Arthur Schopenhauer lived from 1788 to 1860. He was a philosopher and writer who wrote books like The World as Will and Idea and Studies in Pessimism. He is one of those writers that everyone should read, because as you read his style of writing, you almost cannot help becoming more eloquent. Of particular interest is one of his essays, called Counsels and Maxims, which can be found at Project Gutenberg. You can also read it as an etext from the University of Adelaide (Australia) Library at http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/counsels/

What I find interesting is that he lived 150+ years ago and yet his observations are still true today. And all the more interesting is Chapter 3 of his Counsels, “Our Relation to Others,” when read with a view of today’s society and culture in mind. Below are some excerpts that I found particularly compelling.

It is astonishing how easily and how quickly similarity, or difference of mind and disposition, makes itself felt between one man and another as soon as they begin to talk: every little trifle shows it. When two people of totally different natures are conversing, almost everything said by the one will, in a greater or less degree, displease the other, and in many cases produce positive annoyance; even though the conversation turn upon the most out-of-the-way subject, or one in which neither of the parties has any real interest. People of similar nature, on the other hand, immediately come to feel a kind of general agreement; and if they are cast very much in the same mould, complete harmony or even unison will flow from their intercourse.

This explain two circumstances. First of all, it shows why it is that common, ordinary people are so sociable and find good company wherever they go. Ah! those good, dear, brave people. It is just the contrary with those who are not of the common run; and the less they are so, the more unsociable they become; so that if, in their isolation, they chance to come across some one in whose nature they can find even a single sympathetic chord, be it never so minute, they show extraordinary pleasure in his society. For one man can be to another only so much as the other is to him. Great minds are like eagles, and build their nest in some lofty solitude.

Secondly, we are enabled to understand how it is that people of like disposition so quickly get on with one another, as though they were drawn together by magnetic force—kindred souls greeting each other from afar. Of course the most frequent opportunity of observing this is afforded by people of vulgar tastes and inferior intellect, but only because their name is legion; while those who are better off in this respect and of a rarer nature, are not often to be met with: they are called rare because you can seldom find them.

You cannot see in another man any more than you have in yourself; and your own intelligence strictly determines the extent to which he comes within its grasp. If your intelligence is of a very low order, mental qualities in another, even though they be of the highest kind, will have no effect at all upon you; you will see nothing in their possessor except the meanest side of his individuality—in other words, just those parts of his character and disposition which are weak and defective. Your whole estimate of the man will be confined to his defects, and his higher mental qualities will no more exist for you than colors exist for those who cannot see.

Intellect is invisible to the man who has none. In any attempt to criticise another’s work, the range of knowledge possessed by the critic is as essential a part of his verdict as the claims of the work itself.

Hence intercourse with others involves a process of leveling down. The qualities which are present in one man, and absent in another, cannot come into play when they meet; and the self-sacrifice which this entails upon one of the parties, calls forth no recognition from the other.

I feel respect for the man—and he is one in a hundred—who, when he is waiting or sitting unoccupied, refrains from rattling or beating time with anything that happens to be handy,—his stick, or knife and fork, or whatever else it may be. The probability is that he is thinking of something.

With a large number of people, it is quite evident that their power of sight completely dominates over their power of thought; they seem to be conscious of existence only when they are making a noise; unless indeed they happen to be smoking, for this serves a similar end. It is for the same reason that they never fail to be all eyes and ears for what is going on around them.

Most men are so thoroughly subjective that nothing really interests them but themselves. They always think of their own case as soon as ever any remark is made, and their whole attention is engrossed and absorbed by the merest chance reference to anything which affects them personally, be it never so remote: with the result that they have no power left for forming an objective view of things, should the conversation take that turn; neither can they admit any validity in arguments which tell against their interest or their vanity. Hence their attention is easily distracted. They are so readily offended, insulted or annoyed, that in discussing any impersonal matter with them, no care is too great to avoid letting your remarks bear the slightest possible reference to the very worthy and sensitive individuals whom you have before you; for anything you may say will perhaps hurt their feelings. People really care about nothing that does not affect them personally. True and striking observations, fine, subtle and witty things are lost upon them: they cannot understand or feel them. But anything that disturbs their petty vanity in the most remote and indirect way, or reflects prejudicially upon their exceedingly precious selves—to that, they are most tenderly sensitive.

