Tuesday, September 22, 2015

589: A more friendly view of the individual....

The individual is not some well defined reality in this world. He is a person, who can be defined from different perspectives.
Therefor individualism can refer to a lifestyle, a psychology, a moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual.
Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance
and advocate that interests of the individual should achieve precedence over the state or a social group,
while opposing external interference upon one's own interests by society or institutions such as the government.
We met Thomas Hobbes, who kicked off the debate by elaborating on his rather cynical view of the human condition.
Fortunately homo sapiens had at least the ability to come to a mutual understand, a social contract, so that survival was ensured.
This all happens at an interesting crossroad in our culture. The period between 1600 and 1700 has been crucial to our development.
On the Continent philosophers like Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza were struggling with god and the individual mind, more or les dominated by theological considerations.
In England, however, Hobbes and after him philosophers like John Locke (1632 -1704), David Hume (1711 - 1776) focused on the individual and his socio-political setting.
Furthermore Locke and Hume zoomed in on the phenomenon of human understanding. When you have only your senses, then, how do you relate to the world around you?
For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition. He wants us to ask first of all for the evidence for them. 
On the level of institutions it becomes important to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate functions of institutions 
and to make the corresponding distinction for the uses of force by these institutions. 
Locke believes that using reason to try to grasp the truth, and determine the legitimate functions of institutions will optimize human flourishing for the individual and society both in respect to its material and spiritual welfare. 
This in turn, amounts to following natural law and the fulfilment of the divine purpose for humanity.
If god had an active role then it was at the moment of creation, at which he installed this natural law in man.
Thus Locke writes: “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason which is that law, 
teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions…” 
According to Locke, God created man and we are, in effect, God's property. The chief end, which is set us by our creator, as a species and as individuals, is survival. But in a much more friendlier way than Hobbes imagined it.
If one takes survival as the end, then we may ask what are the means necessary to that end. On Locke's account, these turn out to be life, liberty, health and property. 
Since the end is set by God, on Locke's view we have a right to the means to that end. So we have rights to life, liberty, health and property. 
These are natural rights, that is they are rights that we have in a state of nature before the introduction of civil government, and all people have these rights equally.
Thus John Locke can be seen as the father of liberal individual, like he was an inspiration to the founding Fathers of the USA.
Thank you…if you have any questions or remarks, feel free. The floor is yours.

Main Sources:
MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

The Discussion

[13:20] Max Chatnoir: Too bad we didn't put health into the Declaration of Independence.
[13:21] herman Bergson: indeed
[13:21] Max Chatnoir: WB Gemma
[13:21] CB Axel: What if my right to health interferes with someone else's right to property.
[13:22] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): crash
[13:22] CB Axel: wb, Gemma. I though you had left.
[13:22] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): big crash
[13:22] herman Bergson: awww...what a pitty...Gemma
[13:22] Max Chatnoir: Want the chat?
[13:22] CB Axel: Gemma, would you like me to put Herman's lecture on a notecard for you?
[13:23] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i can get it on teh blog ty.
[13:23] Mikki Louise (mikkilouise): but 'the end' of survival is for the species, not the individual
[13:23] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): imay have to run off anyway waiting for a workman
[13:23] herman Bergson: central point of today is the idea of John Locke: If one takes survival as the end, then we may ask what are the means necessary to that end. On Locke's account, these turn out to be life, liberty, health and property.
[13:24] herman Bergson: What if my right to health interferes with someone else's right to property.....what would be an example of this, CB?
[13:24] CB Axel: I think so.
[13:24] Chantal (nymf.hathaway) is offline.
[13:25] CB Axel: We have a situation here in the states where a pharmaceutical company just increased the cost of a medication from about $13 per pill to over $700 per pill.
[13:25] herman Bergson: How can my health interfere withthe right on property of someone else?
[13:25] Max Chatnoir: Seems more likely to go the other way.
[13:26] CB Axel: Is the company's right to property more important than people's health?
[13:26] herman Bergson: Interesting  point there...
[13:27] Max Chatnoir: I guess the argument is that if they give it away, they can't stay in business and nobody gets the pills.
[13:27] herman Bergson: What is missing in this issue of rights is a discussion on ethics...
[13:27] CB Axel: Do those rights: life, liberty, health and property have different priorities?
[13:27] CB Axel: Hello, bombadail.
[13:27] herman Bergson: That is an often heard story Max....but can we believe it?
[13:28] Max Chatnoir: Oh, what a good question, Axel.
[13:28] bombadail: hello
[13:28] CB Axel: But, Max, the company was making a profit before the cost was increased.
[13:28] CB Axel: But they want more.
[13:28] Max Chatnoir: I think we can believe it up to a point.  The problem is identifying the point.
[13:28] herman Bergson: Difficult question CB....and again...we need to add ethics to this discourse here...
[13:29] CB Axel: I would add ethics if the business community would. But they don't seem interested in ethics.
[13:29] Max Chatnoir: I guess you heard the VW story?
[13:29] CB Axel: Yes.
[13:29] Max Chatnoir: Nice collision of health and property.
[13:29] herman Bergson: For instance  you claim the right on liberty and life...but what when you are asked to defend your country...your liberty?
[13:29] CB Axel: Yet another example.
[13:30] herman Bergson: One thing becomes clear here....
[13:30] herman Bergson: a society is not the sum of all individuals with their private rights
[13:31] herman Bergson: It means that we have to add more to this collection of individuals to create a society
[13:31] herman Bergson: And in Locke's days the social contract theory was prevailing...
[13:33] CB Axel: Mr. Spock in Star Trek says, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." °͜°
[13:33] CB Axel: That's where I get my philosophy. lol
[13:33] herman Bergson: So claiming the absolute right to your natural right on health, liberty or property isn't going to work
[13:34] herman Bergson: Locke wrote a number of essays on this question, in fact....
[13:34] herman Bergson: how can institutions have rights over individual rights
[13:35] Max Chatnoir: consent of the governed.
[13:35] CB Axel: Because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
[13:35] herman Bergson: Maybe that is where extreme republicans make a mistake...
[13:36] Max Chatnoir: say some more, Herman.
[13:37] herman Bergson: So asserting that we have a natural right to life, freedom, health an property as Locke suggests is only a part of the story
[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) is online.
[13:38] herman Bergson: If every single person in a society would do that and ignore the option of shared interests, or sharing in general....there would not be a society, but a Hobbesian world probably
[13:39] CB Axel: But many of our shared interests are also in the interest of each individual.
[13:39] herman Bergson: yes CB
[13:40] herman Bergson: But the first step is to recognise the individual interests as "shareable"
[13:40] CB Axel nods
[13:40] herman Bergson: which protects the individual interests more than when you do not share
[13:41] herman Bergson: so we have to add this ability to share to this individualism
[13:41] herman Bergson: and this as in the works of Locke leads to political philosophy and ethics
[13:42] herman Bergson: the main theme there will be the justification of our sharing and its consequences
[13:43] herman Bergson: But that is beyond our topic of this project.....
[13:43] CB Axel: Like forming an army for mutual protection but taking away rights of individuals in the army.
[13:43] herman Bergson: our  main question here is how the individual defined himself through history....
[13:44] herman Bergson: his willingness to subordinate himself to the values of religion, tribe , nation, family....or to plain rationality
[13:45] herman Bergson: Yes CB....within that context you organise an army for instance and you justify the subordination to the general command based on such aspects like religion etc.
[13:46] herman Bergson: Wel...I guess plenty enough to think about here
[13:47] herman Bergson: so ...if you have no further questions or remarks....?
[13:47] Max Chatnoir: Interesting can of worms, Herman.  :-)
[13:47] herman Bergson: Class dismissed and thank you all for your attention....^_^
[13:47] CB Axel: Thank you, Herman.
[13:48] CB Axel: It is quite the can of worms, Max.
[13:48] Max Chatnoir: Thanks, Herman.
[13:48] herman Bergson: yes it is CB.. :-)
[13:48] Max Chatnoir: That's the experiment of democratic societies.
[13:48] Max Chatnoir: and why they fight so much.
[13:49] herman Bergson: Yes..and eventually we try to justify our choices there by rational argument...
[13:49] CB Axel: I was just thinking this morning about how communism failed, but democracy is in the process of failing in the US.
[13:49] Max Chatnoir: One hopes.
[13:49] CB Axel: At least, that's how it seems to me.
[13:49] Max Chatnoir: You might have a point, Axel.  We've certainly been at an impasse for decades.
[13:49] herman Bergson: Because of a lot of irrationality to begin with
[13:50] Max Chatnoir: the "one hopes" was about rationality, not about democracy failing.
[13:50] CB Axel: I assumed that, Max. °͜°
[13:50] CB Axel: And please, call me CB.
[13:50] Max Chatnoir: Oh, I'm sorry.
[13:51] CB Axel: No problem.
[13:51] CB Axel: Well, I guess I'll fly away home.
[13:51] Max Chatnoir: I have a student named Axelrod.  I think it made that part of your name pop up in my head.
[13:52] CB Axel: Thank you all for the good discussion.
[13:52] Mikki Louise (mikkilouise): thank you Herman, bye everyone
[13:52] herman Bergson: Bye Mikki :-)
[13:52] Max Chatnoir: Very good discussion.  I'll hope to hear more on Thursday.
[13:52] Max Chatnoir: Bye, all.
[13:52] CB Axel: My "cousin" in sl, RF Axel gets people calling her Axel, too. °͜°
[13:52] herman Bergson: Yes Max...we'll go on...
[13:52] CB Axel: See you all on Thursday.

