The BBC made the right decision in inviting the leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, to Question Time. The BNP needs to be scrutinised and exposed for the racist party that it is. However, the potential surge in support for the BNP will not have been Griffin’s appearance on the beeb. Something much more sinister happened last Thursday. Question Time’s panel and chair coalesced to attack Griffin forcing him to rebut rather than engage in argument. The difficult issues of immigration and race relations were not debated. They have never been debated. Both the government and the opposition have been appeasing the tabloid press with the ‘tough’ talk on immigration and an artificially constructed idea of Britishness. Every time Blunkett opened his mouth, I wondered whether I would be chucked out of the country.
The success of the BNP is partly the outcome of the underlying xenophobia of the government’s rhetoric and policies, and of the vilification of immigrants and asylum seekers in some of the press.
Sadly, the panellists and the chair of Question Time, by showing condescension and antagonism, did not expose Nick Griffin. They turned him into a victim. Yet, it is the feeling of being a victim of a detached government, of an economy in recession, and of a fast-changing society, which moves people to vote for the anger of the BNP. Politicians can no longer ignore the dangers of racism and bigotry. It is time they engage with the British public on all issues before the BNP wins any more support.
25 October 2009
08 October 2009
Personality: are we all just a bag of chemicals?
I went to the debate organised by Cardiff University Neuroscience Society entitled “Personality: are we all just a bag of chemicals?”
Quite obviously no, as argued in the debate by Dr Lois Grayson and Dr Jonathan Webber. The problem is that the speakers in favour of the motion, Prof. Norris and Dr Keedweel, also seemed to think that we are not just a bag of chemicals. Below are some thoughts.
1. Human beings are, of course, made of chemicals, but not only. As I pointed out in my intervention, it’s like looking closely at a musical instrument, getting to know all its parts and how they work without hearing the music. The music is not simply the outcome of the parts of the instrument.
2. Prof. Norris and Dr. Keedwell answered that you can explain everything, including our inner being, through chemicals. It needn’t be reductive. Except, we simply don’t know, so if we don’t know how to explain things through 'scientifically', we still need to concede that there might be other explanations.
3. Prof. Norris seemed to 'explain away' ethics by calling it fiction. Even if it was all a 'dream', we are dreaming the same dream. It's called reality.
4.I didn’t say, but I should have said, that they seem to believe in an Aristotelic God, or first motor. With or without an ultimate intelligence, the entire universe is understood as a scientific reality. I'm sympathetic to it (because I like Maimonide and Tommaso D'Aquino), but it requires the honesty of recognising that it’s a belief.
5. Both Prof Norris and Dr Keedwell claimed that our personality is the result of the interaction between chemicals and the environment. I agree with it, but this statement doesn't agree with the motion!
If you believe that we are chemicals, but also that there is an environment (social, economic, moral) outside of us that has an effect on us, then you believe that we are not just chemicals!!!
If it was, it would be the Aristotelic God. If one leaves the door open for the environment to be explained by social/economic/moral theories and concedes that the environment has an effect on our personality, it follows that those non-biological theories can explain how our personality is shaped.
In conclusion, by accepting that the environment (culture, politics, economics, social relations etc.) is not a mere outcome of biology, but that, in fact, changes biology (which is what evolutionists claim), then we are not just a bag of chemicals. If we, instead, affirm that the universe can all be explained/ understood through science (maths, biology, chemistry etc.), then we subscribe to Aristotle (and ditch personal autonomy). We might like (or need) to explain the world through different theoretical systems, be they scientific or philosophical, but at the end of the day they are all just beliefs, and beliefs change our personality!
Quite obviously no, as argued in the debate by Dr Lois Grayson and Dr Jonathan Webber. The problem is that the speakers in favour of the motion, Prof. Norris and Dr Keedweel, also seemed to think that we are not just a bag of chemicals. Below are some thoughts.
1. Human beings are, of course, made of chemicals, but not only. As I pointed out in my intervention, it’s like looking closely at a musical instrument, getting to know all its parts and how they work without hearing the music. The music is not simply the outcome of the parts of the instrument.
2. Prof. Norris and Dr. Keedwell answered that you can explain everything, including our inner being, through chemicals. It needn’t be reductive. Except, we simply don’t know, so if we don’t know how to explain things through 'scientifically', we still need to concede that there might be other explanations.
3. Prof. Norris seemed to 'explain away' ethics by calling it fiction. Even if it was all a 'dream', we are dreaming the same dream. It's called reality.
4.I didn’t say, but I should have said, that they seem to believe in an Aristotelic God, or first motor. With or without an ultimate intelligence, the entire universe is understood as a scientific reality. I'm sympathetic to it (because I like Maimonide and Tommaso D'Aquino), but it requires the honesty of recognising that it’s a belief.
5. Both Prof Norris and Dr Keedwell claimed that our personality is the result of the interaction between chemicals and the environment. I agree with it, but this statement doesn't agree with the motion!
If you believe that we are chemicals, but also that there is an environment (social, economic, moral) outside of us that has an effect on us, then you believe that we are not just chemicals!!!
If it was, it would be the Aristotelic God. If one leaves the door open for the environment to be explained by social/economic/moral theories and concedes that the environment has an effect on our personality, it follows that those non-biological theories can explain how our personality is shaped.
In conclusion, by accepting that the environment (culture, politics, economics, social relations etc.) is not a mere outcome of biology, but that, in fact, changes biology (which is what evolutionists claim), then we are not just a bag of chemicals. If we, instead, affirm that the universe can all be explained/ understood through science (maths, biology, chemistry etc.), then we subscribe to Aristotle (and ditch personal autonomy). We might like (or need) to explain the world through different theoretical systems, be they scientific or philosophical, but at the end of the day they are all just beliefs, and beliefs change our personality!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)