Is David McWilliams a demi-god or what?

Read this by David McWilliams, the only Irish columnist and commentator who has a clue, apart from Morgan Kelly.

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2009/01/28/a-mortgage-plan-that-will-save-a-whole-generation

Here is Morgan Kelly writing in Aug 2008, before the international financial meltdown:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0815/1218747921594.html

Facebook Stalkers: what can one do?

A READER WRITES: “Dear Mr Barrington, I do understand that you feel the need for a sabbatical. Indeed, I feel in a somewhat similar situation myself. However, unlike you, it is my sanity that needs to soar to higher plains. You see, I am at odds with what to do with a certain Facebook friend. She is my ex-boyfriend's sister. I have attempted – unsuccessfully to remove her as a friend from Facebook twice. On both occasions, she has somehow lured me back. Just this week, I became her friend again. Don't get me wrong. I really like her, but in order to preserve my sanity in the long run, and to help me get over the break-up more swiftly, what is the correct protocol to use in such a delicate social-networking situation? Sincerely”

BB SAYS: Ah, Facebook. What are we going to do about Facebook? Can anything be done about Facebook? The question is an urgent one - one that surely merits a temporary suspension of my Sabbatical. I know some brave people who have refused to join. “I’m not signing up to that thing!” they insist, a little too forcefully. But one by one they fall. I know other people who have desperately tried to close their Facebook profiles … and failed. Try doing it yourself. You’ll be amazed at how difficult it will be, at how many hurdles will be thrown in your path. You think you can leave any time you want to do you? I have heard of a few dogged souls who have actual managed to close their Facebook profiles. But soon someone inevitably says to them: “Did you see the photos of such-and-such a person’s wedding up on Facebook?”. And inexorably they are pulled back in. Facebook is an unavoidable part of human existence. The common cold, taxes, death … and Facebook.

Given that Facebook is unavoidable, the only question that remains is: how to manage it? How many “friends” should one have, for example? Some people engage in a frantic competition to acquire as many “friends” as possible. If someone they know has more “friends” than they do, they panic, and experience pangs of social rejection. "Why does nobody love me?" they wail. Other people sporadically cull their “friends”. I know one person who recently had such a cull – starting with the people he had never heard of. Personally, I think the optimum number of friends is 66, because that is how many friends I have on Facebook myself.

Now, what to do about your particular problem? Do not be friends with this woman if you do not want to. Get rid of her! Do not explain. Do not apologise. If she comes back with yet another invite then just press the “Ignore” button. She will not receive a message saying “X has brutally rejected your kind offer of friendship”. Instead, she will receive nothing, and be left wondering whether you have actually received the invite, or seen the invite. If she sends the invite again, then ignore it again. Be ruthless. Eventually she will give up. Press the “Ignore” button, baby, PRESS IT NOW! Then you will feel you have regained control of your existence. You will feel elated, and free to get on with the next phase of life’s great adventure.

Reader thinks “unexamined life is well worth living”

A READER WRITES: “You quoted Socrates as saying that ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’. Well I don’t examine my life at all, and personally I feel it is well worth living, thank you very much if you don’t mind all the same.”

BB SAYS: Good for you. But in order to have come to the conclusion that your life is worth living, then surely you must have first examined it in some sense, no?

SABBATICAL

Many readers have contacted me, wondering why there have not been too many posts today. I’m afraid I may need to reduce my blogging for the next while (for two days maybe) – in a belated attempt to salvage something of my marriage, my career, my health, my sanity, my life. In truth, I am exhausted. I can no longer carry the burden of my readers’ problems to the extent that I have been doing. If I were to have my own breakdown, then how could I still be expected to help others?

But fear not, I will still respond to truly urgent requests for help. I will not abandon you. No. I will not leave you.

In the meantime, I recommend that you re-read the existing posts. Savour them. Cherish them. Ponder them deeply. Print out the ones that mean the most to you, and carry them with you everywhere. You will find that these posts are literally inexhaustible. Their real meaning will only reveal itself to the most careful, thorough and diligent readers. But read no more than one or two posts a day, because there is a danger that the density of thought contained in them could lead to a mental overload, if you consume too many in one go.

Happy Philosophising. And remember the wise words of Socrates: "the unexamined life is not worth living".

