this link.
Among plans for 2012 I am enlisting to take courses that will hopefully give me a master degree in rhetoric.
Happy New Year!
Saturday, 31 December 2011
Saturday, 17 December 2011
An obituary of sort
Christopher Hitchens 1949-2011
I am writing this for two sad reasons, the first one is that Christopher Hitchens is dead, the second one is the sad state of the Swedish obituaries.
Maybe he wasn't that big in Sweden, definitely not as big as he was in the US or the UK. We are talking about a man so influential that the New York Times stopped the presses to get his obituary in the paper. I doubt that any Swedish paper stopped their presses. And it is sad that the media in Sweden never understood his greatness; not that he was always right, but he would always argue his point and ask uncomfortable questions and not seldom deliver uncomfortable facts.
But I can understand that he wasn't popular in Sweden since he was a fierce debater in that intellectual stile which appear to be shun by the Swedish media. It would not do to show that intelligence and facts could be used in a debate instead of conviction and opinions. Not that Christopher Hitchens didn't have opinions but he, as far as I can tell, never argued that his convictions in themselves were enough of an argument.
So what about the man himself?
I often didn't agree with him, I have met him, not only heard him speak but actually been at the same party and exchanged a few words with him. I was not starstruck by him although his eloquence is admirable. But I can understand those who idolised him because he was a very unique man, he smoked, and he clearly drank, and he wrote and spoke all with the same uncompromising zeal.
I valued his critique of religion, because as a Christian and secularist, I believe that all religions should be criticized and even ridiculed. A crazy thing as a religious belief deserve ridicule and only people who can stand their believes being ridiculed should be allowed to be religious. I much rather live in an world there people like Hitchens or even people much, much less well spoken than him, can insult religion as much as they want, than in a world there people are under pressure not to offend. It is sometimes argued that the freedom of speech has become a “religion” in the west and that it is necessary to understand that it must be placed on the same level as other religions and learn to “play nice”. That is pure humbug, and I think Hitchens would agree with me on that. (Though since he is dead we will never know.) To listen to people you don't agree with will make your thoughts evolve and if freedom of speech is restricted, humanity will suffer.
That is why I am sad, because a great combatant in the struggle for humanity has passed away. I know that he didn't believe, but I hope he was wrong and although I don't agree with drinking I hope he has found his place at the big bar in heaven.
I am writing this for two sad reasons, the first one is that Christopher Hitchens is dead, the second one is the sad state of the Swedish obituaries.
Maybe he wasn't that big in Sweden, definitely not as big as he was in the US or the UK. We are talking about a man so influential that the New York Times stopped the presses to get his obituary in the paper. I doubt that any Swedish paper stopped their presses. And it is sad that the media in Sweden never understood his greatness; not that he was always right, but he would always argue his point and ask uncomfortable questions and not seldom deliver uncomfortable facts.
But I can understand that he wasn't popular in Sweden since he was a fierce debater in that intellectual stile which appear to be shun by the Swedish media. It would not do to show that intelligence and facts could be used in a debate instead of conviction and opinions. Not that Christopher Hitchens didn't have opinions but he, as far as I can tell, never argued that his convictions in themselves were enough of an argument.
So what about the man himself?
I often didn't agree with him, I have met him, not only heard him speak but actually been at the same party and exchanged a few words with him. I was not starstruck by him although his eloquence is admirable. But I can understand those who idolised him because he was a very unique man, he smoked, and he clearly drank, and he wrote and spoke all with the same uncompromising zeal.
I valued his critique of religion, because as a Christian and secularist, I believe that all religions should be criticized and even ridiculed. A crazy thing as a religious belief deserve ridicule and only people who can stand their believes being ridiculed should be allowed to be religious. I much rather live in an world there people like Hitchens or even people much, much less well spoken than him, can insult religion as much as they want, than in a world there people are under pressure not to offend. It is sometimes argued that the freedom of speech has become a “religion” in the west and that it is necessary to understand that it must be placed on the same level as other religions and learn to “play nice”. That is pure humbug, and I think Hitchens would agree with me on that. (Though since he is dead we will never know.) To listen to people you don't agree with will make your thoughts evolve and if freedom of speech is restricted, humanity will suffer.
