When trying to consider the problems of the future, we have to keep in mind that several assumptions are always at play. Still, it is interesting to think of problems we may very well face somewhere in the future. I do not believe that we should be too precocious in trying to attack these issues: we have to deal with problems that are real and current, rather than waste our energy on the fancies of our imagination.  But, with all of this said, it remains an enjoyable intellectual game that may have implications for policies in the near future, so let us begin:

It is possible that, one day, we will achieve something akin to immortality, where age is no longer a threat to the well-being of our bodies and death no longer broods above our lives as a guarantee of our end. This is quite clearly the ideal that we move towards when we invest in medical research. Even before the advent of science, the possibility of immortality excited the imagination of cultures throughout the world. Yet, what would happen if we turned this dream to reality? It might be in fifty years or it might be in fifty-thousand years, but, with a few assumptions, it seems almost inevitable.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

I tend to believe that philosophical differences boil down to differences in terms of values, of which none is better than the other since they are essentially assumption about the nature of our world. The conflict between primitivism and liberalism serves as a fine example:

When I speak as a liberal, one of the most wonderful things about this world is the number of choices we have. In this modern world, our economy is so advanced that millions of people can live within the same, relatively small, area. These technological advances are the natural product of a liberal economy and one of the advantages is that I, as an individual, have access to so many different people that I can easily find specific types of people and thus associate with a human subculture of my choice. This allows me more freedom to shape my life how I want it to be shaped. Yes, we are all limited by external factors, some of which are imposed by our society, some of which are imposed by reality, but, in the end, we have greater control over our lives than we have ever had. We are not limited to a few sources of food, to the people in our village and to “survival” as our main job.

However, this perspective conflicts with another: yes, it is true that we can now shape our social surroundings with more ease than before, but this may destroy the natural balance of personalities that we may find in villages. In the past, just like we do not choose our family today, we did not choose anything about our social surroundings. We were born, at random, in a village, and that’s where we grew up and died. Even nomads would usually remain with the same group of humans. What happens in a modern, liberal society is that — if I am to use such crude language to describe people — “intelligent” people will leave the “village” to form a subculture with like-minded people, leaving the village without intelligent people. The same goes for different personality types. Thus, while this may be of benefit to intelligent people who crave interactions of a certain level, the village gets deprived of its natural chiefs, natural shamans, natural socialites etc and it is, in the end, wholly abandoned as we are all stratified by liberalism and its efficiency. People who work in factories tend to frequent people who work at jobs of a similar nature. The same goes for people who work in law, in the arts, in farming and so forth.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

We have to be careful when reading the news, because many articles are misleading at least in one way (though the mistakes are usually innocent). Statistics are too often without context and, without easily accessible sources, they’re difficult to verify. Here’s an example of potentially flawed statistics:

Not even one in five 18- to 24-year-old French speakers says a university degree is essential, compared with two in five English speakers, according to a survey by the Association for Canadian Studies, based in Montreal. Two in three young people whose first language is not English or French see a degree as critical. So who is likely to be left behind in the economy of the future?

We have to be skeptical when a survey is distributed to two different linguistic groups. In this case, the definition of “essential” is entirely subjective and it is quite possible that, though “essentiel” and “essential” share the same etymology, they do not mean precisely the same thing in both languages.

My understanding of the word is irrelevant since this is the kind of question that can vary significantly from individual to individual, but it is still possible that the average definition of the word varies between Canadian English and Quebec French. This “definition” I speak of would be the assumption after “this is essential to [...]“. Essential to be happy? To be rich? Or perhaps to survive? To be healthy?

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

At 32%, what is marketed as the world’s strongest beer has just been released. As per its label:

This is an extremely strong beer; it should be enjoyed in small servings and with an air of aristocratic nonchalance. In exactly the same manner that you would enjoy a fine whisky, a Frank Zappa album or a visit from a friendly yet anxious ghost.

Beautiful. I’m interested in how this plays out in the political arena. Though a case can perhaps be made for controlling drugs that are unsafe to use, it is clearly a sign of incoherent policy-makers to allow drinks that are significantly above 32%, but not beer. At 30 pounds ($50) the 330ml bottle and with marketing that tells us how it’s made to be savoured, the customers are certain to drink it at least as responsibly as they would drink whiskey, and probably more so than the Jack Daniel’s that gets chugged at college parties. And yet, the same company was previously challenged for having too strong a beer. It won, but that was with a 18.2% beer; now that they have almost doubled the strength, there are some things left to unfold.

But even if it might be used in irresponsible manners that are not possible without such strong beers on the market, is it really the responsibility of government to protect us from our own choices? This is where the problem of self-ownership arises: can we talk of “self-ownership” and if so, to which degree should this exist? Alcohol laws are an example of the government intervening between people who wish to trade alcohol, for the sake of protecting the consumer from his own choices. It is almost universally accepted that it is righteous to use force against someone who uses undue force towards another, but what about when the person harms no one, except perhaps — just perhaps — himself?