Do YOU have a problem? Leave an anonymous comment, or send your problem in confidence to brianbarrington@gmail.com

David Brooks and the "Importance of Institutions"

A reader has drawn my attention to an article by David Brooks in today’s New York Times, in which Brooks praises the importance of institutions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/opinion/27brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

David Brooks is a conservative. He is a Republican. He was a supporter of George Bush. He was a supporter of the Iraq War. He has, as far as I recall, equivocated about evolution and "intelligent" design. He was a supporter of John McCain. He has argued against Obama’s Keynesian program of fiscal expansion, and he is sympathetic to free-market fundamentalism. In short, he has been utterly wrong time and time again.

Now Brooks sees fit to instruct us about the dangers of "personal liberation", and tells us that we should learn to love institutions and "institutional thinking". Brooks tut-tuts about modern notions of "personal inquiry, personal self-discovery and personal happiness". He warns against the idea that "individuals should learn to think for themselves". He cautions against the notion that people "should be skeptical of pre-existing arrangements" or that "they should break free from the way they were raised, examine life from the outside". Instead, Brooks sings the praises of "institutional thinking".

Conservatives often imply that things were better in the past, before people started getting uppity and demanding freedom. Conservatives can get away with arguing this because we have all largely forgotten just how crappy life was in the past. Are we to believe that things were better back when slavery existed? When women could not vote? When life-expectancy was about 40 years? When people were ruled by kings and priests? When homosexuals were persecuted? When most people were illiterate? When children worked in factories? When the vast majority of humanity lived like dogs? When women were burned as witches? When people were beheaded in the town square for the public’s entertainment?

The fact is: for most human beings this is the safest, most pleasant time to be alive in the entire history of humanity.

Conservatives always praise "traditions" because traditions apparently embody the cumulative wisdom of the ages. Which traditions are they talking about? The "tradition" of wife-burning that used to exist in India? The "tradition" of female genital mutilation?

The other tactic conservatives use is to argue that the progress in freedom up until now has been fine, but that it has now gone far enough, and that if we go any further society will collapse, and then you’ll all be sorry, just you wait and see, blah blah blah. This is what conservatives have always argued. If most of today’s conservatives had been around a few hundred years ago they would probably have been arguing in "moderate" tones that slavery is a useful institution and that slaves should learn to sing in their chains, because that is the cumulative wisdom of the ages, and that if slaves are set free society will collapse. They would have been telling us that women should get back in their kitchens where they can be happy, or else it will be the end of civilisation as we know it. They would have been telling us that the women they most admire are the ones who stay in their kitchens where they do the work that "gives meaning to their lives". They would have been musing about the "dangers of personal freedom", just like they are still musing about the "dangers of personal freedom".

As an example of Brook’s sophistic argumentation, consider the way he tries to blame progressives for undermining the "banking code" that previously made bankers behave themselves – thus precipitating the current financial collapse. What planet is he living on? When have bankers ever behaved themselves? What did the "banking code" accomplish back in the 1920 and 1930s when bankers did the exact same thing that they have just done now? It has been the progressives who have wanted to regulate banks, and Brook’s conservative chums who have encouraged deregulation. But somehow Brooks manages to blame all of this on the way progressives have been undermining institutions by promoting individualism.

So my question is: who cares Dave Brooks thinks? To hell with him!

“Are women not as funny as men?”

A READER WRITES: "Why is a GSOH important for men but not for women? It seems from observation it could even be a disadvantage for females in the mating game? What do your philosophers or evolutionary psychologists have to advise on this? Should women keep their ironic comments to themselves or at least confine them to their female friends? Perhaps they can give free rein if they are not on the
look-out for a rich authoritative handsome man with a GSOH?"

BB SAYS: Many men do find intelligent, funny women attractive - they especially look for intelligence and wit in prospective long-term partners, because spending your life with a boring simpleton is not much fun. However, there is a good deal of truth in what you say. Female comedians have often noted that their sense of humour does not give them quite the same sexual pull that their male equivalents seem to have. Why not?

From biological point of view, this difference is ultimately explained by our evolutionary history. DNA analysis tells us that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Competition among men for sexual partners was stiffer. In short, in order to attract partners men needed to try and do more to stand out from the crowd. This explains why so many men engage in seemingly irrational, dumb behaviour. It explains why it was so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknown regions where they will almost certainly die, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things. On average, men needed to do more showing off than women. Men go to extremes more than women. Being funny is one of numerous ways of trying to show off and saying "Look at me! Please consider having sex with me!"