[13:53] Max Chatnoir: Bye.

Friday, September 18, 2015

588: A cynical view on the individual...

The discovery of the individual, that is, man realising that he is only subordinated to the laws of nature, must have begun in the Renaissance.
The Renaissance is a period in Europe, from the 14th to the 17th century. Its intellectual basis was humanism,
derived from the rediscovery of classical Greek philosophy, such as that of Protagoras (c. 490 – c. 420 BC), who said, that "Man is the measure of all things”, 
By this, Protagoras meant that each individual is the measure of how things are perceived by that individual,
interpreted by Plato (c. 425 - 348 BC.) to mean that there is no absolute truth, but that which individuals deem to be the truth. That concept of individual relativity was revolutionary for the time 
and contrasted with other philosophical doctrines that claimed the universe was based on something objective, outside of human influence or perceptions.
You can imagine, that combined with the dramatic discovery of our real place in the universe and the new empirical science, as it developed in the 17th century,
this must have influenced profoundly the way man defined himself in relation to the world around him, a world, that could be described by mathematics.
Maybe the first philosopher, who seriously wondered, what kind of individual homo sapiens was, was Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) in his Leviathan (1651).
Chapter 13 is “Of the Natural Condition of Mankind as Concerning Their Felicity and Misery?” and in misery we live, according to Hobbes.
“Nature has made men so equal in their physical and mental capacities that, although sometimes we may find one man who is obviously stronger in body or quicker of mind than another (…)
As for .the faculties of the mind: I find that men are even more equal in these than they are in bodily strength. (…)
This equality of ability produces equality of hope for the attaining of our goals. So if any two men want a single thing which they can’t both enjoy, they become enemies; 
and each of them on the way to his goal (which is principally his own survival, though sometimes merely his delight) tries to destroy or subdue the other.
…it [is] obvious that for as long as men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in the condition known as ‘war’; and it is a war of every man against every man.”
What a feast to be an individual and last but not least, if we may believe Hobbes there is “…no society; and - worst of all - continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
But fortunately there is a way out. According to Hobbes, society is a population beneath a sovereign authority, to whom all individuals in that society cede some rights for the sake of protection. 
Any power exercised by this authority can not be resisted because the protector's sovereign power derives from individuals' surrendering their own sovereign power for protection. 
The individuals are thereby the authors of all decisions made by the sovereign. Thus, in a way, the individual is subordinated only to himself.
Most important here is, that it is the individual himself who determines his world, based on his personal powers and abilities.
Thank you….if you have any questions or remarks…feel free…the floor is yours :-)

