PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 27th February: Are we taught to fear death?

Dear Friends,

This Sunday we are discussing: Are we taught to fear death?

The topic was proposed by James and in my very short essay I try to
discuss how death is exploited:
Are we taught to fear death?
https://www.philomadrid.com/2022/02/are-we-taught-to-fear-death.html

Finally please send me a message for the Skype link and if you have
problems with launching Skype try again. Please note we do not use the
video to save on mobile phone batteries for those connecting with a
mobile phone.

Best Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com


PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 27th February: Are we taught to fear
death?

Are we taught to fear death?

 

Are we taught to fear death?

 

Topic by James

Essay by Lawrence

 

I don’t think we need to be taught to fear death. If by this time in the process of evolution we are not afraid of death then something must have gone wrong all these thousands of years; especially given that most living biological creatures are afraid to die.

 

Maybe the question is not whether we are taught to fear death but rather are we taught not to fear death? Indeed this is the main reason of all religions: to undermine the psychological stress of thinking and living with death of other people around us. If we had to stop and ruminate about death we would hardly get anything done.

 

Are we taught not to fear death? Rather than “taught” I would be inclined to use “conditioned”; are we conditioned not to fear death? As I said already, religions not only try to condition us to accept death but in the process they try to take advantage of our weakness. Traditionally, this weakness was exploited by religions by pointing at the supposed benevolence and grandeur of their god. A god is always portrayed as all powerful but also merciful; and long as we believe in the dogma.

 

Apart from the ideology, many religions took this conditioning a step further by building huge and big temples once again in an attempt to portray the grandeur of their god. Thus the logic is that there is nothing to be afraid of death as long as you follow the respective god.

 

But death is not only a source of income for religions but also commercial businesses. The “healthy” eating fashion, for example, promises a healthy life, the opportunity to live a longer life, and by implication a supposed natural but painless death. In reality not everyone has access to wholesome food, let alone afford trendy food.  Cars are also good candidates to reduce the fear of death: safety measures and the design of the car are supposed to mitigate against fatal accidents. Thus a safe car will give one a better chance of not dying should one be involved in an accident. In reality the seat belt has saved more lives than any marketing photos.

 

But the business trend is the same as the religious trend: you do not need to worry about death, or the manner of death, because we have the answer except of course this will cost you some money. Businesses help us to think of death as something we can do something about it. In the same way we can do something about cold weather, hot weather, a headache and other inconveniences.

 

Our fear of death is also exploited by conspiracy theorists, remember 5G telephony or the Covid 19 vaccine, to manipulate our feelings. It is not clear who benefits from such conspiracies even when we account for the nutters and mischief makers.

 

Finally, we find death a key force in politics and geopolitics to coerce people. As I write the war in Ukraine is developing in force. War and death are the ultimate in combination for human beings. But when governments wage wars they mitigate death amongst their population by appealing to patriotism, revenge, historical contexts, and of course the military prowess of the armed forces.

 

It is not that we are taught to fear death, but as I said, death is mitigated but in the process we become naïve victims of exploitation and manipulation.

 

Best Lawrence

 

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

http://www.philomadrid.com

 

 

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 20th February: The seduction of power

Dear friends

This Sunday we are discussing: The seduction of power

The topic was proposed by Ines and in my short essay I discuss why we
are seduced by power.

The seduction of power
https://www.philomadrid.com/2022/02/the-seduction-of-power.html

Finally please send me a message for the Skype link and if you have
problems with launching Skype try again. Please note we do not use the
video to save on mobile phone batteries for those connecting with a
mobile phone.

Best Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com


PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 20th February: The seduction of power

The seduction of power

The seduction of power

 

Topic by Ines

Essay by Lawrence

 

I will limit myself to discuss political power although this is just an arbitrary perspective. We can find power relevant in business, family clans, or even society in general.

 

Political power is different because this has the capacity to influence everyone’s behaviour. Political power can even force people to do things that might be necessary but not necessarily attractive to the doer: for example defending one’s country. This might explain why we look at political power as a privileged occupation.