That is why I am sad, because a great combatant in the struggle for humanity has passed away. I know that he didn't believe, but I hope he was wrong and although I don't agree with drinking I hope he has found his place at the big bar in heaven.
Wednesday, 7 December 2011
Lecture
For anyone who is interested and somewhere around Stockholm on the 7th of Mars 2012 I will give a semi-public lecture. It is a part of a lecture series with the title ”Vetenskap och ovetenskap” (Science and non-science) arranged by Björn Fjæstad for Senioruniversitetet i Stockholm (Stockholm Senior University) together with Folkuniversitetet (The Peoples University).
Beside me a number of very talented and interesting people will be speaking. Anna Bäsén will be talking about alternative medicine (that is treatments that has either not been proven to work, or proven not to work) the week after me. After her Martin Rundkvist will be talking about pseudo archaeology. Martin has been speaking at the lecture series that I arrange for my church in Uppsala and the speaker that follow Martin will as well have been here. CJ Åkerberg will talk about conspiration theories in Uppsala the 12th of January and in Stockholm the 28th of Mars. Everyone mentioned above I know, some more than others. Than there are two more talks one about parapsychology and the other one about the radiation from mobile phones and the so called electro-sensitivity that some people suffer from; the suffering is real although the cause of it is disputed.
If I was older I would make sure to attend this lecture series myself. To attend you have to sign up for the lecture series and pay the fee of 500 crowns.
Beside me a number of very talented and interesting people will be speaking. Anna Bäsén will be talking about alternative medicine (that is treatments that has either not been proven to work, or proven not to work) the week after me. After her Martin Rundkvist will be talking about pseudo archaeology. Martin has been speaking at the lecture series that I arrange for my church in Uppsala and the speaker that follow Martin will as well have been here. CJ Åkerberg will talk about conspiration theories in Uppsala the 12th of January and in Stockholm the 28th of Mars. Everyone mentioned above I know, some more than others. Than there are two more talks one about parapsychology and the other one about the radiation from mobile phones and the so called electro-sensitivity that some people suffer from; the suffering is real although the cause of it is disputed.
If I was older I would make sure to attend this lecture series myself. To attend you have to sign up for the lecture series and pay the fee of 500 crowns.
Thursday, 1 December 2011
Stuid and funny people
People who do stupid things are not always funny, and to be funny sometimes require a lot of intelligence. It is not very polite to point out that there really are stupid people not only people that do stupid things.
I must confess that pure stupidity in people I meet, and not just being uneducated, is something I rather not suffer. That is why this web page is something I am at the same time amused by as it makes me fear the future of the human race.
I must confess that pure stupidity in people I meet, and not just being uneducated, is something I rather not suffer. That is why this web page is something I am at the same time amused by as it makes me fear the future of the human race.
Sunday, 27 November 2011
To interpret literature II
We were talking about René Girard's triangle, not a proper geometric triangle but a way to view relationships in a text, invented in 1965. Originally it was to show how two individuals in their relationship to the same object, idea, or position also have a relationship between each other. It was later developed to include the type of triangles that people are most prone to think about in a book or a film, the love triangle. But the triangle is much more fundamental than that.
In my own thoughts I began to imagine what interesting forms of topology you would get if you tried to identify all the possible triangles in a text. I started to get an image of many interconnected triangles to describe all the different possible relations. For more complicated stories it would of course not be possible to confine the triangles to just two dimensions, or even three. It is apparent that I am heavily influenced by my background in science.
Our teacher was talking about the triangle and invented an example with a man, a woman and the Bible. She explained how the man's understanding and relationship to the woman was influenced by a book that divide women in two groups Madonna or whore. And the book tell the man that the Madonna is good and desirable while the whore is bad and contemptible.
Now it wasn't the time to get into a long discussion outside the topic, but in my mind I did object to her example. I was surprised that someone that studies literature would use that kind of wording. If she had said “the church” instead of “the Bible” I would have understood it better. Because it is possible to find times and places where the church has indeed interpreted the Bible in this way. It is not even difficult to find these times and places. I would have thought that someone who studies literature would know the difference between what the Bible says and how people interpret the Bible.