Distance and long absence are always prejudicial to friendship, however disinclined a man may be to admit. Our regard for people whom we do not see—even though they be our dearest friends—gradually dries up in the course of years, and they become abstract notions; so that our interest in them grows to be more and more intellectual,—nay, it is kept up only as a kind of tradition; whilst we retain a lively and deep interest in those who are constantly before our eyes, even if they be only pet animals. This shows how much men are limited by their senses.

A man must be still a greenhorn in the ways of the world, if he imagines that he can make himself popular in society by exhibiting intelligence and discernment. With the immense majority of people, such qualities excite hatred and resentment, which are rendered all the harder to bear by the fact that people are obliged to suppress—even from themselves—the real reason of their anger.

What actually takes place is this. A man feels and perceives that the person with whom he is conversing is intellectually very much his superior. He thereupon secretly and half unconsciously concludes that his interlocutor must form a proportionately low and limited estimate of his abilities. That is a method of reasoning—an enthymeme—which rouses the bitterest feelings of sullen and rancorous hatred. And so Gracian is quite right in saying that the only way to win affection from people is to show the most animal-like simplicity of demeanor—para ser bien quisto, el unico medio vestirse la piel del mas simple de los brutos.

To show your intelligence and discernment is only an indirect way of reproaching other people for being dull and incapable. And besides, it is natural for a vulgar man to be violently agitated by the sight of opposition in any form; and in this case envy comes in as the secret cause of his hostility. For it is a matter of daily observation that people take the greatest pleasure in that which satisfies their vanity; and vanity cannot be satisfied without comparison with others. Now, there is nothing of which a man is prouder than of intellectual ability, for it is this that gives him his commanding place in the animal world. It is an exceedingly rash thing to let any one see that you are decidedly superior to him in this respect, and to let other people see it too; because he will then thirst for vengeance, and generally look about for an opportunity of taking it by means of insult, because this is to pass from the sphere of intellect to that of will—and there, all are on an equal footing as regards the feeling of hostility. Hence, while rank and riches may always reckon upon deferential treatment in society, that is something which intellectual ability can never expect; to be ignored is the greatest favor shown to it; and if people notice it at all, it is because they regard it as a piece of impertinence, or else as something to which its possessor has no legitimate right, and upon which he dares to pride himself; and in retaliation and revenge for his conduct, people secretly try and humiliate him in some other way; and if they wait to do this, it is only for a fitting opportunity. A man may be as humble as possible in his demeanor, and yet hardly ever get people to overlook his crime in standing intellectually above them. In the Garden of Roses, Sadi makes the remark:—You should know that foolish people are a hundredfold more averse to meeting the wise than the wise are indisposed for the company of the foolish.

Okay, it’s time to help spread the news. “Recent polls have shown that a fifth of Americans can’t locate the U.S. on a world map.” A Miss Teen USA contestant was told this and asked why she thinks this is. I’d think by this time she could put together a halfway well-reasoned answer to such a basic question by this stage in her contestant career. The problem here is not just an issue of public speaking, but of it really makes me thinks she’s ONE of those 20%.

Check out her response:

Here’s the transcript if you didn’t catch it in her response (which is quite possible) or if you just want to follow along:

Questioner: Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can’t locate the U.S. on a world map. Why do you think this is?

Miss Teen South Carolina: I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don’t have maps and I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and the Iraq everywhere like such as and I believe that they should our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S. or should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future for us.

And we wonder why the rest of the world thinks we’re idiots!!

I really can’t understand cable companies. They give you a nice discount to sign up and then if you decide to stick with them, they raise your rates. I mean, it would make sense to me that if you continued with them longer, they should REWARD your loyalty by giving you perks or lower rates or something. So why do they charge you MORE for staying with them?

I signed up for Comcast’s “Triple Play” last year, which gave me cable for $33, high-speed internet access for $33, and digital voice phone service for $33 a month. Of course, there’s always hidden fees like modem rental, $10/month extra for DIGITAL cable, cable box rental, etc. Plus taxes on the phone service, but that’s going to happen regardless of your phone service.

So this year I found out that after this startup deal was finished my rates were going to go up by almost $50 a month. I called them this last week to find out how much prices were going up and to compare my options. I also looked at all the other options I have for Cable/Satellite TV, I found out that DISH Network had the best prices overall. $29.99/month for the Top 100 package. DirecTV was over $40 for a similar package. Comcast’s basic digital cable was going from $43 to $69 a month. Basic analog cable is $54 a month and I could get it down to $37 if I dropped all the “interesting” channels like History Channel, Disney, Nickelodeon, etc.