The Discussion

[13:19] CB Axel is thinking....
[13:20] herman Bergson: Well..I guess Hobbes was the frist one to realize what we are
[13:20] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): is tempted to respond but doesn't want to stir the topic in another way...so doesn't for now
[13:20] CB Axel: I guess I agree with Hobbes, but it depends on how the sovereign is given his or her power.
[13:21] herman Bergson: are you teasing us philosophically, Chantal?? :-))
[13:21] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): let me ponder about it
[13:21] herman Bergson: Indeed CB..that was my thought too...
[13:21] Areyn Laurasia: now I'm curious :)
[13:22] CB Axel: I don't believe in "divine right," for instance.
[13:22] herman Bergson: Yes  indeed CB..that is what I was wondering too
[13:22] herman Bergson: bu tin his times..it still was the church..god,,and so on
[13:23] CB Axel: My god, supposing I have one, might want someone in charge who believes in individual rights, whereas another person's god my want someone who thinks women should have fewer rights than men.
[13:24] CB Axel: Or the poor. Or those of a different race...
[13:24] CB Axel: whatever.
[13:24] janette Klaar Nowles (janette.shim) is offline.
[13:24] CB Axel: Or who believes that it's man's right and destiny to plunder the planet for it's resources without regard for others or for the future.
[13:25] CB Axel: In other words, the US government. °͜°
[13:25] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): and many others
[13:25] herman Bergson: the subject here is that in our culture..sometime we just saw ourselves as individuals...
[13:25] herman Bergson: just s single lonely being standing on a planet
[13:26] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): Then I do agree
[13:26] CB Axel: So was this the time when the nation became important? So the individual wasn't quite so alone?
[13:26] herman Bergson: and then you cry..HELLO...and then there appears rot be a fellowman
[13:28] Areyn Laurasia: One can still be lonely in a crowd. How is that related to individuality?
[13:28] herman Bergson: I guess..the first thing was that the homo siens discovered that h ewas just an individual
[13:28] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): but the world was still an unknown and dangerous place for the individual
[13:28] herman Bergson: Important observation Aryen !!!!
[13:29] CB Axel: Wasn't that obvious from back in the time when a caveman stepped outside and was confronted by a sabre toothed tiger and realized that he had no one to help him fight it?
[13:29] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): absolutely CB
[13:29] herman Bergson: You have to make a clear difference between psycholgy and philosophy
[13:29] Chantal (nymf.hathaway):
[13:30] herman Bergson: Felling lonely in a crowd is a psychological issu..not a philosophical one
[13:30] CB Axel: So to be philosophically alone is to realize that you have your own ideas and beliefs?
[13:31] herman Bergson: yes CB..something like that
[13:31] CB Axel: And that you have the right to hold and express those ideas?
[13:32] herman Bergson: To  know you are philosophically alone means  that you intellectually stand in a desert...and wonder where to go
[13:32] Areyn Laurasia: like Spinoza? :)
[13:32] CB Axel: I feel that way all the time.
[13:32] herman Bergson: me too CB :-))
[13:33] herman Bergson: so..so many roads to go :
[13:33] herman Bergson: I have to ask Spinoza Aryen...
[13:33] herman Bergson: I don’t know
[13:33] CB Axel: Good luck finding him. °͜°
[13:33] herman Bergson: But in a way...
[13:34] herman Bergson: Spinoza wasn’t in a desert...
[13:34] herman Bergson: he was in the All....
[13:35] herman Bergson: but to get back to our main guest of today..
[13:36] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): I really feel we have too little female philosophers... in history as well as present.
[13:36] herman Bergson: Hobbes had a really cynical view on the individual
[13:37] herman Bergson: Bu this view was mainly a social one....
[13:37] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): Hobbes spoke mainly about "Men"... his view on individuality is solely based on men
[13:37] CB Axel: Yes. Hobbes seemed to think that the individual was a egoist, thinking only of his own survival and happiness.
[13:37] herman Bergson: far away from what existentialism meant...
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes CB....and some people today like this to call neo-liberalism :-))
[13:39] CONNIE Eichel: :)
[13:40] herman Bergson: Well..next lecture might bring you a friendlier idea of individualism...:-)
[13:40] herman Bergson: If you have no further questions....
[13:40] herman Bergson: ???
[13:40] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): Looks forward
[13:40] herman Bergson: Class dismissed :-)
[13:40] Areyn Laurasia: Thank you
[13:41] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): Thank you Herman
[13:41] herman Bergson: Thank you all..
[13:41] CB Axel: I'll be looking forward to a friendlier view. I'm afraid that I take the cynical view.
[13:41] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): and others
[13:41] CB Axel: This was really good this week. I enjoyed it.
[13:41] CB Axel: Thank you, Herman.
[13:41] herman Bergson: You always can cry on my shoulder CB :-))
[13:42] CB Axel: Awww. Thanks. °͜°
[13:42] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): :)))
[13:42] herman Bergson smiles
[13:42] CONNIE Eichel: hehe
[13:42] CB Axel: I'll see you all, and I hope many others, on Tuesday.
[13:42] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty professor herman & Class :o)
[13:42] Areyn Laurasia: hope so too
[13:42] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): Waves
[13:42] CONNIE Eichel: great class!
[13:42] herman Bergson: Take care, you all :-)
[13:43] CONNIE Eichel: u too, lovely seeing you :)
[13:43] herman Bergson: xxx CONNIE
[13:43] CONNIE Eichel: i will try to be here more often :)
[13:43] CONNIE Eichel: kiss herman
[13:43] CONNIE Eichel sends a volley of smooches to herman Bergson!
[13:43] herman Bergson: mmm
[13:44] Areyn Laurasia: goodnight, everybody.. rl's calling.
[13:44] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): Sleep well later on Bergie and Herman see you both soon :)
[13:44] bergfrau Apfelbaum: good night :-) see you tuesday!
[13:44] herman Bergson: Bye Aryen :-)


Thursday, September 17, 2015

587: Finding the individual....

