A Humanist dilemma: a letter to the local newspaper

Posted by on

Reader:

I know someone who, when she attends luncheons (both business and social), always announces she is a Christian and then asks people around her, “Would you be offended if I pray before the meal?” Often, she gets the attention of the entire group, and invariably they allow her to say grace without protest, regardless of whether they’re okay with that. I think everyone is caught off guard and doesn’t know what to say or do. But I keep running into her and want to be ready for the next round.

“What’s a good response to that question if, indeed, one does mind? I find it cringe-worthy, and I would like her to stop it.  Mind If I Gag?”

 (Answer from Agony Aunt)   Dear Gag,

As someone who has been in circles where my hands were grasped by people around me bowing their heads and thanking Jesus for the meal we were about to consume, I know how awkward and infuriating it can feel, even if it’s just a few fleeting moments. I also know I’m not the only one whose head is unbowed and whose eyes are open, making contact with others’ that are winking or eye-rolling.

If the person is the host, and it’s a private event, I suppose they are entitled to their prayer—and you are entitled to excuse yourself until it’s over. Some people never begin a meal without a prayer, which can be a deeply personal conviction, a habit, or in other cases a calculated display.

Regardless, if it’s a secular function and the person asking to pray isn’t hosting, you are entitled to say yes, you do mind. If that simple response isn’t sufficient to nip the blessing in the bud, you could elaborate that because the gathering is neither Christian nor religious, a public or group prayer would be inappropriate and unwelcome.

It might also be possible to alert the organizers of the event in advance that this request is likely to be made, and perhaps they can advise this person to do her praying beforehand or silently. In this case  the prayers can become brief and non-denominational. 

But perhaps the most powerful response would be to pre-empt this woman by answering her request with a recitation of Matthew 6:5-8:

“And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men … But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray … in the secret place … And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. Therefore do not be like them.”  It should be tough to follow that with a public display of piety.

My take: I feel this person doth protest too much.  Toleration should be the watch- word for all Epicureans.   Does this overt religious behavior really matter?  If you feel so passionately, quietly come back with a smile with your own prayer based on the teachings of Epicurus. ( see my Christmas Day post).  It would make the point without showing you up as preachy and bad-mannered. Better still, don’t attend these meetings if you know you are likely to be offended.   Challenging someone face to face is rude.   It doesn’t help your popularity, either.

How we should treat others – a seasonal exhortation

Posted by on

I suggest that anyone who is reasonably self-aware and seeking to follow in the footsteps of Epicurus should ask whether they have the following personal characteristics which I think are important for humanity.  We might think of them as areas to work on for the New Year where instinct tells them they are a bit weak.  (This list is not in any particular order of priority.  If you want priority work one out for yourself):

Integrity

Honesty

Loyalty

Generosity when you can be generous

Kindness to others in distress

Thoughtfulness towards all

Respect for everyone, regardless of age, race and gender

Consideration for the poor, the sick and the disadvantaged

The treatment of money as a necessity not as a sort of god

Courtesy to others at all times

Reliability

Politeness in public

Patience with the young, old and the less articulate

Lack of boastfulness (a little self-deprecation is charming).

Lastly, a sense of humor, please.  The world looks at philosophers and sometimes finds them, well, wordy.  In any case there isn’t enough humor in life.

As church attendance falls (and at least one religion discredits itself) and children are no longer taught manners and proper human conduct like they used to be;  and vulgarity and cruelty mushroom on the web, maybe there is an opportunity for Epicureans to position themselves as a small but decent group in society, setting an example.

Epicurus did not leave such a list for posterity, but he did live  in accordance with the qualities listed above.  Indeed, maybe in his days, exhorting people to live with integrity, respect etc may have been regarded as too obvious to mention.

Glasses are forbidden

Posted by on

Thousands of Japanese women have taken to social media to share their experiences of being discouraged from wearing spectacles at work, since the practice was exposed in two recent reports. It turns out that a range of firms tell their female employees not to wear glasses, including a domestic airline that cites “safety” issues, retailers who claim bespectacled shop assistants give a “cold impression”, and restaurateurs who think glasses sit uneasily with traditional Japanese dress. (The Week, 15 Nov 2019)

Remember the old rhyme?

