“Settling an Argument” by Norman Rockwell

A few weeks ago, I wrote:

Last night, I was on the campus of the Université de Montréal (UDM) and met a student, obviously bright yet heavily intoxicated, who repeatedly declared that “la vie c’est d’la marde (life is shit)”. I listened as he repeatedly stated this claim, along with supporting claims such as that “the only reason we don’t all kill ourselves is that we don’t have the guts”. These seem childish even, but he proved his intelligence through earlier conversations and I could not help but conclude that his claims were not the mere ramblings of a man who has lost his capacity for reason, but conclusions which he supported even with a sober mind. My general observations suggest that what alcohol diminishes is not the ability to make propositions which correspond with one’s sober mind, but the ability to clarify the rational basis on which these conclusions have been founded. So, I assumed that a significant part of him did believe that “life is shit” and I had to say: “I disagree”.

The discussion (if I may call it that) which followed was not constructive since, though he let me begin my sentences, he repeatedly interrupted me a few words in. I do not blame him, since drunkeness increases impulsivity and seems to diminish people’s capacity to listen to others, and the fact that I had so drily disagreed with him might have created some undue tension. My disagreement was purely intellectual and I had assumed him to be capable of debating over a proposition without the interferences of ego. A person who cannot listen cannot discuss, so I put an end to this pointless exchange. However, since his belief that “life is shit” seemed to be a conclusion — a conclusion which I find heavily flawed –, I feel the need to attack it in writing.

One of the first things to keep in mind about this proposition is that it is presented as an objective representation of reality. He did not say “ma vie c’est d’la marde (my life is shit)”, but “la vie c’est d’la marde ([the] life is shit)”. Thus, from his perspective, life, as we all experience it, is shit.

It is difficult to disagree with a proposition with elements left undefined. So, each word must properly be understood. For one, it seems clear that he did not speak of “life” as biologists define it, but as the “universal condition of human existence“. “Universal” could not have been “general” because he spoke in absolute terms and disagreed immediately when I spoke of my own life as not being shit. As for the meaning which he injected into “shit”, it is made clear by his claim that “the only reason we don’t all kill ourselves is that we don’t have the guts”. Life, it seems, is not an experience worth living; the pleasure we experience is not worth the suffering; we live merely because some force within most prevents us from following the rational course of action (suicide). He spoke of this experience as the only reality, rather than choosing modesty by speaking only of his experiences with life, leaving others to share with him their own.

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 against 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

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

Poland has decided that to ride a bike drunk is a jailable offense. When convicted for such a terrible, oh so terrible crime, you will likely get not one night behind bars, but 11.5 months (two thousand are in jail for this). I’m not sure if I’m amused or troubled, shocked or laughing, but the law can definitely be branded with the “stupid” tag.

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