I am glad to tell you, that I can resume classes again. The stressfull and distracting  situation in RL is over earlier than expected.
We sold the house and have bought a new one. Now it is just a matter of time, during which I can not sit still and do nothing.
So, let’s continue our philosophical quest about existentialism and free will.
I refer to existentialism, not because this is such an important philosophy, but primarily, because it focuses so explicitly on the individual.
In my opinion, contrary to other cultures and even groups in our own Western culture, we have made the individual the centre of our interpretation of existence.
In other words, the individual is the primary value in how we define human life. We, for instance, formulated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
They are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being," 
and which are "inherent in all human beings" regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status.
We have a number of words of this characteristic of our culture: individual, person, personal identity, the self, and so on.
As the diagram behind me shows, it is not an obvious fact, that the centre of values, which determines our behaviour, is the individual.
In several cultures, ideologies and the like, the individual is subordinated to other values, varying from gods to collectives.
And as you can read in the diagram I relate this subordination to degrees of irrationality and rationality. 
Or, to say it in another way, the outcome of evolution is eventually a rational being.
That means, the reason why homo sapiens is a unique being on this planet, is due to its ability to define reality in a rational way.
Based on this view I”d like to use the idea of methodological individualism, a phrase coined by a student of Max Weber, Joseph Schumpeter in 1908.
In Economy and Society (1922), Weber himself articulates the central precept of methodological individualism in the following way: 
When discussing social phenomena, we often talk about various “social collectivities, such as states, associations, business corporations, foundations, as if they were individual persons”.
Thus we talk about them having plans, performing actions, suffering losses, and so forth. The doctrine of methodological individualism does not take issue with these ordinary ways of speaking, 
it merely stipulates that “in sociological work these collectivities must be treated as solely the resultants and modes of organization of the particular acts of individual persons, 
since these alone can be treated as agents in a course of subjectively understandable action”.
The question of today is, when did we discover the fact that we are individuals? You could point at Aristotle, but I am thinking of another moment in history.
The moment, that man realised that he was NOT the centre of the universe, but just an inhabitant of one of the many planets in the universe.
I am thinking of men like Copernicus (1473 -  1543),  Kepler (1571 – 1630) , the German mathematician, astronomer, and astrologer, Tycho Brahe, (1546 – 24 October 1601),
and in philosophy I am thinking of Descartes, who made the individual mind the starting point of our consciousness.
From there we’ll pay a visit to a number of philosophers, who described the individual. Men like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, maybe Hegel, Kierkegaard, Sartre  and so on.
So, get ready, we’ve work to do. Thank you…the floor is yours…
Main Sources:
MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: I could add....after we have explored the individual we'll investigate the question if he has a free will or not
[13:21] Ciera Bergman is online.
[13:21] Wesley Regenbogen: free will isn't that a human right ?
[13:21] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks...feel free...:-)
[13:22] herman Bergson: a human right?
[13:22] Max Chatnoir: I think the rationality to irrationality is an interesting one.
[13:22] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): is caught up in the "Individual - realization"
[13:22] Areyn Laurasia: :)
[13:22] Wesley Regenbogen: well, I mean, everyone has the right to do what they want, right ?
[13:22] Mandy Arabello: So are you suggesting, Herman, that man was not self aware as an individual before they discovered that the earth is not the centre of the universe ?
[13:23] Areyn Laurasia: if it doesn't intrude upon the rights of others...
[13:23] herman Bergson: yes Wesley..
[13:23] herman Bergson: Interesting point Mandy.....
[13:23] herman Bergson: That is not what I want to say.....
[13:23] Max Chatnoir: It seems to me that individualism could also be irrational.
[13:23] herman Bergson: of course consciousness leads to selfawareness...
[13:24] Wesley Regenbogen: I hope you don't mind me as a reporter being here, Herman
[13:24] Max Chatnoir: But maybe self responsibility leads to more careful thought?
[13:24] herman Bergson: But my point is that like the diagram tries to show too...man subordinated his individuality to other values...
[13:24] Jarapanda Snook: I should think that humans were self aware 2 million years ago
[13:25] herman Bergson: That is your free will Wesley...
[13:25] CB Axel: °͜°
[13:25] Wesley Regenbogen: I see
[13:25] Wesley Regenbogen: :D
[13:25] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): why 2 million years ago? Jarapanda
[13:25] herman Bergson: again...self awareness is not identical to the individualism we experience today
[13:26] Jarapanda Snook: that's about the time when we start to think of humans as being a separate species
[13:26] Jarapanda Snook: whales are self aware they say
[13:27] herman Bergson: yes....look at the diagram at the wall..homo habilis, australopiticus...etc :-)
[13:27] Jarapanda Snook: so do they regard themselves as individuals?
[13:27] Max Chatnoir: I missed the last meeting, so I'm not sure what you said about individualism before in terms of rationality.
[13:27] Wesley Regenbogen: but the question remains : "Are we alone in the universe or not ?" Is humankind aware that they might not be alone in the universe ?
[13:27] CB Axel: So you're not asking when we became self aware, but when did we begin to look at individual freedoms and responsibilities rather than our responsibilities to our families, nations, etc?
[13:27] herman Bergson: Indeed CB.....
[13:27] Jarapanda Snook: the odds are stacked against us ever having come into existence
[13:27] Max Chatnoir: I saw an interesting article recently that connected religion with an increase in human group size, and therefore a decrease in community acquaintance.
[13:28] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): Awesome summery CB, thank you
[13:28] herman Bergson: During the Middle Ages for instance man was one of God's sheep :-)
[13:28] CB Axel: Some still are.
[13:28] CB Axel: Or so they think.
[13:28] herman Bergson: that is what I said, too :-)
[13:28] Wesley Regenbogen: personally, I don't believe in God, lol, but that's a personal thing, of course
[13:29] Areyn Laurasia: what about the homo naledi...?
[13:29] herman Bergson: some cultures don't value individuality at all
[13:29] Max Chatnoir: Chimps recognize themselves as individuals, if there is anything to the mirror test.
[13:29] herman Bergson: indeed Max...and Homo nadeli is still a riddle
[13:30] herman Bergson: brain mass for instance doesn’t relate to ours at all
[13:30] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): not according to the scientists working for National Geographic, Herman