Boys don’t make passes
At girls who wear glasses

This story about the Japanese women seems incredibly sexist, and would be howled down in the West.  No one can help having eyesight problems; indeed, if you are short-sighted you cannot go about without your glasses or you can have an accident. Nor, in many cases can you do a number of jobs without 20/20 vision, assisted with glasses or not.

The writer, when young, was at one time distraught because he couldn’t find a girlfriend.  “Get rid of those frightful horn-rimmed glasses and that will solve the problem,” I was told by one pretty girl.  I did and it did! So glassesism has an old history, but doesn’t pass muster now. Or maybe, to be absolutely accurate, you cannot say what you think of those glasses the girl is wearing .

 

Excerpt from the Bhagavad Gita:

Posted by on

“……..Virtuous people find it difficult to believe that such evil exists on earth. It’s proponents, moreover, often proclaim (if they have a degree of intelligence) teachings that are designed purposefully to win others to their side: teachings like “the greatest good for the greatest number” and “each according to his need, from each according to his capacity to give”.  On the field of actual activity, however,they show themselves nothing but power-hungry, ruthless, and utterly cynical in the application of their so-called “ideals”.

Such people appear in every age.  Usually they are more or less successful according to how many dissatisfied Shudras and idealistic but undiscriminating intellectuals they can persuade to fill their ranks.

(16:10).  Abandoning themselves to insatiable desires, hypocrites, pretending a noble purpose, filled with self- conceit, insolent to anyone who disagrees with them, their concepts (assuming they have any) twisted by delusion; their actions prompted solely by impure motives.

(16:11). Convinced that the fulfillment of physical passion is man’s highest goal, confident that there is no world (and no life) but this one, such persons, until the moment of death, are engrossed in earthly cares and concerns.

(16:12) Bound by the fetters of hundreds of selfish hopes and expectations, enslaved by passion and anger, they strive by unlawful means to amass fortunes with which to purchase sensual physical pleasures.

(16.13) “This much” they say, “I have acquired today, putting me in a position to attain this desire. I have this much money at present; my goal now is to acquire more”.

(16.14)  Or they say: “Today I have slain this enemy.  Next, I shall slay more.  What I’ve wanted I  possess. I am successful, powerful and happy”.

(16.15). I am wealthy and well-born!  Who can rival me? I will show my greatness by giving alms and making public sacrifices.  I will rejoice in my glory”.  Thus they boast, befuddled by their own lack of wisdom.

(16.16). Addled in thought, caught in a spider’s web of delusion, craving only sensual “delights”, they sink in life, and even more so after death, to a foul hell.

(16.17). Vain, heedlessly obstinate, intoxicated by pride in wealth, hypocritical in whatever sacrifices they perform, careless of scriptural injunctions….

(16.18).  Egotistical, ruthless, arrogant, lascivious, prone to fits of rage, these evil- intending persons despise Me, though for all that I dwell in them, as in all beings.”

Editor:  I will not comment on this occasion, but  leave the reader to judge its modern relevance.

Linguistic misunderstandings

Posted by on

When they hear the phrase “With the greatest respect…”, 68% of Britons think it means “I think you are an idiot”, while 49% of Americans interpret it as “I am listening to you”.

When told “I’ll bear it in mind”, 55% of Britons assume it means “I’ve forgotten it already”, whereas only 38% of Americans think this way  (YouGov/BBC News)

I have to say these are wild generalisations.  This said, I put the difference down to the influx of European migrants into the US in the 19th Century.  When they learned English they interpreted every word literally, whereas English is a difficult and illogical language, but full of subtleties and metaphors.

Many in today’s US are not good at spotting when something is said ironically, with tongue in cheek, or in a jokey way.  You quickly learn that metaphors and subtleties can be misunderstood by the man in the street, who doesn’t do nuance. Say what you mean, straight, that’s the safe way.

Pity in a way. Some of the best jokes are plays on words.

 

 

Being Epicurean: How to charm a new friend

Posted by on

“I recently met up with an acquaintance for a couple of drinks. By the end of our conversation, I was pretty sure I could write his biography: he told me the ins and outs of his job, his childhood and his love life. As for me? He asked just one question in 3 hours.”