There are those that would say that the message in the Bible is rather the opposite. You could read the message in Bible to be that there are no grounds to divide people into groups and assign them different value.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Galatians 3:28
In my own thoughts I began to imagine what interesting forms of topology you would get if you tried to identify all the possible triangles in a text. I started to get an image of many interconnected triangles to describe all the different possible relations. For more complicated stories it would of course not be possible to confine the triangles to just two dimensions, or even three. It is apparent that I am heavily influenced by my background in science.
Our teacher was talking about the triangle and invented an example with a man, a woman and the Bible. She explained how the man's understanding and relationship to the woman was influenced by a book that divide women in two groups Madonna or whore. And the book tell the man that the Madonna is good and desirable while the whore is bad and contemptible.
Now it wasn't the time to get into a long discussion outside the topic, but in my mind I did object to her example. I was surprised that someone that studies literature would use that kind of wording. If she had said “the church” instead of “the Bible” I would have understood it better. Because it is possible to find times and places where the church has indeed interpreted the Bible in this way. It is not even difficult to find these times and places. I would have thought that someone who studies literature would know the difference between what the Bible says and how people interpret the Bible.
There are those that would say that the message in the Bible is rather the opposite. You could read the message in Bible to be that there are no grounds to divide people into groups and assign them different value.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Galatians 3:28
Saturday, 26 November 2011
To interpret literature I
Since I live in a university city I try to take a few courses now and then. Of course it helps that taking courses at a Swedish university is free. Now I am taking a course in literature with some connection to rhetoric, which is my main topic at the moment. Although I have a background in science I find it rewarding to learn what people do in other areas of academia. It is not always easy to understand what people are talking about before you actually dive into a subject.
When I was studying philosophy I got a very good advice from a teacher. “Just because you don't understand what someone is saying doesn't mean that they are stupid and what they say is nonsense. “ One very important point that he didn't mention is of course that to not understand someone does not exclude the possibility that they are stupid and talk nothing but nonsense. What is important is to give people the benefit of a doubt. In debates you often see how people interpret their opposition's opinion as negative as possible. But this is not the ideal in academia, here you should always extend the best possible interpretation to the text you study.
It is probably even more important for sceptics than for many others to not assume the worst reading of a text. Some sceptics appear to think that just because a text uses terms that they are unfamiliar with, a convoluted form of reasoning, or concern a topic that they consider unscientific the text must be without merit. Since sceptics often encounter texts that have all the above characteristics and that really are nonsense we may to some degree be excused, but non the less it is better to always begin with the assumption that it is your own fault if you don't understand how brilliant a text is.
Now this tirade about strange complicated texts that still may have some kind of understandable message and even value, is not a critique of the course I am taking. Although some theories in the study of literature strike me to be more opinion than tools to reach understanding. This is just the background to my simple observation during our most recent class in the course.
When I was studying philosophy I got a very good advice from a teacher. “Just because you don't understand what someone is saying doesn't mean that they are stupid and what they say is nonsense. “ One very important point that he didn't mention is of course that to not understand someone does not exclude the possibility that they are stupid and talk nothing but nonsense. What is important is to give people the benefit of a doubt. In debates you often see how people interpret their opposition's opinion as negative as possible. But this is not the ideal in academia, here you should always extend the best possible interpretation to the text you study.
It is probably even more important for sceptics than for many others to not assume the worst reading of a text. Some sceptics appear to think that just because a text uses terms that they are unfamiliar with, a convoluted form of reasoning, or concern a topic that they consider unscientific the text must be without merit. Since sceptics often encounter texts that have all the above characteristics and that really are nonsense we may to some degree be excused, but non the less it is better to always begin with the assumption that it is your own fault if you don't understand how brilliant a text is.
Now this tirade about strange complicated texts that still may have some kind of understandable message and even value, is not a critique of the course I am taking. Although some theories in the study of literature strike me to be more opinion than tools to reach understanding. This is just the background to my simple observation during our most recent class in the course.
Thursday, 24 November 2011
Flattering surprise
I did not expect this but I found out this morning via a friend on facebook that I have a fan-club there. It is not a big fan club but non the less 82 people have decided to click “like'” so far. Since I have no idea who has made the page I guess that it is my unofficial fan-club.
To me fan-clubs are something that happen to other people but I can't help to be a little flattered although I guess the people who have joined are not too serious.
To me fan-clubs are something that happen to other people but I can't help to be a little flattered although I guess the people who have joined are not too serious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
