Philosophy is often considered one of the academic subjects less suited for amateur study. There is a truly unfortunate cultural perception of its opacity and limited applicability -- that "real philosophers" are eggheads in ivory towers whom nobody else can access.
This is just blatantly untrue.
Anyone who enjoys thinking in the abstract and hypothetical, who considers their place in the world, who has opinions about right and wrong that they can justify, is interested in philosophy.
Enter this blog:
http://www.pqed.org
It poses excellent, thought-provoking philosophical questions about current events and mundane issues, and includes non-academic discussion of these topics. It's well worth reading.
In particular, it provides a good list of book recommendations for the layperson interested in philosophy:
http://www.pqed.org/2014/01/reader-question-what-can-i-read-to.html#more
A gem of a find. I hope it will increase awareness of philosophy, and mindfulness in general.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Saturday, July 12, 2014
Surrealist Street Artist Inspires in Tehran
I've always enjoyed public art, from mosaics in subway stations to murals in parks. It lends spaces a sense of personality, shaped by the people who interact with the architecture around them as much as by the planners and architects who first conceived them. It makes a place look truly inhabited and a structure look alive, more so than a form designed purely for unobtrusive function would otherwise be.
Of course, there's often a more specific message behind public art -- the very nature of the beast lends itself to political and social expression. One might expect that public art in fraught environments would be more message-driven (even though the risk to artists is correspondingly higher). One often forgets that beauty, with no ulterior motive, can be a message in itself:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/90589/an-iranian-artist-is-beautifying-tehran-with-surreal-street-art
I hope this artist continues to create and inspire.
Of course, there's often a more specific message behind public art -- the very nature of the beast lends itself to political and social expression. One might expect that public art in fraught environments would be more message-driven (even though the risk to artists is correspondingly higher). One often forgets that beauty, with no ulterior motive, can be a message in itself:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/90589/an-iranian-artist-is-beautifying-tehran-with-surreal-street-art
I hope this artist continues to create and inspire.
Monday, July 7, 2014
Thoughts on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Especially Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Brilliant Dissent
Like many of you, I am greatly disappointed, if not entirely shocked, by the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. The decision was a Plessy v. Ferguson of our time, putting an already disadvantaged group, women, at the mercy of discriminatory organizations for superstitious and spurious reasons that should have no place in American public life. Unsurprisingly, all three of the female justices on the Supreme Court voted against Hobby Lobby.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's scathing, legally scintillating dissent should itself vindicate our sex in the face of a risibly paternalistic ruling that presumes women incapable of making their own decisions about their reproductive health. I dare any of the (all-male) justices on the opposing side to produce a more compelling and well-reasoned argument than this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/231974154/Ginsburg-Dissent
(It's worth reading the entire way through. Multiple times, if necessary.)
This ruling is a severe blow to women's rights in our country; the earlier comparison to Plessy v. Ferguson is no exaggeration. Under the guise of religious freedom, this Supreme Court decision sets a new precedent of "separate but equal" for employees of companies whose leaders believe that women ought to have less control over their sexual and reproductive lives than men do. Consider that Hobby Lobby is perfectly willing to cover Viagra, circumcision, and vasectomies -- but somehow simultaneously refuses to pay for IUDs and Plan B. This plainly demonstrates that Hobby Lobby is willing to participate in the funding of some forms of birth control and reproductive healthcare, so long as the recipients are male. The Court is essentially sanctioning corporate sexism.