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

Here is one of romantic poetry’s masterpieces: “Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections Of Early Childhood”, by William Wordsworth. Through this poem he offers to us some insight into the nature of our inevitable growth as individual human beings. Not only are we forced to grow physically, but we cannot help but grow spiritually as well and this change inherently affects our relationship with the natural world and the kind of knowledge and pleasure that we have access to.

As we grow old, should we ponder those past days in quiet nostalgia, with implied regret? Or perhaps we should simply be grateful for those past experiences? Is it possible that such gratefulness can only be experienced once we recognize the gifts that time has granted us? There are so many ways for us to see our past, our present and their relationship: for some, it all leads to regret; for others, the fruits that our past has granted us are ignored. Wordsworth’s “Ode” tells us that it is possible to appreciate the unique beauty of a child’s perspective all while recognizing the value of human growth in forming our perspective on nature.

Through his poetry, he explored these matters for himself and shared with us the path through which his emotions progressed. It was not a linear path without impediments, but it lead him to accept the processes of aging, even death, and form a greater understanding of nature and our relationship with her.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

Let’s consider these words by Winston Churchill:

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

I would not extend this to the economic systems of capitalism and socialism, but still, it holds a certain truth:

Something that is too often ignored is the value of wealth inequalities within human societies, at least at some point in their histories. It does cause certain problems that we should most definitely be aware of, but it also offers certain advantages that could not be gained without it and progress — by any definition I am aware of — would never have been possible without relying on wealth inequalities.

For example, we can consider Socrates, who is often used as the symbol of Western philosophy. We are told that he was an eccentric man who would walk around Athens and ask men difficult questions that might otherwise seem simple. We are all familiar with the concept of “justice”, for example, but if someone came to you, asking what “justice” was, could you really explain it in an intelligible manner?

Now, the reason that Socrates could spend his free time doing such things was precisely due to wealth inequalities. Athens was only a great place to live for the minority of its population — the rest were slaves. We can speak of equality all we want, but the choice we must make here is between a society where everyone is forced to spend all their free time working to survive or a society where these people share the burden of supporting a minority class of people, who, for mostly arbitrary reasons (such as the achievements of their ancestors), do not need to work much to ensure their survival. Most of this class, like most humans, are trivial creatures dedicated to no more than the pursuit of worldly pleasures. However, in this class, again like in the rest of humanity, there will be, by chance, some who will have the potential to innovate in the realm of art and philosophy. Thanks to wealth inequalities, these people will have been taught to write and read, they will have access to books and they will have plenty of free time, all of which can simply not be offered to every individual within a society with little technology.

Today, thanks to technological advances, we can afford to provide this opportunity to everyone. We still need to work, but it is not a burden so heavy that we have no time to educate ourselves or refine our art. However, these technological advances were in large part brought to us by men who benefited from wealth inequalities, especially once we look further back in our history.

It no longer makes sense for us to have a system of entrenched wealth inequalities, but in the past it did and this is something that we should keep in mind when looking at history as well as our modern world.

Such ideas might seem blasphemous, like spit upon the idealism that unites both liberal and socialist, but, ultimately, what must reign is what must work. Ideologies are useful tools in forming a coherent society, but attempts to define a single true ideology that is effective and moral for all cultures through all periods of time is, at best, an achievement that we are no closer to than the theory of everything in physics. The truth seems to be that such despicable things (to us, Westerners) as child labour and entrenched wealth inequalities do have a perfectly valid functions in certain contexts, which also happen to be the contexts where they arise. As for when they are no longer needed, well: it is there that the fight must begin, and, hopefully, end.

- Dussault

It could be said that philosophy is about rational, systematic thought; intellectual creativity; defining our existence; resolving ethical and political challenges; etc. However it is defined, it essentially boil down to something that can benefit each individual, both in terms of contributing to his happiness and in terms of contributing to the well-being of the organizations he holds a place within. This is, I expect, the reason why, in Quebec, college (CEGEP) students are expected to take three philosophy as a perquisite for their diploma.