“This is a common experience, says Karen Huang at Harvard Business School, particularly when we are first getting to know someone. “In first encounters, the default behaviour seems to be to want to talk about oneself, in order to impress the other person,” she says. It is rarely as charming as these people imagine.

“In laboratory experiments, Huang and her colleagues have found that the number of questions you ask of someone during a  conversation can reliably predict how much they like you afterwards. During a speed-dating event, it also predicted how likely they were to agree to a second date (if speed-dating is really what you want to do).

The specific type of question matters. “Switch” questions, which alter the topic of conversation, are less charming than follow-ups that build on the person’s current topic. “Follow-ups signal a kind of emotional responsiveness and care for the other person,” says Huang. By increasing your understanding of the other person, follow-up questions should also ensure that your own gambits are better suited to their interests.  ( New Scientist, 20 Dec 2019)

Is this a modern disease?  I can’t count the number of times I have been talking to.someone, politely asking questions, taking an interest, and the person concerned ends up knowing nothing whatsoever about me, even my first name.  (can’t be too hard on the first name; I am useless at names myself). An unscientific survey suggests  that men are worse about this than women, who are, or were, brought up to defer to men for the sake of the latter’s egos.  Anyway, right or wrong, it is downright rude to talk about yourself endlessly, treating the other person like a silent marble statue.  Here is a hint to male Epicureans – read and inwardly digest the New Scientist extract above!

Civil marriages

Posted by on

Rome

The number of civil marriage ceremonies in Italy has overtaken the number of church weddings for the first time – a major social shift in the once firmly Catholic country. As recently as 1970, only 2.3% of weddings in Italy were civil ceremonies. Last year, that proportion rose to 50.1%, according to official statistics. This is partly due to the rising proportion of marriages (currently 20%) where at least one spouse not Catholic.  (The Week ).

Italians seem to be reacting to the corruption in the Catholic Church, and the difficulty it appears to be having with restraining its priests from abusing children, plus the stumbling reaction to world outrage.  The fact is that Catholics are  leaving in droves, which would be presumably not be so were the church to abandon celibacy, a doctrine that cannot be found in the words of Jesus and has more to do with church wealth than doctrine.

But who am I to wade into church doctrine?  The formerly faithful are voting with their feet.  Don’t feel sorry for the Vatican.  Have you seen the incredible collection of artwork in the Vatican museum? Do visit, if you can.  The sale of just a handful of masterpieces would fund the church for decades. Sad!  We need someone to give us moral direction, particularly now.

Oh, dear!

Posted by on

Common bottle nose Dolphins have a dominant right-hand side according to research by naturalists.  About 90% of all humans are also right- handed as are gorillas.  It appears, however, that a “right- hand” bias is stronger in dolphins than in humans.

Wow!  The ice is melting, the seas are rising, the volcanos are doing what volcanos do, poor peasants are having to abandon their land and migrate, and right-wing extremists are taking over in one country after another………..and some scientists are wondering if dolphins are right-handed.

Makes you proud to be human.*

* For serious-minded Epicureans this is meant tongue in cheek.  Just thought I should add that.

Dementia misdiagnosed

Posted by on

Hundreds of thousands of older people who have been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s may, in fact, be suffering from a different disease.  According to groundbreaking new research, the condition, known as “Late”, affects a fifth of people over 85. Like Alzheimer’s, Late leads to memory loss, cognitive decline and mood disorders (although its progress tends to be slower).

The disease’s neurology, however, is very different: rather than deposits of sticky amyloid plaques and tau proteins, the brains of Late sufferers contain a misshapen form of a different protein, TDP-43. Researchers who work in dementia have long been puzzled by patients who have all the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, but whose brains do not contain the pathological features of the condition. We now know that these puzzling patients are probably suffering from Late.