[13:30] Max Chatnoir: About like that of a chimp, I think.
[13:30] herman Bergson: Ahh....is that so Chantal?
[13:30] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): I will pass you the link
[13:30] herman Bergson: What info have you got on that?
[13:31] herman Bergson: To get to the point again.....
[13:31] herman Bergson: what fascinates me is the fact that we see ourselves as individuals...
[13:32] herman Bergson: and that this idea emerged around 1600
[13:32] herman Bergson: and that it is typical for Western culture....
[13:32] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): wasn't that a;ways the case?
[13:32] herman Bergson: no...
[13:32] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): Naledi article: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150915-humans-death-burial-anthropology-Homo-naledi/
[13:33] herman Bergson: We invented this concept
[13:33] Jarapanda Snook: how can you be so sure?
[13:33] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i can’t imagine that i'm not an individual
[13:33] CB Axel: We were individuals but subject to the will of God.
[13:33] Max Chatnoir: I think that having names must connect to the idea of individuality.
[13:33] herman Bergson: How can I be so sure.....
[13:33] herman Bergson: good question....
[13:33] Max Chatnoir: We don't name sheep, at least not sheep in large herds.
[13:33] herman Bergson: are philosophers ever sure about something :-))
[13:33] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): Good point Max
[13:33] Areyn Laurasia: how about... I thought I was a unique individual until I went out into the world and I find there are people who are similar?
[13:33] CB Axel: So we were not individuals. We were parts of God's plan for the world.
[13:34] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): eeek CB
[13:34] Jossy Jacobus is online.
[13:34] Jarapanda Snook: You will need to convince me that we are part of anyone's plan
[13:34] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): if you believe there is a God, maybe it's true
[13:34] Areyn Laurasia: more like one big experiment to see what happens next?
[13:34] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): but I don't believe there is one
[13:34] herman Bergson: That Jarapanda is exactly the point....
[13:35] Areyn Laurasia: but that's speculative.
[13:35] CB Axel: I'm not saying I believe that. I'm saying that before 1600, that's what people believed.
[13:35] CB Axel: And some still do.
[13:35] herman Bergson: if we are individuals we define ourselfves.....create our own plan
[13:35] CB Axel: Just not me.
[13:35] Mandy Arabello: surely belief in a God is an individual's response to ingnorance?
[13:35] herman Bergson: that is a clear statement Mandy :-)
[13:36] Areyn Laurasia: if the concept of individuals has existed a few million years ago...  why do we only look at it in terms of centuries?
[13:36] CB Axel: Try to look at this from the eyes of a 16th century person.
[13:36] Mandy Arabello: as time goes by we know more about the world, are laess ignorant, and thus less religious ?
[13:36] Max Chatnoir: On the response to a reduction in supervision in larger groups.
[13:36] herman Bergson: somewhat along the line or rationality vs. irrationality
[13:36] Max Chatnoir: Invent God as the ultimate alpha male.
[13:36] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): it should work like that, Mandy
[13:37] Mandy Arabello: for me it seems to work like that...
[13:37] Mandy Arabello: 2000 years ago humans knew little of the world...
[13:37] Mandy Arabello: so they invented a god to explain thunder, for example...
[13:37] herman Bergson: That is what is happening in Europe Mandy....
[13:37] Mandy Arabello: now we know what causes thunder so we don't need a god to explain it
[13:37] herman Bergson: Not only among christian people....but also among islamic people....
[13:39] Max Chatnoir: The people who wrote the article about "moralizing gods" and population size, suggested that the shift was to gods that were making rules about human behavior.  Rather than just gods that took care of trees and the ocean and lightning and so forth.
[13:39] Jarapanda Snook: you think, Herman, that atheism is growing amongst the islamic world??
[13:39] herman Bergson: at the end we are alone as an idividual only supported by our rationality.....
[13:39] herman Bergson: It is growing among islamic people in Europe Jarapanda....
[13:40] Jarapanda Snook: well, there is hope for us yet, then
[13:40] Max Chatnoir: Herman you have got us back onto God by putting that big pink block at the bottom of your diagram!
[13:40] herman Bergson: and even in islamic countries there are people who now dare to talk about atheism...
[13:40] Areyn Laurasia: :)
[13:40] Max Chatnoir: I hope that is true, herman.
[13:40] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): me too... the exodus scares me really
[13:40] CB Axel: If they're atheist, they're not Islamic. ;) hehehe
[13:40] Max Chatnoir: But apostasy can sure get you into trouble there.
[13:40] Areyn Laurasia: why do we need to go back to the idea of a God when we are talking about individuals? are we not capable of thinking for ourselves?
[13:40] Jarapanda Snook: in my view the sooner that the worls converts to atheism the safer we will all be
[13:40] herman Bergson: I am in the top of the diagram, Max...not at the bottom :-))
[13:41] Chantal (nymf.hathaway):
[13:41] herman Bergson: I'd agree to  that Jarapanda :-)
[13:41] Max Chatnoir: I know, Herman, but it's such teeny font.  :-)
[13:41] Wesley Regenbogen: I'm going to go offline now
[13:41] Wesley Regenbogen: I'm going to sleep now
[13:41] Areyn Laurasia: enjoy
[13:41] Wesley Regenbogen: bye
[13:41] Wesley Regenbogen: see you
[13:41] Wesley Regenbogen: take care
[13:41] Areyn Laurasia: bye, Wesley
[13:41] CB Axel: Bye, Wesley.
[13:41] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): bye
[13:41] herman Bergson: We still have a long way to go the get the font larger MAx :-))
[13:42] Max Chatnoir: Invert the pyramid.  :-)
[13:42] Areyn Laurasia: if you ask a baby.. the idea of being a unique individual and a will of his/her own probably starts about four/five months..
[13:43] herman Bergson: that is indeed a kind of evolutionary perspective Max :-)
[13:43] Jarapanda Snook: 3-4 years Areyn, I should say
[13:43] CB Axel: Areyn, and it's at that point that the parents probably start taking the kid to church and teaching it to not be an individual any more. °͜°
[13:43] Areyn Laurasia: just personal observation
[13:44] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): long before they took it to church... their ideas about life were clear to the child
[13:44] Jarapanda Snook: at 2 years kids are aware that they want something, but no0t usually self aware in the sense that they don't see themselves as the centre of the universe
[13:45] Areyn Laurasia: they are even aware of the concept of fairness at three months
[13:45] herman Bergson: Piaget thinks different, Jarapanda :-)
[13:45] Max Chatnoir: I think our dogs understand fairness.
[13:45] Jarapanda Snook: taking kids to church and indoctrinating them is my idea of child abuse
[13:45] CB Axel: Me, too, Jarapanda.
[13:45] Max Chatnoir: If one gets a treat, the other wants one too.
[13:45] herman Bergson: in the cognitive development of a child it is for a long period egocentric....
[13:45] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): same