 

Some virtuous people might genuinely seek power to implement programmes to benefit the general population and introduce fair and equitable government. Others just look at power as a means to favour themselves or their friends or as an opportunity to confer riches on favoured people. How people reach a position of power depends on the method used to reach this status. As a rule of thumb, I would say people with good intentions would use some form of democracy to achieve their goals, although even the term democracy is itself problematic.

 

Alternatively, for a quick and ready description, non democratic means tend to be used to accede to power. Although people who gain power this way want to oppress the population rather than empower them or enrich them.  

 

This popular view of power might explain the sense of seduction associated with power. A meaning of seduction is an attraction towards something (someone) that can also be seen as something accessible. It is not that power is easily obtained but rather it possible to obtain. At least in theory, power is accessible even if in reality this might be simply wishful thinking.

 

A good reason why we are seduced by power is that as human beings we tend to focus on the object rather than the details involved in reaching an objective. This is a real problem for us humans; details take time to assimilate and technical “know how to” requires real experience. But time might dilute our motivation to obtain an objective;  we just don’t like to wait for things as evidenced by “fast food” vs “real food” we are prepared to pay for fast and not for real. In effect, we replace: “what does it take to achieve something?” to “what do I want?” The latter question is much easier to consider than the former.

 

By failing to consider “how is power obtained?” we fail to understand the structure of power. Those familiar with the The Prince by Machiavelli would appreciate the struggle to achieve power, and then an even greater struggle to keep power. In general, the way we see power is from a spectator point of view. We see the public relations side of power and not the exercise of power with peers hiding political knives ready to replace the leader. Thus those who pursue a political career, access to power is part of the nature of the job. And those who fail to understand the nature and mechanics of the game are destined to fail: the ex President Trump is a good example of someone who was not familiar with how to play the power game and how to play it.

 

I want to suggest that seen from the person who has power, the chances are that power was a means to remain in power. A prince would already have some innate amount of power, but that power remains useful if it can be protected by a higher access to power. An abuse or misuse of power would sooner or later lead to the downfall of that person: this is evident throughout history with Prince Andrew of the UK the latest example.

 

I would argue that what is attractive and seductive about power is the status and trappings of power and not the possession of power itself. As I tried to argue those who possess power need power to protect their power: this is like some vicious circle where to protect one’s power the person needs up the game for more power. A good example is the career progression of the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, who started as a KGB officer.

 

To sum up, the reason why we are seduced by power is probably because we are not fully cognisant of what is involved in having power, how to reach power and then to minimise the number of people we antagonise. We might also not have what it takes to obtain power in the same way some people do not have what it takes to be medical doctors or high tower window cleaners. Of course, power has an innate attraction by virtue of what can be done with it. As it is said, some people are born into power, some people have power conferred upon them and some achieve power. What type of person are you?

 

Best Lawrence

 

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 13th February: Retirement

Dear friends,

This Sunday we are discussing: Retirement

The topic was proposed by James who has also prepared an essay in a PDF
file, link below. In my essay, link below, I try to identify key
philosophical issues concerning retirement.

Retirement - Essay by James
https://www.philomadrid.com/2022/02/retirement-by-james.html

Retirement - Essay by Lawrence
https://www.philomadrid.com/2022/02/retirement.html

Finally please send me a message for the Skype link and if you have
problems with launching Skype try again. Please note we do not use the
video to save on mobile phone batteries for those connecting with a
mobile phone.

Best Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com


PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 13th February: Retirement

Retirement

 

Retirement

 

Topic by James

Essay by Lawrence

 

In the distant past people did not retire, they became elders or head of tribes or simply passed away. Today, it would be a tragedy if a person doesn’t reach the age of retirement. Before the late 19^th century, people usually worked until they died. And work was mostly manual work for most people which took its toll on the body of a person.

 

In 1889 Germany was the first country to introduce the old-age social insurance programme. This was supposed to offer a financial cushion for those who could not work anymore after a lifetime of work. One of the ideas behind this was that if people did not have a regular income they would have to work till they died.

 

Justifiably, many headline problems about retirement involved the pensions of people. Those people who work for a low income have the most problems with pension paid to them. The modern pension system still does not seem to cover the needs of retired people today who worked in low wage sectors; very much similar to working people before the late 19^th century. Therefore, the money side of retirement has not changed much, since a proportion of the population before 1889 many people had enough wealth as a consequence of the industrial revolution.