Once I called Comcast today to cancel my cable service (since I just got DISH Network installed), they offered to give me a discount and stay basically at the current rate if I kept all 3 services. While I saw that as a decent option, I’d already signed up with DISH. My internet access is going from the original $33/month to $43/month. Phone service is going from $33 to $45, but I need to keep it because otherwise the internet service will go up to $57/month. Plus $3/month for the cable modem rental. And then they surprise me with an extra $18 charge for them to “downgrade” my cable, meaning come out and pick up the receiver and disconnect the cable TV service.

And all because I can’t get DSL at this house. Otherwise I’d use Earthlink for DSL, DISH for satellite TV, and something non-AT&T for phone. But apparently we’re in a pocket where DSL just doesn’t reach, so if I want high-speed internet access (and I assuredly do), I have to use a cable modem.

BTW, DISH has some discounts now that basically give me HD service for free. At least for $10 months. But I can downgrade if I need to when it comes to it. Unless I get so addicted to HDTV that I’m willing to pay a little more for it. So now I pay about the same as I used to, but I have DISH network with HDTV and local channels in HD right through my satellite box.

So, a couple weeks ago I blogged about the gas prices going up right before Memorial Day and the Indy 500 race weekend when thousands more cars are in the city. I also said I’d report on what happened afterwards. So here’s the scoop.

The prices went up twice by about 30 cents each time the week before the race. Since then, it’s gone down. Not dramatically, so it wouldn’t be obvious (in my opinion), but it’s been a little over a week since the race and the prices are averaging $3.15 a gallon, which is 44 cents lower than it was on the weekend of the Big Race. It dropped by about 20 cents in small increments over the five days after the race and it’s continued to drop a few cents a day since then.

I can’t say for sure what’s going behind the scenes with the costs of oil and all that, but I DO know that the week BEFORE the Indy 500 gas prices jumped a total of about 60 cents and the week and a half AFTER the race the prices have fallen by three quarters of that.

Conspiracy? Gouging? Sheer coincidence? We may never know.

Current music: ZZ Top - Greatest Hits

Last week the price of gas in Indianapolis jumped 30 cents overnight. Then this last Monday it did it AGAIN! To a whopping $3.59 a gallon for regular unleaded! Last night it actually came down a little and is averaging $3.48 around town, but STILL!

It’s not like we’re normally an expensive city to buy gas. Whenever they discuss gas prices around the country, we’re usually below the average. But not THIS week!

A gas station near me must have felt some shame about the whole thing. Their sign didn’t say 359 or 349. It had the three parts of the 8 that they have in common: the top left upright, the middle cross, and the bottom right upright. So you couldn’t tell whether it was a 4 or a 5. It was still a 5, but you couldn’t tell from the sign. And I KNOW it wasn’t an accident because the sign isn’t the type that has parts blow off and BOTH SIDES of the sign had the same problem!

What really gets me is that this weekend is Memorial Day, when many people will be traveling and when the INDIANAPOLIS 500 happens! Thousands of extra people visiting the city and the gas prices go up to quite a bit higher than the average around the country. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

We’ll know for sure in a few days. If the price goes back to normal (compared with national averages) next Tuesday or so, we’ll know they were jacking it up to gouge the customers and race fans. I’ll post something when that day comes.

For those of you haven’t heard about this, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody religion founded by Bobby Henderson who was reacting against science curriculum standards being proposed by the Kansas Board of Education a couple years ago. Here is an excerpt from a letter he wrote:

Open Letter To Kansas School Board

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Adherents call themselves Pastafarians and I get the impression that most of them are simply using this a way of mocking those who believe in Intelligent Design. From the comments on their site, it seems many Pastafarians view all religions as superstitions made up by groups within societies to fill some emotional need that their intellects weren’t advanced enough to deal with.

Many ID-ers certainly have gotten upset by FSMism and communicated that. It’s kinda sad how many Christians have taken them seriously and tried to disprove it or argue about it. It was started by someone with a sense of humor and a disbelief in Intelligent Design. People who are reacting against FSMism should realize that and treat the issue a little more lightly.