However, this leads to certain complications. How can we teach philosophy to students who have no genuine interest in the matter? Because these courses are mandatory, the reality of things is that many students attend them solely for their degree and have no passion for what is thought in the classroom; they merely want to get it over with. This is something that is obviously taken into account, as the courses seem designed to introduce students to certain concepts, rather than to elaborate upon them. Still, we do not know how to best teach anything to students, let alone something as subtle as the art of reason.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

It does not seem to me that there is a rational basis in claiming that there is no God. If the existence of an entity identifiable as a “God” seems improbable, then how should we consider the probability of life existing? We believe in life because we experience it, because it is all around us. Some would say the same of God, though they would obviously not be referring to a man with a beard. The disagreement often seems like a matter of language, where the word “God” is used as a metaphor for something that we all experience, for something that we can not disagree upon. But even when we manage to pull ourselves above this confusion and agree upon a certain definition of “God”, conflicts may remain. This is because there are genuine disagreements on what is “rational” and “irrational”, “true” or “false”, “good” or “harmful”. These disagreements, I find, lack the beauty of tolerance and make a good display of people’s assumptions. It is difficult to have a constructive discussion when we rely on different assumptions and focus on attacking the opposite position rather than understanding it as the other side understands it.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

There are people who worry about how our world has become, how trivial we have become. So many hours are spent in front of the television, watching hollow comedies, hollow dramas and hollow action. People spend on clothes, beauty products and drugs. Few people have creativity to share in science, philosophy and art. Comparisons are made to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, where Ford is worshipped and humans have become little more than machines on an assembly line, created to be happy until they must be recycled.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

Here is a man that has chosen to take his wife’s last-name. I understand his reasoning. He felt a personal want to share family names with his wife, but did not want to make her change her last name, since men often expect this on the part of women and some believe this to be unfair. Anyways, his wife did not want to changer her last name, and if he was the one who wanted them to share a last name, then he was the one who should make the sacrifice of changing his name. This seems perfectly sound.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

McGill University is a high-ranking one of international prestige. It also happens to be a public University with a relatively low budget and costs little even to foreign students, as compared to other similar ranking Universities. I see it as a sign of success and efficiency in the public University sector.

However, let us not forget the successes of the private University sector. As any quick glance at University rankings will reveal, the United States dominates the field. Of course, it has ten times the population of Canada, something that has to be considered. But Canada has three Universities in the top hundred, in contrast to the United State’s fifty-nine, rather than the thirty that would seem proportional.

I’ve often heard people complain that, though it is true that the United States is renown for its Universities, that they are far too expensive for the common family to afford. Of course, Harvard does not filter its students on merit alone (though it still offers many ways for the most brilliant students of this world to get in, regardless of their economic status). But on the whole, it seems that Universities are perfectly accessible:
Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

For the avid downloaders out there, or those en route in that direction, there’s MediaMonkey (MM). I’ve put Microsoft’s Windows Media Player, Apple’s iTunes and Linux’s amaroK to good use. I’ve also tried many others out there. The only one I could recommend is MediaMonkey. You can download it here. Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

I have previously written an article on the subject, entitled “Bowling For Columbine is shit.”, but I had not seen the film in quite some time when I wrote that and my focus was not on flaws with the documentary itself, but with the general position supported by its fans and, to some extent, Michael Moore. Thus, my title seems to have been somewhat inadequate. However, I will correct this here: I recently had to view the film and it will now be easier for me to criticise the documentary as a documentary, to explain why it really is shit.

I expect the same from documentaries as I expect from news articles. There is a certain methodology involved that is at the root of the discipline — a methodology that is known as “objectivity” — and Michael Moore could not have violated it in more conspicuous ways.

The film is indeed entertaining, spiced with his love of irony and his layman’s approach to the topic, and I did laugh on a few occasions while viewing the film, but the comedy aside, it seems like a collage of superficial looks at the issue. He will dig a bit, then see a new, amusing angle and pursue that, rather than continue to analyse what he first started elaborating upon. It makes it all very shallow.

This, however, I can deal with. What annoys me with his documentary is how it is passed for far more than it is, both by Michael Moore and his fans, and that he consistently misleads the viewers. There’s nothing too bothersome about a news article that says nothing and bores the readers, but what about one that excites and misleads them? Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

I was curious to understand the theological basis behind why Muslim countries often have a ban on alcohol and other drugs and why Muslims refrain themselves from drinking:

The entity who designed these verses seems to not have been opposed to consuming intoxicants as a whole, as he specified one condition under which people should not consume, clearly suggesting that this condition was one exception (perhaps amongst many, but an exception nonetheless) and thus that intoxicants are not forbidden as a whole. The same goes for the other acts which he imposes conditions upon: he does not say that people can not have sex, or defecate, but that there are conditions to be imposed on these acts.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

It seems quite clear to me that humans are not designed for “happiness”. There are many aspects of how our mind functions that seem to suggest that the priority in our “design” was focused on something other than happiness, certainly other than happiness per day lived.

Sometimes there’s a clear, long-term use for our suffering. When you put your hand on something hot, it’s good for you to feel pain. But sometimes, we’re just left to wonder: why do we suffer? We have mental illnesses, as well as less severe, but equally real, psychological problems that affect just about everyone.

Perhaps it is as silly to wonder why we suffer as to wonder why there’s disease, as to why we need to eat, sleep and love. It’s just how life is. Suffering seems to be an inherent part of life. It does not always need to make sense.

PS:  Even though there’s something perhaps sombre in the content of this post, I’m in a rather excellent mood!

-Dussault