 

Today the matter of pension is complicated with the gig economy (not full time employment), punitive models for self employed people running SMEs, and the opportunity to travel and work within the EU. And yet the EU does not have a unified pension policy so that people have a central office to sort out their pension when they retire. How many EU citizens working in the UK will lose their pensions because of Brexit?

 

So what are the key philosophical issues with retirement?

 

The idea of work is a means to employ our energy to obtain resources for survival. Whilst we need to work (employ energy) our efforts should be sufficient to obtain the said resources, notwithstanding the pressures to survive are 24/7. The objective would, therefore, be to obtain enough resources to reduce the amount we need to work and to make our gains last as long as possible. But manual work has limited scope to meet these criteria. This is why tools are needed to make work more productive.

 

Hence, the first problem about retirement is finding an equitable balance between work and a low pension. While today many people are members of a decent pension scheme this is not a universal state of affairs. Unfortunately, this is the old problem of not having enough wealth to survive into old age without having to work. This issue of equitable wealth distribution in a society is still unsolved satisfactorily today as it must have at the time of Bismarck.

 

A second issue about retirement is the arbitrary nature of the retirement age. Many people enjoy their work and many do not retire, but very few people have this option. So what happens when we reach the age of retirement? For sure, some people will be tired, fed up and maybe even injured because of their work hence they cannot wait to retire.

 

But as people those who retire do not necessarily change in personality or in consciousness of themselves. If anything retirement may give someone a new lease of life, ambition and motivation to be more in control of what they do. Some might become unsocial because they feel void with no purpose in life. And this is a problem for some retirees: work gives us a purpose in life which some might be able to replace when they retire. Even more, retirement might give the strong message to those affected that they are not useful and valued by society anymore.

 

How useful retired people are to society, depends on the society they live in. But what we forget and nothing is said about it is that many retired people, especially women, give a lot of help to their family, from babysitting, cooking and giving moral support to their children. It goes without saying some children do not like their parents interfering with their young family. But what is important these people are providing a service that has a real monetary value, but we interpret this as a family member helping another family member. In reality the beneficiary of this family work is society and not the family.

 

Today, one gets the impression that many retired people are forgotten or excluded from society. Exclusion is of course a major factor in someone’s life and can lead to serious health consequences. In some cases this exclusion is recognized by giving someone an industry award for lifelong services: this is very common in the entertainment industry with actors and singers. How many awards are given to nurses, waiters or street cleaners fifteen years after they retire?

 

A third and final issue involving retirement is that of knowledge otherwise called experience. By definition people who retire take away with them a lifelong experience on how to perform their work and work relationships. This might not always be universal, some skills would be irrelevant with new technology, and others would be unwilling to develop new skills in their profession. But what is clear, is that this has been demonstrated many times: older workers who take up some after they retire have a better sense of work ethic and can better help train younger colleagues. And our sense of respect for older people ought to create a more harmonious environment at work.

 

Retirement also retires a huge amount of experience and knowledge that can be very useful to society. The negative side of retirement is that many companies do not like employing older people because they ask for more money and no doubt older people are more competent than some younger managers. There are many retired people who still share their skills for the benefit of society, for example grandparents looking after grand children, but wouldn’t it be interesting if there was a way to collect this information. Today, social media platforms go a long way to fulfil this knowledge base, but are they enough?

 

There are other cases when companies and businesses trash valuable knowledge from their company memory. A few years ago there was a trend called “knowledge based management” or “Knowledge management (KM)” whereby companies formally tried to collect knowledge and information into a centralised database where people could access this information to help them with their work. This was a sort of a know-how-to database that reflects the skills and experiences of the employees.

 

There was nothing new about this model since companies always had information and instruction on different databases. The difference with KM is that employees had to enter their own experiences, and knowledge about their work. At the time many people objected to this practice since they were afraid they might lose their job or replaced by junior people who had no experience but now have all the information they need. The issue for managers is how honest and how detailed people were when entering the data.

 

Once again we find an inequitable situation regarding people who work and company business models. Of course, some people do continue working and sharing their knowledge with society, but when compared at the general population level this is just a small selective example.

