Montreal Philosophy
Montreal-based blog on philosophy, ethics, politics, art etc.
Recent Articles
- A letter on Haaretz, and the perspective we must take on Israel.
- Neoliberalism: The Misunderstood Ideology (assuming it exists).
- The problems of immortality and the value of death.
- Liberalism and Primitivism: Choice, or the natural and primitive life?
- Eye on the News: Surveys and Lingusitic Barriers
- Drugs: paternalistic government or absolute self-ownership?
- An Analysis of William Wordsworth’s “Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections Of Early Childhood”
- The Value of Wealth Inequalities
- Two challenges in creating a generation of philosophers
- The God Concept: is it rational to believe in God?
- Is our epoch that of a trivial culture, or the richest in our history?
- Children and marriage, family names and tradition
- Working-class families and US Universities
- Organizing Large Media Libraries with Mediamonkey
- Bowling For Columbine is shit, #2
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 »
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 »
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 »