Now, many men feel threatened by women who are their equal in intelligence and success. But women are, on average, at least as intelligent as men. So what should women do? There are essentially two strategies and most women deploy a combination of both. One strategy is to say "I am going to display my intelligence and wit – and if men don’t like it then that is their problem. I want a man who is strong enough to cope with the fact that I am intelligent and funny". The other strategy consists of women to some extent disguising their intelligence and wit, so as not to appear too threatening to men. The female sense of humour is often more subtle and understated – women often save the savage stuff for their female friends. Their humour often focuses more on witty self-deprecation. These strategies allow women to successfully manipulate men in order to get what they want from life. It’s not that difficult for women to do this because they generally have higher social and emotional intelligence than men.

Most women have a reasonable level of social and emotional intelligence. This is not the case with men. There are far fewer autistic women, for example. And even many men who are not technically autistic display quasi-autistic characteristics. Some people regard autism as simply an extreme version of the male brain. When a woman says she wants a man with a GSOH, she is really saying "I want a man with a reasonable level of social and emotional intelligence. I want a man who is not a social weirdo, because so many of the men I meet are weirdos". Because the vast majority of women have a reasonable level of social and emotional intelligence, there is less need for them to engage in competitive, overt displays of these skills, even if they have them. Put simply: there are far fewer female weirdos. Hence this demand for a GSOH in men – there is a demand for it because emotional and social intelligence is much more scare among men. If you think about it, very few men are in the slightest bit funny - it's just that we all notice the few that are.

In any event, you sound to me like a funny woman who is more than capable of finding a funny partner, with whom you will be able to enjoy sharing each other’s wit and humour.

Reader wants boyfriend to “buy me small presents”

A READER WRITES: “I want to get my boyfriend to buy me small surprise presents like I do for him. He says how thoughtful I am, but never buys them for me. He does buy me stuff and is very generous, but it's the small things isn't it? Or - should I stop whinging and get over it, sure amn't I lucky to have a boyfriend at all what with the recession and obama and all that kind of carry on? [i feel i should mention either the recession/obama/both in order to seem learned for your audience] ”

BB SAYS: This is an extremely common problem for women. They buy their boyfriends lots of little presents in the hope that he will “get the message” and buy lots of little presents in return.

In general men and women have a completely different attitude when it comes to presents. Men cannot understand what the big deal is. At the mere thought of buying a present, men are overcome with nausea, panic and despair. Consequently, they avoid buying presents unless they absolutely have to - and even then they sometimes don't do it. Few things bewilder them or frighten men more than the thoughts of having to try and buy someone a present. But it does not mean they don't love you.

Many women, on the other hand, live for presents. A well-chosen present demonstrates that you have been thinking about the other person, and that you understand what they want and what they like. It shows that you have made the effort to get inside their head and their heart. Hence the squeals of delight whenever a woman receives a present.

So a handy tip for men: if you want to impress a woman, just buy her a little gift. Women are absolute suckers for this kind of thing. As for women, I am afraid that, unless your boyfriend is a feminine homosexual, he is unlikely to buy you lots of little gifts on a frequent basis.

READER ANALYSIS

I have been analysing statistics of the readers of this site. I would like to say a big hello to all my readers in Belgium, Canada, China and Finland. Who the hell are you people? I would also like to especially thank the 3 readers who have each logged on to the site over 100 times in the past 4 days. Fair play to you, whoever you are.

Do YOU have a problem? Leave an anonymous comment, or send your problem in confidence to brianbarrington@gmail.com

“How can I get a promotion in the office?”

A READER WRITES: “I keep on getting passed over for promotion in the office. My boss is driving me mad. What can I do to improve my career?”

BB SAYS: Corporations are essentially feudal organisations – they are private tyrannies and deeply hierarchical. Your bosses completely control your destiny within the organisation. Hence, there is only one way to progress within any institution or organisation: suck up to your superiors. This rule applies in all organisations, whether companies, clubs, schools, political parties, universities or whatever.

According to the philosopher Aristotle: the great-souled man is insolent to his superiors, but gently ironic towards his inferiors. The great-souled man resents authority – he has what is now known as a “problem with authority”. Similarly, the great-souled man behaves with kindness towards his inferiors, since he does not feel threatened by them. The great-souled man is magnanimous.