[13:45] Areyn Laurasia: still remembers the youtube link you gave in one of the classes here :)
[13:46] herman Bergson: it has to learn that others can feel pain too forinstance
[13:46] Jarapanda Snook: my granddaughter is now fully self aware at 4
[13:46] Jarapanda Snook: at 2 she was clever, but wouldn’t have been able to philosophise about her individuality
[13:47] Max Chatnoir: What would she say if you asked her what it meant to be her?
[13:47] Jarapanda Snook: I'll ask her next time I see her...
[13:47] Areyn Laurasia: :)
[13:47] Max Chatnoir: Do you have those conversations?  I wish I'd thought of that when my daughter was that age.  :-)
[13:47] Jarapanda Snook: but I think she would have an answer
[13:48] Max Chatnoir: I think she probably would.
[13:48] Jarapanda Snook: you don't with your own kids - you are to busy
[13:48] Areyn Laurasia: shall I experiment with that? XD
[13:48] Max Chatnoir: I think you are right, Jarapanda.
[13:48] Jarapanda Snook: only with grandkids do you have time for such reflection
[13:49] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): not really Jarapanda...depends on the parents
[13:49] CB Axel: What's the point of having kids if you're not going to experiment on them. °͜°
[13:49] herman Bergson: I don't think the little one will have an abstract concept such as individuality....
[13:49] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): :)))
[13:49] Areyn Laurasia: but they are their own individuals... ! :)
[13:49] herman Bergson: as opposed to collectiveness
[13:49] Max Chatnoir: Ow!  Just don't break the skin.  :-)
[13:49] Jarapanda Snook: at 2 my granddaughter had no abstract concepts - at 4 she has plenty!!
[13:50] Jarapanda Snook: she plans and imagines the outcomes of her actions
[13:50] Max Chatnoir: I remember my kid's definition of like and love when she was that age.
[13:50] Max Chatnoir: Like is a big heart.  Love is a big explanation point.
[13:50] Max Chatnoir: sorry, exclamation point.
[13:50] Jarapanda Snook: :-)
[13:51] Jarapanda Snook: just looking at the blogspot stats, Herman
[13:52] herman Bergson: I assume kids don't understand the concept of individuality in the more philosophical sense as we try to do here
[13:52] Jarapanda Snook: I forgot that all this gets beamed out to the world hehe
[13:52] herman Bergson: ahh  yes Jarapanda :-)
[13:52] Max Chatnoir: Oops.
[13:52] Areyn Laurasia: :)
[13:52] herman Bergson: Now the rest of the world may learn about your granddaughter :-))
[13:52] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): being proud of your granddaughter... is a very beautiful thing, Jarapanda
[13:53] Areyn Laurasia: relax...
[13:53] herman Bergson: Indeed it is Chantal....
[13:53] Jarapanda Snook: I first became aware of that when I googles my SL name once and there was all this stuff I'd said right here
[13:53] herman Bergson: Is that so? :-))
[13:53] Areyn Laurasia: why does the nation come before the tribe in the diagram?
[13:53] Max Chatnoir: I was wondering that also, Areyn.
[13:53] Jarapanda Snook: HAHAHA - I spend 2 days a week with her so I have had a good chance to see her grow
[13:54] herman Bergson: Because nations can be composed of many tribes...
[13:54] Jarapanda Snook: with my own kids we were just hard working
[13:54] herman Bergson: while tribes just stick to their own territory
[13:55] Max Chatnoir: So a tribe is smaller?
[13:55] herman Bergson: I don’t think it is a matter of size, Max...
[13:55] herman Bergson: just of territorial behavior
[13:55] Max Chatnoir: Well, I guess your arrow is rationality, not size, isn't it?
[13:56] herman Bergson: the size of the slices in the triangle try to visualize what is subordinated to what
[13:57] Areyn Laurasia: I guess tribes do live beyond any typical geographical boundary of a nation.
[13:57] herman Bergson: this model kind of answers the questions...where do people get their values from which guide their life
[13:57] CB Axel: It makes sense when you put it that way, Herman.
[13:58] Max Chatnoir: Yes.
[13:58] herman Bergson: and the source of these values is either irrationality in some degree up to rationality
[13:59] Max Chatnoir: There seem to be multiple variables operating here.
[13:59] herman Bergson: Like the Declaration of Human Rights is the product of a rational attempt
[14:00] herman Bergson: ok...the next lectures I'll try to focus on the question...what is the individual.....
[14:00] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): Time to turn in for me :( Herman I hope you had a beautiful day, thank you for activating the grey mass again Enjoy everyone, see you soon :)
[14:00] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): truste Chantal
[14:00] CB Axel: Bye, Chantal.
[14:01] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): Jij ook
[14:01] herman Bergson: Thank you Chantal :-)
[14:01] Areyn Laurasia: pleasant dreams, Chantal
[14:01] Mandy Arabello: Night Chantal
[14:01] Max Chatnoir: Thanks, Herman!  You guys always get my brain buzzing.
[14:01] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): Waves
[14:01] Chantal (nymf.hathaway) is offline.
[14:01] herman Bergson: I know..time to return to the Olympus :-))
[14:01] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye Chantal:-)) sleep well
[[14:01] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman and class!
[14:01] Max Chatnoir: I must leave also.
[14:01] herman Bergson: you are welcome , Bergie :-)
[14:01] Jarapanda Snook: see you next time guys
[14:01] Areyn Laurasia: Thanks for the thoughts and a very happy birthday to you
[14:01] Max Chatnoir: Thanks for reconvening this, Herman.
[14:02] Mandy Arabello: happy Birthday Herman :-)
[14:02] herman Bergson: Thank you all.....Class dismissed :-)
[14:02] bergfrau Apfelbaum: clapclap**
[14:02] herman Bergson: I made 66 today Mandy :-))
[14:02] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman
[14:02] CB Axel: Herman, I hope you had a lovely birthday, and I'm so glad that the problems you're having are working themselves out. °͜°
[14:02] Guestboook van tipjar stand: Mandy Arabello donated L$50. Thank you very much, it is much appreciated!
[14:02] Areyn Laurasia: still young :)
[14:03] herman Bergson: oh yes :-)
[14:03] Max Chatnoir: Happy Birthday!
[14:03] CB Axel: Are we meeting again on Thursday then?
[14:03] bergfrau Apfelbaum:                   ¸.•´¯`•.¸
[14:03] bergfrau Apfelbaum:             ¸.•´¯`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸
[14:03] bergfrau Apfelbaum:       ¸.•´¯`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸
[14:03] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ¸.•´¯`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸
[14:03] bergfrau Apfelbaum:  ♫♪♪ HAPPY HAPPY BIRTHDAY ♪♪♫ 
[14:03] bergfrau Apfelbaum: `•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸ herman ¸.•´¯`•.¸¸.•´
[14:03] bergfrau Apfelbaum:       `•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸¸.•´
[14:03] bergfrau Apfelbaum:             `•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸¸.•´
[14:03] bergfrau Apfelbaum:                   `•.¸.¸.•´
[14:03] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): lol Bergie...that's nice
[14:03] herman Bergson: Yes CB...I take up the standard schedule again....
[14:03] bergfrau Apfelbaum: it is in the folder:-) Beertje
[14:03] herman Bergson: Tuesday and Thursday...
[14:03] Max Chatnoir: /see you all Thursday?
[14:04] CB Axel: OK. Great! I'll see you all on Thursday.
[14:04] Areyn Laurasia: take care out there :)

