mmoa_writes

 Yes, you can tell where I've been web-trawling of late... *sighs*

EDIT: First evah article from a friend of one of the ferretbrain crew. Also pretty decent to boot. It's basically all about Islamophobia in Europe with mercifully scant statistics.

( On the Transcendent )

 So last night was my first viewing of The Review Show since the new year. It didn't get off to a good start when I realised it was being presented by Martha Kearney who I always find a bit too... something. I'm not sure if that something is nice, or insipid. I certainly don't think she's an idiot, however, or lacking in taste.

( On wot I watched... )

One of my pet peeves in discussions about the Big Things - God, Ethics, Consciousness etc etc - is a lack of coherence. What I mean is that a person on a particular side will use every argument at her disposal rather than arguments that form a coherent viewpoint. The best example is seen in the online 'culture wars' (yes, the American cultural hegemony strikes again - another rant for another time) whenever religion is being discussed. An evangelical Christian will use proofs and arguments formulated by a variety of non-atheists (regardless of whether they were deists, adherents to a 'philosopher's' god or to completely different theology) and in response, the militant atheist will cut them down with a series of counter arguments (dreamt up by agnostics, atheists of a different philosophical stripe or even - and ironically all too often enough - theists of a completely different theology), that whilst alone may well work effectively, certainly don't form any sort of coherent view and often illustrate a self-contradictory one. This is not really the fault of either combatant - I suppose that's just what you get from several millenia's worth of dialogue. So much to say and in so little time.

It also doesn't help that you get a lot of she-said-he-said in these sort of discussions. An atheist might critisise a theistic argument only to be greeted with the usual chorus of 'not all theists believe that'; ad hominem attacks meant for the fallacies of a particular atheist are used by a theist to apply to a whole group of them, in spite of the fact that individually, each person might hold to a different philosophy.*

The final straw came more recently, with the issue of wrong done by religious institutions, particularly on the charge that the spectacular cruelty exhibited by the religious in, for example, pre-Christian sacrifices, the Inquisition and the Wars of Religion etc etc is one only religion can boast of.

( And on she goes... )

Everyone please take note of the Medieval Review and the Classical Review. I am way lower in the rankings than even the most amateur of amateur historians but so far, thanks to these two services, I've learnt more about medieval women doctors, law-keeping (and making) in late Antiquity Russia, Political thought in Ancient Rome and acoustic science/philosophy in Classical Greece than I ever thought possible.

I hate that goddamned Alpha Course. Why can't these people just STFU? No one likes you, and by this I mean NO ONE.

( Blogs of win )

I now also know that a fear of palindromes is called aibohphobia.



EDIT: DID YOU SEE WHUT I DID THUR?

You meet some truly great people and some unexpected inspirations. This post (and the comment it provoked) made me finally get off my ass and finish writing a piece that I've been working on for ages.

I'm glad I waited so long, actually, because it helps that I've learned some valuable things since I started it and I would never have done so... if not for racefail09.

So here's to you, racefail09... *cue hateful violins*

Tai Solarin.