In order to succeed in an organisation you need to follow a very simple rule: be the opposite of Aristotle’s great-souled man. Be a small-souled man, or a mean-spirited man. Be servile and submissive to your bosses. Flatter them. Grovel before them. Snivel. Humiliate yourself before them. In contrast, bully and harass your own sub-ordinates. Terrorise them.

If you follow these rules, you will certainly get a promotion. Then you will have a new boss, and the process can begin all over again.

Boring Suburbs and Feng Shui

A READER WRITES: “Dear BB - I live in a very dreary, souless part of town and I think this is why i feel very down sometimes. I would love to live in a place with nice scenery and buildings. Then I wonder if I am just a gloomy person and would I be any better elsewhwere. Do you think our environment counts a lot. Do you know anything about feng shui or do you think it would help me to look into that?”

BB SAYS: Certainly, where you live can affect your mood. The long, dark winters make many of us depressed, and we cheer up again in the brighter summers. It all depends on what kind of person you are – some people could never get by without the buzz of city life; others hate all that pollution and noise, and want to be close to nature. I am sympathetic to the view that each era of our lives is best suited to a different type of environment. When we are young, we should live in the centre of great cities, where we can meet people, have adventures and soak up the excitement of big city life. When we are raising families we should live in the suburbs. And when we are older, we should repair to the countryside, where we can enjoy the pleasures of nature and rural pursuits. Decide what stage of life you are at, or what kind of person you are, and act accordingly. Alan de Botton has written a book called the Architecture of Happiness, which may be of some use to you.

However, remember that all our problems are not likely to be solved by changing where we live. Recall the slogan: Wherever you go, there you are!

FENG SHUI:

On the broadest level, Feng Shui is the notion that we should surround ourselves with beauty, gentleness, kindness, sympathy, music, and with various expressions of the sweetness of life – by doing so we ennoble ourselves as well as our environment. Who could disagree with that?

However, alleged masters of Feng Shui now hire themselves out for hefty sums to tell people such as Donald Trump which way his doors and other things should hang. Feng shui has become another New Age "energy" scam with arrays of metaphysical products from paper cutouts of half moons and planets to octagonal mirrors to wooden flutes offered for sale to help you improve your health, maximize your potential, and guarantee fulfillment of some fortune cookie philosophy.

But don’t let the fact that Feng Shui is nonsense turn you off it. Human beings love nonsense. Nonsense is fun. Enjoy Feng Shui, even if it is all a big pile of bollocks. Just don’t waste any of your money hiring a “Master of Feng Shui”.

How To Talk About Books You Haven’t Read

A READER WRITES: “I recommend that Chris reads 'How To Talk About Books You Haven’t Read' by Pierre Bayard. I thought it was a great book.

BB SAYS: Yes, that’s a good little read, and it addresses many of the issues that Chris raises in his post, such as why people pretend to like books that they do not really like, and why they pretend to have read books that they have not really read. Pierre Bayard is a French academic who teaches literature at universities for a living. He gives lectures on Proust, even though he says he has only ever skimmed through In Search of Lost Time. He says he frequently pontificates about Joyce’s Ulysses, even though he has never read it. He says that not having read a book is not necessarily any reason not to talk about it or not to have an opinion about it.

As a general rule, we can divide human beings into those who read too little and those who read too much. Often we don’t give due consideration to the problem of reading too much. The philosopher Schopenhauer once said that reading can frequently become a substitute for thinking. Reading can also damage your imagination and creativity – how many great writers from history have PhDs in Literature? A scholar has been defined as: someone who gets paid to read the books that are too boring for the rest of us to read. In general, I try to follow Flaubert’s advice: read in order to live.

(Confession to my readers: I have not actually read How To Talk About Books You Haven’t Read by Pierre Bayard, but readers will note how this did not prevent me from discussing it knowledgeably and intelligently).

“Is Gwyneth Paltrow Human?”

A READER WRITES: "I subscribe to Gwyneth Paltrow's GOOP mails. They really annoy me because she really annoys me, but out of curiosity and the hope that some day she'll seem less like an alien I keep letting them fly into my inbox. Today's one was all these people saying what their favourite books were. She said and I agree that 'The best way to escape (not to mention the least expensive, most hassle-free way) is to curl up by the fire with an amazing, transportive novel.'