[14:04] Max Chatnoir: Bye now.

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

586: Existentialism & Free Will - an Introduction

Welcome to you all. It’s been a while, I know and it is good to see you again. A new project… Existentialism and Free Will.
Why this combination of themes? Free will has always been debated in philosophy, but only in logical arguments.
These days, however, there are people, who claim to have empirical evidence, neurological evidence, that free will is just an illusion created by the brain.
We never were shocked by the argument that because God knows EVERYTHING, so…also what I will say in the next lines,
it is impossible, that free will can exist, because while I believe I choose freely, God already knew what I would choose.
We will look into this debate later in the project of course. However, empirical evidence…. neurological evidence ?  That is a different story.
Funny thing is, that by saying this I am in fact already begging the question of this project: why should empirical evidence have so much more weight than logical conclusions from an argument?
Existentialism, in a nutshell, is completely based on the assumption, that we make choices. Because we are free to choose due to our free will, it makes us morally responsible.
Now, assume that this idea from neurobiological quarters is true, that free will is in fact an illusion, then logically all fundamental ideas of existentialism are based on an illusion,
which would mean that we could forget about existentialism as a view of man and his condition. Someone even might say, that existentialism thus in fact is like any other religion.
Ok, somebody might protest here and say: Hold on…do you mean that any religion is based on an illusion? Personally I would answer the question with “Yes”.
For I still do not understand how it is possible to  murder your fellowmen and justify such actions by referring to religious believes. 
Only homo sapiens murders and kills, motivated by believes, not only religious ones, but equally political and ideological ones.
This brings us close to a quintessential element of this project: individualism. According to the dictionary it means 
“Belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence”
or “a social theory advocating the liberty, rights, or independent action of the individual”.
More scientifically formulated along the lines of thought of Max Weber in his “Economy and Society” (1922) it amounts to the idea,
that social phenomena must be explained by showing how they result from individual actions, which in turn must be explained through reference to the intentional states that motivate the individual actors.
Thus we could come to the observation, that existentialism is based on free which which as such shapes the individual and thence society, that is, our culture.
Now look at the conversation in the cartoon of psychiatrist doctor Sigmund, which was published in my newspaper last week.
Patient: Doctor Sigmund, my end is near and that is about time, because I act arrogant and superior and expect, that everyone thinks like I do.
Doctor Sigmund: Tell me…. Do you happen to be Western Civilization?
Patient: Beware, you may use  that term only in a mocking  and dismissive way.
It is 2015 and a cartoonist feels, that his is the right moment to create this cartoon. Where does such an idea come from? Why does it emerge now?
I’ll offer you the following interpretation. Just like  Samuel Huntington predicted are we now in the midst a clash of civilizations, as he described in his article in Foreign Affairs in 1993.
In the introduction of his book (1996) “The Clash of Civilizations And the remaking of World Order” he writes: 
“One grim Weltanschauung for this new era was well expressed by the Venetian nationalist demagogue in Michael Dibdin's novel, Dead Lagoon (1994): 
’There can be no true friends without true enemies. Unless we hate what we are not, we cannot love what we are. 
These are the old truths we are painfully rediscovering after a century and more of sentimental cant. Those who deny them deny their family, their heritage, their culture, their birthright, their very selves! 
They will not lightly be forgiven.’ The unfortunate truth in these old truths cannot be ignored by statesmen and scholars. 
For peoples seeking identity and reinventing ethnicity, enemies are essential, and the potentially most dangerous enmities occur across the fault lines between the world's major civilizations.”

It is from this perspective, that I want to develop this project and from which I take a stand. In the diagram behind me I have tried to visualize the quintessence of my ideas.
You could interpret the diagram from the perspective of “seeking identity and reinventing ethnicity”. 
Homo sapiens is a social animal with one exceptional and unique quality: his rationality, which enables him to explain his existence and identity ultimately by knowledge, by science.
This does not imply, that homo sapiens is a rational being. Sometimes you even tend to believe that the opposite is true.
The only claim I make is that eventually it was his ability to think in a rational manner, that shaped his existence through evolution into what it is now.
However, when we look at the world how it is now, we must conclude that homo sapiens defines himself, his identity, his values, his social bonds in ways, ranging from irrationally to rational.
“For peoples seeking identity and reinventing ethnicity, enemies are essential…” and your first enemy is the person who does not believe in the same god as you do.
When you drop religion, you still can stick to the bonds within your tribe and if tribes are no longer the binding factor, you still have your country, your nation-state.
If the  nation-state ceases to bind people, they still have their family. 
When the family falls apart the homo sapiens realizes, that eventually he is only an individual, who has to define himself like Descartes did with his “Cogito, ergo sum”.
Eventually, what is left to homo sapiens is his rationality, which enables him to understand and interpret the reality he lives in.
That is what enabled him to develop physics or medical science, what made him visit the moon or communicate using his cellphone.
Against this background I’ll try to analyze, how man eventually defined his existentialist position and then I’ll try to understand this human condition in relation to claims that free will might be an illusion.
And we even may discover, that existentialism as we know it, is not at all the kind of interpretation of individualism in conjunction with rationality we seek.
Thank you for your attention…the floor is yours :-)