Late’s existence could help explain why attempts to find a treatment for Alzheimer’s haven’t been more successful. Trials of drugs based on clearing out amyloid plaques have probably featured significant numbers of participants who had Late, and not Alzheimer’s – which would have skewed the results.  (The Times and The Week, 11 May2019)

Whatever the strict medical term for it memory loss is a miserable, frustrating  and frightening disease.  I have experience of its effects in my own family, too painful and upsetting an experience to discuss here in public.  But this news did make me think how I could, as a son, have been more patient, more caring, and given my mother more hope, momentary though it would have been.  None of us know whether we will be stricken with memory loss in old age.  To those younger people faced with it in their parents:  stop, draw breath, and tell yourself “ this could be me one day.  Patience.  Patience”.

A home is not a wallet: homelessness in the UK

Posted by on

“Most of the ills relating to our housing start with the morally reprehensible idea that it’s OK in a time of shortage to treat dwellings as mere investments. Yet when the Labour Party in Britain reasonably suggests holiday homes should pay double council tax, affluent owners whimper. Any suggestion of stiffer capital gains gets pearls clutched. And no party has the guts to do as the Danes and forbid non-resident foreigners from owning property in cities. So Manchester and London are pimped out as cosy nest-eggs for Russian and Asian money. Houses aren’t bank vaults, flats aren’t wallets. Landlords have had the law on their side for 30 years and home-owners, too, have had ritzy a ride. It must stop.”(Libby Purves in The Times)

In London as a whole, 170,000 people – equivalent to one in 52 – have no home. Westminster had the most rough sleepers, 217, followed by Camden, with 127. In Kensington and Chelsea, the UK’s richest borough, there were over 5,000 homeless people – equivalent to one in every 29 residents

Why is this? Because London attracts dubious people with ill-gotten cash from all over the world, and , outside the E.U. this situation will now worsen.  Where my (rather  poorly off)  grandmother used to live in London six Russian oligarchs now own houses almost in sight of her old apartment.  Property owning is out of reach there for most people.  And yes, property owners there should pay more.
We should be advocating for a pleasant life for all human beings, not just for the lucky (or corrupt) ones.  This is not a political position; it’s about decency and humanity.

A moment of beauty

Posted by on

The other night my wife’s piano teacher came to our house to conduct a lesson.  This is not usual, I have to say. He not only teaches but is a successful concert performer who has performed all over the world.   It was a one-off.

At the end of the evening I asked him if he would be prepared to give us a treat – to play something for us before he left.  He chose the Chopin Nocturne in D major, opus 27, one of Chopin’s most famous and beautiful piano pieces.  He played it exquisitely., with feeling and tenderness.  What our neighbours thought of this wonderful sound coming to them through the walls at nearly 11 p.m I don’t know, but I hope it was a treat.

The endless torrent of bad news from around the world has made it  an emotional and disturbing period for reasons we have no control over and are not supposed to discuss on this blog. But this was food for the soul, the most beautiful of sounds resonating through the building and bringing with it true ataraxia.  I admit it brought tears to my eyes, beautiful, reassuring and uplifting.

We badly need more beauty and less uninformed partisanship in our lives, and that applies in almost every country in our roiling and disrupted world.

The apostrophe

Posted by on

To The Guardian

I love Kingsley Amis’s response to a challenge about the usefulness of apostrophes: “Those things over there are my husbands.” Three different possible meanings.
Bryan Morgan, Worksop, Nottinghamshire

…and a butcher’s trick

To The. Daily Telegraph:

I once saw a notice outside our local butcher. It read “Sausage’s”. When I went in to point out the error, the butcher said: “Yes, I did it deliberately. It brings people like you into the shop. How many sausages would you like?”
Steve Cowling, Knockin, Shropshire., UK

What has this to do with Epicureanism?  Nothing at all.  It’s just that I see, even in publications such as The Washington Post”,  sloppy editing of apostrophes.  Epicureans should be, at the very least, masters of the language.

People with more empathy might be sharpening divisions

Posted by on

You might think that a little more empathy would help to heal the divisions in US politics, but it could actually worsen the situation by increasing polarisation.

A recent survey found that those with a disposition for “empathic concern”, one of several traits that make up general empathy, seem to be more politically polarised. They hold a more favourable opinion of their own preferred party, whether Republican or Democrat, along with a more unfavourable opinion of the opposing one.