She then ruins it all with this gem 'This week I have asked a couple of my best and most literary-minded girlfriends to share their top picks. These are the women who read voraciously and with passion. No TV for them before bed (I need a little something, even 10 minutes of "The X Factor" or a forensic pathology documentary, just something, for Lord's sake!).'

As if aliens really watch x factor. She's all 'I'm human, honest!!'

I don't believe for a second that these are these people's actual favourite books, but rather the books that they hope will lead people to draw the conclusions about them that they want them to. Do you agree?

I am trying to read more, and would like you to recommend a lovely story to me and in return here's my suggestion, it's the last book I read that I loved and was so sad to finish, Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides. I know it's been out ages but I was put off because I thought it was about the place in England. It's not.

In summary – book recommendations please. Thanks. Chris"

BB SAYS: You are quite correct. When people provide lists of their “books of the year” or “what I am reading” it is nearly always an attempt to create an impression about themselves: “Look at all these high-brow books I am reading! Look how intelligent I am!”.

But, as you can see from this site, I repeatedly name-drop heavy-weight intellectuals in order to try and make myself appear more cultured than I actually am. So I am not the person to ask about this. However, I really enjoyed Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road”.

If any other reader has suggestions of good reads, or good stories, nothing too pretentious, for Chris, then please put them in the comments section.

Do YOU have a problem? Leave an anonymous comment, or send your problem in confidence to brianbarrington@gmail.com

Ex-boyfriend Plays Games

A READER WRITES: “My ex-boyfriend was some of the best sex I ever had even though I still have issues with the way he had a schedule and put me in a position to ask for sex. At times he would humiliate me and pretend to be disinterested so I'd
end up begging him. I know he enjoyed our time together as much as I did and I think that he was an idiot to play such dumb games. I never thought we would have lasted forever but I have to admit that I still think of him when I pleasure myself and sometimes hope that I could have a random encounter with him. Too bad he was a game player. Why do men play games? Why can't they be open about their feelings? Why do they try to manipulate their partners instead of opening up to them? I'd love to hear your opinion”

BB SAYS: Both women and men play games. In the game of love, people will use all sorts of subterfuges. If you are too enthusiastic too quickly, you give the impression that you are desperate, and that sets off alarm bells in potential partners. They think “if this person had other options they would not be so into me so quickly. And if this person has no other good options then it probably means there is something wrong with them. I could probably do better”. But if you show no interest at all, the person might just give up. Similarly, if you let someone manipulate you and humiliate you, that is also a sign of desperation. It’s a delicate dance, as each side tries to work out what the other is feeling without giving too much away themselves.

By keeping you in the dark about his real feelings for you, this man kept you on edge – the uncertainty is what made it so exciting. By not showing that he was interested in you, he conveyed the impression that he was better than you, and that you were lucky to be with him. Eroticism feeds on uncertainty and unpredictability. Certainty is the death of Eros. He worked out how to manipulate you.

Women often complain that men will not “talk about their feelings” or that their men will not “open up to them”. The trouble is that most men find talking about their feelings incredibly boring. That is if they have any feelings – often they don’t. Many men just want to drink beer, watch football and take the piss out of each other. To have a woman droning on about her feelings all the time is exhausting and draining. Talk about your feelings with your female friends – that is what they are for. One of the chief reasons men break up with women is because “she was wrecking my head analysing our relationship all the time and asking me how I feel about things”.

But, as I have said before: in order for a relationship to work there needs to be compromise on both sides - women need to talk about their feelings a bit less, and men need to talk about their feelings a bit more.

It sounds to me like this man had a hold over you. You deserve someone nicer.

“Burning with a Jealous Rage"

A READER WRITES: “Dear Brian, I have to travel abroad for long stretches as part of my job. This involves leaving my wife at home in the care of my best friend. My wife isn't from Ireland and so I'm thankful that there are people around to look after her when I'm not there. The problem is that I don't entirely trust my friend. He is a complex character, egotistical, self-absorbed, effeminate and a sexual predator – he’s had a string of girlfriends and possibly children across eastern europe.

Lately I've started to worry that he pays my wife too much attention and this anxiety has started to gnaw away at me. I am sad to say that I am burning with jealousy. Almost every evening when I phone home he happens to be there drinking and eating with her. The last thing I want to do is upset my wife or my friend by giving them the impression that I don't trust them.