The Supreme Court's majority opinion significantly undermines the credibility of the institution and the ruling, as it is laden with ignorance and misinformation about women's health, contraceptives, and even about Christianity itself. For example, intrauterine devices primarily work by preventing fertilization rather than by causing a woman's body to reject the implantation of an embryo -- which means that, even under the most conservative Christian understanding of "the beginning of life," IUDs do not negatively affect human beings with personal rights. Hobby Lobby therefore does not even have reasonable religious grounds in refusing to cover IUDs. For that matter, Hobby Lobby's 401K plans invest in some of the same medical device and healthcare companies that make the products Hobby Lobby objects to covering. This is blatantly hypocritical, and the five Catholic male justices who sided with Hobby Lobby should have seen right through it. This Economist article does an excellent job of deconstructing the hypocrisies and irrationality of Hobby Lobby's position:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/07/hobby-lobby-and-religious-exceptions
Perhaps even more disturbing, though, is the majority's insistence that a corporation should be allowed to pick and choose the elements of the healthcare it is required to provide for its employees. So long as a corporation operates in this country, it ought to adhere to all of this country's laws, especially where they concern employees who are American citizens and who depend on these laws for protection. This savvy comedian, who spoke out about the Hobby Lobby case before the Supreme Court came to its decision, points out that much as citizens have to pay all of the taxes we owe even though we might not agree with every government function that our tax dollars pay for (such as the Iraq War), a company must similarly pay for everything it is legally bound to provide for its employees, regardless of its owner's personal beliefs:
Yes, I have strong feelings about this decision, as should all women and anyone who supports equal rights for women. Let's hope that, much as Plessy was followed by Brown v. Board, that a future Supreme Court will overturn this abhorrent, misguided ruling.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's scathing, legally scintillating dissent should itself vindicate our sex in the face of a risibly paternalistic ruling that presumes women incapable of making their own decisions about their reproductive health. I dare any of the (all-male) justices on the opposing side to produce a more compelling and well-reasoned argument than this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/231974154/Ginsburg-Dissent
(It's worth reading the entire way through. Multiple times, if necessary.)
This ruling is a severe blow to women's rights in our country; the earlier comparison to Plessy v. Ferguson is no exaggeration. Under the guise of religious freedom, this Supreme Court decision sets a new precedent of "separate but equal" for employees of companies whose leaders believe that women ought to have less control over their sexual and reproductive lives than men do. Consider that Hobby Lobby is perfectly willing to cover Viagra, circumcision, and vasectomies -- but somehow simultaneously refuses to pay for IUDs and Plan B. This plainly demonstrates that Hobby Lobby is willing to participate in the funding of some forms of birth control and reproductive healthcare, so long as the recipients are male. The Court is essentially sanctioning corporate sexism.
The Supreme Court's majority opinion significantly undermines the credibility of the institution and the ruling, as it is laden with ignorance and misinformation about women's health, contraceptives, and even about Christianity itself. For example, intrauterine devices primarily work by preventing fertilization rather than by causing a woman's body to reject the implantation of an embryo -- which means that, even under the most conservative Christian understanding of "the beginning of life," IUDs do not negatively affect human beings with personal rights. Hobby Lobby therefore does not even have reasonable religious grounds in refusing to cover IUDs. For that matter, Hobby Lobby's 401K plans invest in some of the same medical device and healthcare companies that make the products Hobby Lobby objects to covering. This is blatantly hypocritical, and the five Catholic male justices who sided with Hobby Lobby should have seen right through it. This Economist article does an excellent job of deconstructing the hypocrisies and irrationality of Hobby Lobby's position:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/07/hobby-lobby-and-religious-exceptions
Perhaps even more disturbing, though, is the majority's insistence that a corporation should be allowed to pick and choose the elements of the healthcare it is required to provide for its employees. So long as a corporation operates in this country, it ought to adhere to all of this country's laws, especially where they concern employees who are American citizens and who depend on these laws for protection. This savvy comedian, who spoke out about the Hobby Lobby case before the Supreme Court came to its decision, points out that much as citizens have to pay all of the taxes we owe even though we might not agree with every government function that our tax dollars pay for (such as the Iraq War), a company must similarly pay for everything it is legally bound to provide for its employees, regardless of its owner's personal beliefs:
Yes, I have strong feelings about this decision, as should all women and anyone who supports equal rights for women. Let's hope that, much as Plessy was followed by Brown v. Board, that a future Supreme Court will overturn this abhorrent, misguided ruling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)