The team then surveyed 1200 students, randomly splitting them into two groups. Each participant was shown a different version of an article about a protest on a university campus. The article told the story of a public event with either a Democrat or a Republican speaker, which is halted by protests from the other side. When the police try to move in, a bystander is struck by a protester.

In a series of questions afterwards, students with low empathic concern took the same view on whether the speech should have been stopped, irrespective of the speaker’s party. Students who were more empathic, however, were happier to censor speakers they disagreed with. They did care more overall about the bystander’s welfare, but that concern showed a partisan bias too, being less sympathetic if the bystander wanted to hear a speaker from the side the student disagreed with.

It seems that empathy is a complex thing, a bit like an emotional contagion to a certain degree.  “I’m sharing the pain with somebody I connect with, so I don’t like the cause and the effect of the pain”. 

Moral emotions evolved to help us navigate a world where tribal solidarity likely offered an advantage in survival. Thus, it makes good sense that empathy might be in-group oriented.     (Journal reference: American Political Science Review, DOI: 10.1017/S0003055419000534.   Leo Benedic,  New  Scientist , edited entry).

My comment: Both in the US and the UK politics is painfully tribal.  This tribalism has long-ago roots and is not going to abate or disappear anytime soon.  Watching it I wonder at the fact that in my twenties I wanted to become a politician (a notional gasp from Epicurus!).  I would have made a terrible politician. Concern about the best interests of the country is no longer in vogue.

How can we be more like Iceland?

Posted by on

How can we become more like Iceland? That’s the question we should be asking. This sub-Arctic nation of only 330,000 people beat England at soccer, along with Argentina.

And the reason for its success? A national plan, introduced 20 years ago, to promote clean living. It was introduced in response to authoritative American research on how drinking, smoking and drugs were ruining young people’s lives. “Other nations probably saw that report too.” But Iceland acted on its recommendations. State funding was massively increased for sport, music and other activities that made youngsters feel part of a team; alcohol and tobacco ads were banned and age limits on their purchase raised; parents were encouraged to take a greater part in school life.

The consequent improvement in the health and motivation of Iceland’s teenagers has been “stunning”. Twenty years ago, they were among the heaviest-drinking in Europe; now they’re the cleanest-living: the number getting regularly drunk has dropped from 42% to 5%. And a byproduct of this social transformation has been Iceland’s astonishing rise of 100 places in Fifa’s world rankings.   (Lesley RiddochThe Scotsman and The Week, June 23, 2018).

Years ago I was stranded in a snowstorm on Reykjavik airport on my way to London. Three whole days of non-stop partying ensued, with more alcohol than I had drunk in my previous life, shortish though that had been at the time. Snowstorm over and I was poured back onto the grounded plane with a memorable headache.  Nothing about my brief stay had been moderate. The locals seemed at the time to party for a living. Nice people, pretty girls, but too much for me.  I’m glad a Daddy Government drew the line and sorted them out.  You can do that most easily in small, homogenous countries.

Standing up for history

Posted by on

To The Sunday Times

In 1960s Oxford I would see Cecil Rhodes’s statue, think how wrong he was and walk on. That is life in an open, tolerant country: bits of our history are sticking up everywhere, and we are free to admire, condemn or laugh at them. I prefer that to a country in which public art has to conform to a prevailing ideology.

Mike Lynch, Cambridge,  (The Week. 7 September 2019)

Well said!  As an historian I am aghast at the petty and narrow-mindedness of people who claim to be educated, but want to expunge the memory of those they don’t fancy.

Historians have to study large numbers of people whose views and actions are anathema to them. I spent a year on Germany and Hitler, and the Second World War.  Disgusting mass murderer, Hitler, but he is nonetheless part of history, and he rose to power for a reason.  Were we to expunge him from the history books it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that over-delicate students then refused  to learn about Stalin, Pol Pot (who?), Mao and others like them.

Cecil Rhodes was not a nice human being, but he is a fact.  Get rid of everything that reminds you of conquerorsand mass killers,  and public memory of them fades. Look around the world at the current number of ruthless would-be dictators and their enablers, and remind yourself of the chronic ignorance of history among the enabling populace who display an indifference to long- existing institutions.  There! You have your answer.  We are doing it to ourselves.