So how can I get it across that I'm not comfortable with the present situation in a way that they will understand without causing a ruction? It's 4am where I am right now and I just can't sleep with this problem. I've started to fantasise about taking my friend hiking and pushing him off a cliff. Isn't this an awful way to think? What can I do? desperately yours.”

BB SAYS: Jealousy is a normal part of healthy relationships – we fear that our partners will meet someone better than us, and have sex with them, or fall in love with them, or run off with them. We fantasise about killing our potential sexual rivals. This is human nature. Your experience of jealousy demonstrates that you love your wife – you don’t want to lose her to another man. This is a good thing.

Personally, your friend does not sound to me like he is a better option for your wife than you are. You work hard and you love your wife. If she has any sense, she will not risk all that for a dalliance with an egotistical, self-absorbed predator. Jealousy has been defined as “Unduly concerned about the preservation of that which can be lost only if not worth keeping”. If your wife runs off with this effeminate fool, then you are better off without her, and you can find someone else. Personally, I do not think she will - she just hangs around with this guy as a way of passing the time when you are not there, but really she wants to be with you.

I would also ask you this question: Why have you chosen this egotistical, self-absorbed, predator as your closest friend? What does that say about you? In general, people choose friends who are similar to them. Good people have good friends. You sound like a good person. Why are you involved with this dreadful specimen?

“What’s so great about philosophy?”

A READER WRITES: “You keep banging on about philosophy, as if it were the solution to all our problems. What’s so great about philosophy? What is philosophy anyway?”

BB SAYS: The word “Philosophy” comes from the Ancient Greek philo-sophia, which literally means “love of wisdom”. A philosopher is a lover of wisdom – someone who seeks to attain the wisdom that he is aware he does not yet possess. But what is this “wisdom”?

A Wise Man possesses self-consciousness or self-knowledge. He knows what he is doing and why he is doing it. From the perspective of wisdom, the most important knowledge is knowledge of how to live. Self-knowledge, knowledge of human nature, teaches us how to live in order to be as happy as it is possible to be. It teaches how to live in order to have the experiences that bring us joy. For this reason, the proper study of man is man. Wisdom is expertise in the art of living – and that is the wise man’s speciality, and what the philosopher strives to attain – he strives to make progress in wisdom. From this perspective, philosophy is not a subject, nor a topic, nor a branch of knowledge. Philosophy is a way of life. It is the way of life of those who seek wisdom.

In the parable of the cave in Plato’s Republic, Socrates makes the classical statement of what a philosopher is. Humans are imprisoned in the cave, trapped by myths, ignorance, conventions, prejudices, ideologies, false beliefs, self-deceptions, superstitions, and the opinions that they have grown up with, which often originate in their families, societies or particular "tribes". People take these myths, these images on the wall of the cave, to be the truth. Consequently, they have a distorted view of reality, and of what they need to be happy. Reason liberates the philosopher from these myths and prejudices, and shows him how to escape the cave, and experience the bliss and joy that come from overcoming these myths, knowing the truth, and living in the real world - not living according to convention, but according to nature, as discovered by reason. The liberated, enlightened philosopher therefore fulfils his human nature in a way that those who accept conventions and myths do not.

The philosopher Leibniz says that "wisdom is the science of happiness. This is what we must study more than any other science, because nothing is more desirable than happiness". What is the means by which wisdom, and therefore happiness, can be attained? "We should make use of reason as much as is possible in order to know goods and evils, and in order to distinguish the great from the small, and the false from the true; in order to decide what should be done and not done in the course of this life. In a word, it is necessary to understand what reason commands, and from that comes wisdom".

This, in my opinion, is what philosophy entails.

Do YOU have a problem? Leave an anonymous comment, or send your problem in confidence to brianbarrington@gmail.com

“Am I a stupid socialist?”

A READER WRITES: “I once read a quote somewhere to this effect: ‘If one is not a Socialist in his twenties, then one has no heart. However if one is still a Socialist in his thirties, then one has no brain’. I have recently turned thirty and find myself still adhering to a 'quasi' Socialist ideology. Does this mean that I am stoop-id?? Yours worriedly

PS: I read your article on Schopenhauer’s Pessimism. I liked it, but find it slightly irksome that what I consider to be Realism, is constantly rebranded as Pessimism by others.”

BB SAYS: No, it means you are smart. You see through the free-market propaganda and ideology that has facilitated a bunch of greedy scumbags to wreak havoc on the world economy. People who have given up on social justice and progress have no heart – they are missing something. Ultimately people should find a Golden Mean between the head and the heart. We must be realistic idealists, or idealistic realists. Socialism and Progressivism are about to become hot again.