Oh, and to further show the sense of humor behind this, it’s only permitted to worship and teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster while wearing full Pirate regalia.

In my mind, it’s a way to play at religion and do/say “religiony” things without being committed to a serious system of beliefs. Does that show a deep need for people to believe in a higher power even when their brains are telling them it’s all made up? That’s a topic for another day.

And if you’re a Pastafarian yourself reading this and you disagree with me, then May You Be Touched By His Noodly Appendage.

Today I got an email forwarded to me by a coworker. It asked me to NOT purchase any gas on May 15, touting how this boycott had been going on annually for 10 years now and had made gas prices drop by 30 cents overnight. Being the good doobie that I am, I immediately checked Snopes.com and found out some things that I’ve included below this quotation from the email.

—–Original Message—–
>I only pass this on as asked & will abide Let’s do this
>
>NO GAS…On May 15th 2007 Don’t pump gas on MAY 15th In April 1997,
>there was a ‘gas out’ conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices.
>Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight. On May 15th 2007,
>all internet users are asked to not go to a gas station in protest of high gas prices.
>Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places. There are 73,000,000+
>American members currently on the internet network, and the average car
>takes about 30 to 50 dollars to fill up. If all users did not go to the
>pump on the 15th, it would take $2,292,000,000.00 (that’s almost 3
>BILLION) out of the oil companies pockets for just one day, so please
>do not go to the gas station on May 15th and let’s try to put a dent in
>the Middle Eastern oil industry for at least one day. If you agree
>(which I can’t see why you wouldn’t) resend this to all your contact
>list. With it saying, ”Don’t pump gas on May 15th’

Here’s what I learned from Snopes:

  • The first email-based boycott of gasoline for a day was in April 1999, not 1997.
  • It didn’t make any difference.
  • People just bought gas the day before or after instead, so there was no change in the overall market.
  • A boycott is a long-term campaign where people totally and continually DO WITHOUT something to get their point across.
  • The very premise of this idea is flawed because the amount of gas being used doesn’t change at all.
  • Avoiding driving (or at least severely reducing it) would have more impact that not pumping gas on one day.

Their conclusion:

Not buying gas on a designated day may make people feel a bit better about things by providing them a chance to vent their anger at higher gasoline prices, but the action won’t have any real impact on retail prices. An effective protest would involve something like organizing people to forswear the use of their cars on specified days–an act that could effectively demonstrate the reality of the threat that if gasoline prices stayed high, American consumers were prepared to move to carpooling and public transportation for the long term. Simply changing the day one buys gas, however, imparts no such threat, because nothing is being done without.

Gasoline is a fungible, global commodity, its price subject to the ordinary forces of supply and demand. No amount of consumer gimmickry and showmanship will lower its price in the long run; only a significant, ongoing reduction in demand will accomplish that goal. Unfortunately, for many people achieving that goal would mean cutting down on their driving or opting for less desirable economy cars over less fuel-efficient models, solutions they find unappealing.

An event like a “gas out” can sometimes do some good by calling attention to a cause and sending a message. In this case, though, the only message being sent is: “We consumers are so desperate for gasoline that we can’t even do without it for a few days to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with its cost.” What supplier is going to respond to a message like that by lowering its price? Those who really want to send a “message” to oil suppliers should try not buying any gasoline for several months in a row.

And there was a nice list of “Sources” at the end of their article.

I replied to the email I received with the following:

For what it’s worth:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/nogas.asp

Truth be told, it’s never had an effect on the gas market or prices. The email campaign to boycott gas stations began in 1999, not 1997, and the prices did not drop 30 cents a gallon overnight. Prices HAVE changed that much in one day, but not because of a boycott (or one-day abstention).

Just thought you should know.
Scott

Their response? “Thanks for the clarifications. I’ll be participating. Ethics are what its worth to me.”

From my point of view, no disrespect intended, ethics would require either doing an actual boycott or not pretending that my one-day thing was efficacious.

What it REALLY comes down to is self-delusion, convincing yourself that what you’re doing matters, even if all the evidence says there is no effect. Again, no disrespect intended, but if it really was a matter of ethics, then they should work at taking steps that CAN reduce the price instead of just trying to feel good.