The Discussion

[13:19] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): have to rush off
[13:19] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): will think on it all
[13:19] Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Great writeup, Herman :)
[13:19] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): This will be an interesting journey
[13:19] herman Bergson: This was only the introduction :-))
[13:19] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:19] Areyn Laurasia: Be well, Gemma
[13:19] Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Take care, Gemma
[13:20] Bejiita Imako: cu gemma
[13:20] CB Axel: You're saying in part that our identities are based on who our enemies are?
[13:20] herman Bergson: really nice of Gemma....she came on for the lecture....
[13:20] Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Free will as a requisite for existentialism is interesting...
[13:20] CB Axel: Bye, Gemma.
[13:20] Bejiita Imako: yes indeed
[13:20] herman Bergson: Ahh CB, yes that CAN be the case and often is
[13:21] herman Bergson: but it is not a necessary condition for defining your identity
[13:21] Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Though I can see that; I've always seen existentialism a bit more accepting of the limits on choice
[13:21] CB Axel: I see.
[13:21] Bejiita Imako: I feel lke i decide for myself, that nothing else makes all my decisions so i d say i have a free will
[13:21] Bejiita Imako: but maybe its more complex
[13:22] Bejiita Imako: its an interesting concept
[13:22] herman Bergson: Well Violet, I actually want to "use" the development of existentialism as a way of focusing on the idea of individualism
[13:22] herman Bergson: in the way Weber investigates it
[13:23] herman Bergson: Descartes reduced man to a single "I"
[13:23] Areyn Laurasia: “In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it’s impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves. And then, in that very moment when I love them.... I destroy them.” ― Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game
[13:23] Violet (ataraxia.azemus): It's a good filter for individual meaning... and whether we have any control over our actions, and therefore meaning, is a pretty existential idea :)
[13:23] herman Bergson: Ender's game !
[13:23] Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Unfortunately, I need to run off... Thanks, Herman, everyone. Be well :)
[13:23] herman Bergson: I just read it...
[13:23] Areyn Laurasia: :)
[13:23] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): Bye Violat :))
[13:23] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): Violet even
[13:23] herman Bergson: Bye Violet
[13:24] CB Axel: Bye, Violet.
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: bye violet
[13:24] herman Bergson: I immediately recognized your quote Areyn :-))
[13:24] Areyn Laurasia: I hope I have free will but I'm too persuaded by others thoughts ;)
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: you can get affected by others in deciding thats drue
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: true
[13:25] herman Bergson: It is a whole history and debate what you mean by free will
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: but still its up to you to take control
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: should you or not
[13:25] CB Axel: But you still have the will to not listen to what others are saying.
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:26] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): you can even wonder if that is free will, CB
[13:26] herman Bergson: There is a whole debate going on in economics.... Ration Choice Theory.....
[13:26] herman Bergson: Rational
[13:26] CB Axel: On the other hand, I've heard that the more you hear a particular point of view, the more likely you are to also take that view.
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: that can be true
[13:27] herman Bergson: Just was commercials CB and you're convinced ^_^
[13:27] herman Bergson: watch
[13:27] CB Axel: I don't watch them. °͜°
[13:28] herman Bergson: Smart !...defending and protecting your free will :-))
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: i just thought of same things
[13:28] illing Edman: Sorry guys I missed the whole class...My sister walked in with her boyfriend so I better stop.... till the next time Sorry !
[13:28] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): Enjoy Illing
[13:28] herman Bergson: Greetings to your sister and friend Illing :-)
[13:28] CB Axel: Please join us again next time, illing.
[13:28] illing Edman: bye
[13:28] herman Bergson: Bye :-)
[13:28] illing Edman: I will certainly come the next time again
[13:29] illing Edman: kisses
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: o the other hand i dont need to be fed with coca cola commercial in order to know its good stuff
[13:29] herman Bergson: Ahhh...talking about the next time.....
[13:29] Bejiita Imako:
[13:29] herman Bergson: I have something important to say about that.....
[13:29] CB Axel: Bleech. I prefer Pepsi. LOL
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: hehehe
[13:30] herman Bergson: yes Pepsi is better
[13:30] herman Bergson: When will be the next time....?????
[13:30] herman Bergson: I will tell you....
[13:30] CB Axel: Don't take our word on that, though, Bejiita. Exercise your free will.
[13:30] herman Bergson: JANUARY 2016.....
[13:30] herman Bergson: Let me explain...
[13:31] herman Bergson: In RL I am in the middle of selling my house and buying a new one and then moving to another part of the country....
[13:31] CB Axel: Again?
[13:31] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): surrounded by tulips he will be
[13:31] herman Bergson: it creates a lot of ado and stress, consumes time for packing a whole household...and so on
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes..in springtime I'll show you pictures :-)
[13:32] herman Bergson: So I have decided to postpone continuation of this project till I am sellted in again in my new home
[13:33] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): Can only understand and hope all goes smooth
[13:33] herman Bergson: In other words...I send you on a nice vacation again ....
[13:33] CB Axel nods
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: indeed, hope all goes well
[13:33] CB Axel: I hate moving house.
[13:33] Bejiita Imako:
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: its a hell of work
[13:33] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): yes is
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: but nice when done
[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita...that in itself is already our main and permant worry....
[13:34] Areyn Laurasia: a change of scenery is always nice
[13:34] herman Bergson: Oh yes Areyn :-)
[13:34] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): Fields of tulips... fields as far as he can see :))))
[13:35] herman Bergson: Now I live in a part of the country where they speak a dialect, which isn't my way.....I gonna move back to where they  speak real Dutch :-)
[13:35] CB Axel: °͜°
[13:35] Chantal (nymf.hathaway):
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: aa ok
[13:35] herman Bergson: But at this moment the situation is a kind of clif hanger.....
[13:36] herman Bergson: we need the 100% confirmation of several things...they are now still in the 99% certain phase
[13:36] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): Stressful :(
[13:37] CB Axel: Dang 1%'ers.
[13:37] herman Bergson: indeed :-)