Even, Karl Marx, a philosopher who has been out of fashion for the last couple of decades, is due a Renaissance:

"Owners of capital will stimulate working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks which will have to be nationalised and State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism." Karl Marx, Das Kapital, 1867

“My husband’s philosophical mania”

A READER WRITES: "My husband has got it into his head that he can help people,
that he can solve their problems. So he spends most of his time interfering with
people and offering them disastrous advice. Now you might think this is noble -
given your own occupation with this site - but really my husband cannot run his
own life properly never mind other peoples'. He is completely delusional and has
a kind of mania about philosophising to people. Unfortunately I think your site
is encouraging him and deepening his obsession. What do you advise as a cure for
a man who needs to feed his own ego by setting himself up as some kind of
Oracle?"

BB SAYS: You raise an interesting issue: Why should you listen to anyone’s advice? Why, for example, should you listen to my advice?

The answer is: generally you shouldn’t listen to people's advice. Most advice is rubbish. How can someone else know more about your problems than you do? It’s unlikely. Also, when people give advice they frequently have their own agenda – and it might not be your agenda. What is their motive? Most advice is not worth listening to.

However, some advice is worth listening to. After all, you don’t want to be isolated and bereft of valuable information that might come from other people. Other people are a potential source of beneficial advice and information. But which people?

Listen to the advice of people who seem to be happy, good, and in control of their lives. Personally, I have always found the advice of the great philosophers to be the most useful to me. Evaluate all advice you are given – if it seems like the person is talking sense, if what they say chimes with your own experience, if you find yourself saying: "Yes, that is what I feel and what I think and what I experience", then perhaps the person is worth listening to. If not, then search elsewhere for sound advice.

As regards your husband, I suspect that most people cheerfully ignore his advice and his philosophising. It seems mostly like a harmless hobby. Don’t be too hard on him.

"I hate speaking in public"

A READER WRITES; Hello there, I have some challenges in my life that maybe you can help me with. The main one is fear of public speaking. In my job I have to give presentations to rooms filled with people very regularly. Unfortunately before each event I become stupefied with terror and even the grains of effexor that I steal from my mother don't help to calm me down. My palms sweat, my throat dries up and I know I look utterly paniced to passers by.

Someone once gave me the advice that I should picture the audience in their underwear - I'm not sure what this is supposed to achieve but the one time I tried it I got so distracted by the outlandish things that people wear under their work clothes that I couldn't concentrate. It got me to thinking that it would be fun to turn up at a public talk one day not wearing any underwear and sit up front and centre. Then when the speaker starts to imagine he'll get quite the surprise when it comes to me.

Anyway we can joke but this is a serious problem for me. When I speak I am afraid of looking afraid. I'm afraid of forgetting my material. I'm afraid of being boring. I'm also afraid that a woman hiding inside the lectern will surreptitiously fellate me while I try to present. I think this latter fear comes from watching Police Acadamy ten times or more when I was 8 years old.

So what to do? Is this pure ego - can I transcend my terrors? Should I just look for a job with not speaking role? I don't see this happening to others. What is wrong with me?

BB SAYS: First, there’s nothing wrong with you. Nearly everyone finds public speaking daunting and traumatic. You may not SEE it happening to others but inside it is happening to them. And you may think that your panic is visible to others, but it may not be like that at all - if you saw a video of yourself speaking you might be surprised how calm and competent you look. Even many speakers who appear calm and in control are terrified inside. Fear is natural and needs to be accepted. Fear of public speaking is an extremely common trait in human beings that can be traced back to our early evolution to help track what others think of us. The fear of being excommunicated from the community is literally hard-wired in us. The goal, then, should not be the complete elimination of something that is etched in our psyche - instead we need to examine the situations that set it off and try to inhibit it.

In my experience, the best way to manage it is to practice. Lots of it. Know every word of what you are going to say inside out - go over the presentation with your partner over and over again, or with someone else. Know every word on every slide. Practice with these people. You will be dreadful. You will panic in front of them. But if you practice enough then on the day it will come flowing out.