Current music: On the Way to Bethlehem (Music of the Medieval Pilgrim)

So I just saw a commercial that had various kids all excited running and waving their arms and shouting to some other kids in whatever language they use. All different kinds of kids in different countries, but apparently everyone was excited. At the end was the American kid saying, “Dad’s cooking dinner tonight!” and it cut to Dad arriving home from work with a few bags from McDonalds.

I’m sorry, but I found that commercial insulting. It shows that kids around the world expect that if their dads do anything for dinner, it’s bringing home fast food. Not actually cooking. Just delivering. Their automatic understanding of “Dad is cooking dinner” implies that fathers don’t (CAN’T?) cook, so he must be bringing something home. That’s so wrong and makes fathers look inept when it comes to cooking.

So there!

You’ve heard of Grand Theft Auto, Redneck Rampage, and other similar games where you get points for assaulting and killing people. I blogged about one such game last fall.

Well, I have to give kudos to the Coca-Cola company for one of their Super Bowl commercials. The whole commercial looked like one of those kinds of games, with the main character walking down city streets where all kinds of crimes were being committed and bad things were happening to people. But instead of contributing, the guy was helping people, doing things like recovering and returning a lady’s purse that had been stolen, picking up a bag of money dropped by a security guard and returning it, and all with a bottle of Coke in his hand. At the end, he opens a car door and grabs the guy inside, pulling him out. You think he’s going to steal the car, but instead he gives the guy a bottle of Coke and clinks bottles with him.

All the while, the music playing in the background had lyrics that said: “Give a little love and it all comes back to you.” and something about “you’ll be remembered for what you say and do.”

Great for Coke!! Thanks to them for presenting a positive message to the millions of Super Bowl viewers.

If you want to see all the various commercials from the Super Bowl, visit http://cbssportsline.com/superads.

Every once in a while I’ll post a joke that I read somewhere. Like JumboJoke.com. And it’s no secret that I really thought very little of Clinton when he was president (or even afterwards). Regardless of my opinion about Bush and the job he’s doing (or not), here’s a recent post that “JumboJoke.com” put on their site: Thank You President Clinton. I’ve clipped some of the items out, both to keep from blatantly copying/pasting the whole thing and also to drive you to the website, where you can read more jokes and funny anecdotes.

Dear Mr. Ex President Clinton:

I recently saw a bumper sticker that said, “Thank me, I voted for Clinton-Gore.” So, I sat down and reflected on that, and I am sending my “Thank you” for what you have done, specifically:

1. Thank you for introducing us to Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Dolly Kyle Browning, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broderick. Did I leave anyone out?

2. Thank you for teaching my 8-year-old about oral sex. I had really planned to wait until he was a little older to discuss it with him, but now he knows more about it than I did as a senior in college.

3. Thank you for showing us that sexual harassment in the work place (especially the White House) and on the job is OK, and all you have to know is what the meaning of “it” is. It really is great to know that certain sexual acts are not sex, and one person may have sex while the other one does not have sex.

[snip]

5. Thanks for making Jimmy Carter look competent, Gerald Ford look graceful, Richard Nixon look honest, Lyndon Johnson look truthful, and John Kennedy look moral.

[snip]

7. Thank you, for the 19 charges, 8 convictions, and 4 imprisonment’s from the Whitewater “mess” and the 55 criminal charges and 32 criminal convictions (so far) in the other “Clinton” scandals.

[snip]

10. Now that you’ve left the White House, thanks for the 140 pardons of convicted felons and indicted felons-in-exile. We will love to have them rejoin society. (Not to mention the scores you pardoned while Governor of Arkansas)

11. Thanks also for removing the White House silverware. I’m sure that Laura Bush didn’t like the pattern anyway. Also, enjoy the housewarming gifts you’ve received from your “friends.”

[snip]

13. And finally, please ensure that Hillary enjoys the $8 million dollar advance for her “tell-all” book and you, Bill, the $10 million advance for your memoirs. Who says crime doesn’t pay!

14. The last and most important point - thank you for forcing Israel to let Mohammed Atta go free. Terrorist pilot Mohammed Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called “political prisoners”. However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, “insisted” that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammed Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports. Why shouldn’t Americans know the real truth?

What a guy!!

And finally, thank you for reminding me of the things to consider now that Hillary is running for president.

SINCERELY,
A US Citizen

[tags]Bill Clinton, clinton, humor, president[/tags]

« Previous PageNext Page »



Caffeine theme by Jon Emmons in association with MasterWish.com