 

Retirement is also an opportunity to develop one’s self fulfilment as already mentioned. The opportunities to develop interests, return to university, meet new people, and enjoy the cultural wealth of the country or city are benefits retired people can enjoy without the duties of work. More importantly, today there are enough resources to plan for retirement and seamlessly move onto the next stage of life. But this requires a will power some people might not have after years of toiling against the system.

 

Best Lawrence

 

 

 

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

http://www.philomadrid.com

 

 

RETIREMENT by James

 

Essay by James who proposed the topic of RETIREMENT

 

Note PDF file

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GTJ_VukqtN1snJtqGHaZxjHEJj0A8FXr/view?usp=sharing

 

 

 

 

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 6th February: How can morality change our life?

Dear friends,

This Sunday we are discussing: How can morality change our life?

The topic was proposed by Sisa, and in my short essay I suggest possible
causes why some people move on to the dark side of morality. But in
principle our problem is an empirical problem most of all.

How can morality change our life?
Topic by Sisa
Essay by Lawrence
https://www.philomadrid.com/2022/02/normal-0-false-false-false-en-gb-x-none.html

Finally please send me a message for the Skype link and if you have
problems with launching Skype try again. Please note we do not use the
video to save on mobile phone batteries for those connecting with a
mobile phone.

Best Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com


PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 6th February: How can morality change
our life?

 

How can morality change our life?

 

Topic by Sisa

Essay by Lawrence

 

Morality involves both good and bad behaviour thus in the context of the question morality can change our life for the worse or for the better. So what might the necessary and sufficient conditions be for us to change our life due to morality?

 

The question itself requires an empirical answer since each individual has their own history and context to change their personality. Thus similar circumstances and conditions might affect a person to be evil and another to be good. Hence, we cannot really make generalities that apply to all people all the time. What activates a personal behaviour must itself be an empirical event that activates personal emotions, epistemic state of mind and motivational reaction. In this description I would argue that even a false belief is an empirical event since beliefs are brain events, just the same as an impulse to steal a car.

 

Of course, the main function of morality is to pre-empt our behaviours into inactions or good reactions. So at the basic level morality is supposed to change our behaviour, but this is just one side of the argument. Although we believe that morality is there to be good, as I have already argued the effect can be good or bad.

 

One of the compelling conditions of morality is justice. A sense of justice can determine our actions and the type of actions.  When we report a crime we are appealing for justice. Sometimes we are forced into a position where we consider the option of taking justice in our own hands. Such action has been the cause of many revolutions and wars.

 

But some people might erroneously mistake revenge for taking justice into their own hands. For them they have a sense of moral justice that involves doing an evil act, but sometimes these people might have medical issues. Morality is supposed to prevent such behaviour as revenge, but our sense of morality has no mandatory authority or power to act in a certain approved way.

 

An equally important condition is that someone, many times politicians or wealthy/influential people, might feel that the power and authority they wield outweigh any moral imperatives. Dictators feel they are invincible, politicians who manipulate the electorate to win absolute democratic power; the present conservative party in government in the UK is a case in point. But more common we find this sort of moral domination when one person or group believe they have unfettered power over subordinates: heads of companies over employees; judges over defendants; dominant partners in domestic violence cases; sexual predators especially paedophiles; and anyone who is a jobs worth.

 

Abuse of power does not only change people’s life but neutralises accepted principles of morality and substituted by some warped sense of morality. Compare this with revenge that still recognises moral principles but the facts of the case justify an unacceptable moral action.

 

One of our main tools for rational behaviour, and some might argue morality, is language. How we describe the world around us and experiences also determines our morality and how we consequently behave and act as a result. Unfortunately, language is one of the rational tools we have that can easily be manipulated.

 

What is attractive about language is that it is very efficient at affecting our emotions. And emotions are necessary for our day to day activities: emotions affect our choices; our relationships with other people; emotions make us happy or sad; and emotions help us get out of bed in the morning and go to work. Language can be used to convey false information thus making people believe in things that are only in the interest of the deceiver.

 

Therefore, language and emotions in a way justify our morality and moral actions. If we feel good and use a language that make us feel good then surely acting accordingly must be moral and good. There is no doubt that morality can change our life, the big question is what is the right type of morality?

 

 

Best Lawrence

 

 

 

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

http://www.philomadrid.com