On the day itself, you just need to be afraid and speak anyway. As stupid as this seems, it’s possibly the most reliable way to gain confidence in speaking. Be afraid, be nervous, be hesitant, but do it anyway. I know this is a cliché, but it is true. Think about what you are doing in the presentation: all you are doing is speaking. You speak all the time. You are able to speak. There is no reason not to be able to do it.

Programs like Toastmasters have proved time and again that any fear, even public speaking, can be managed through practice. You may still experience anxiety but you will have the tools to manage it and make your presentations easier on yourself. Join Toastmasters.

http://www.toastmasters.ie/

It is scary to go to your first meeting and then to give your first speech, but it is a very supportive group. Many, if not most, of the people there will feel the same way as you. It is also inexpensive, and you can work at your own pace. In the beginning, there are smaller roles that you can volunteer for if you do not feel ready to give a speech (such as introducing a vocabulary word to the group or telling a joke).

If that does not work, and speaking is still making you miserable, then consider a change of career.

The Metaphysics of Hangovers

Unfortunately I am chronically hungover today, and there is a slim chance that this may affect both the quality and quantity of my blogging. However, every negative can be turned into a positive by those who mean to prevail. Hangovers offer a unique opportunity for a certain kind of profound philosophising. What other experience offers such insights into the vanity, meaninglessness and suffering of existence? Or into the follies of human behaviour? What other life-event demonstrates so conclusively that joy cannot exist without pain, nor pain without joy? Or forces us to confront our true selves, stripped of the layers pretence and self-deception that are our normal modus vivendi? No other experience even comes close to revealing the fragility of the human condition. To anyone who wants to follow the Delphic Oracle’s command to Know Thyself, the hangover is an indispensable tool.

The English writer Kingsley Amis is often regarded as the world’s greatest Philosopher of Hangovers. He speaks of ‘that vast, vague, awful, shimmering metaphysical superstructure that makes a hangover a fortunately unique route to self-knowledge and self-realisation'. He says that much of the world’s greatest literature has actually been about hangovers, while ostensibly being about something else. One suspects that much of the writing of Poe, Kierkegaard, Dostoyevksy, Sartre, Heidegger, St. Augustine and Pascal was really about hangovers. According to Amis, literature’s greatest attempt to capture the experience of the metaphysical hangover is Kafka's 'The Metamorphosis', in which the hero wakes up to discover that he has been transformed into a man-sized cockroach. I feel a bit like a man-size cockroach myself today.

The Independent: Ireland’s best newspaper

For incisive coverage of the affairs of our small yet great nation, you really can’t beat the Indo. It invariably has its finger on the pulse. The journalists at the Indo miss nothing. I would recommend buying today’s edition. In particular I would draw your attention to page 6 of the Business section. There you will find the Blog Digest, written by a promising, perceptive, quirky young journalist called Marie Boran. And in it you will see the first academic study of my work:

VISITING this blog is a bit like reading the problem pages in the Sunday magazines, except with much more intelligent insight. Writer and cyber counsellor Barrington says he uses philosophical psychology to approach people’s problems, which range from being addicted to Big Brother to a girl with a wandering eye. This blog manages to tread the line between being insightful and sensitive to those seeking advice, while adding a sprinkling of humour and a fair few giggles along the way.

"I have annoying crushes on other men"

A READER WRITES: Thank you for setting up this wonderful site. You truly are talented. I'm wondering if you can offer me some advice. I'm in a long term relationship. I love my partner and wish to spend my life with him. My problem is trivial, I suppose, but I keep getting crushes on other men, in particular my work colleagues. This has always happened to me and the crushes eventually fade but they are an annoyance, I can't seem to stop myself from getting attracted to these men. I have never let it go further than an attraction but sometimes I get sick of constantly being tempted. The feelings are stronger than normal window shopping that other people do, Is this normal?

BB SAYS: Relax! It is perfectly natural to have crushes on other people, even if you are in a long-term relationship. People tend to think that they should not be attracted to other people if they are in a happy long-term relationship, and they feel guilty about it. But it is perfectly normal. Indeed, it would be abnormal if you did not experience such attractions – it would mean that you are repressing your erotic fantasies. The day you stop having crushes is the day you stop living! You have not acted on the temptation, which shows that you are a deeply moral woman, who is capable of really loving her partner.

Healthy people have a real life and a fantasy life, and they are clear about the difference between Fantasy and Reality. What you have with your long-term partner is real. The fact that you have these other crushes shows that you have a lively fantasy-life - and this is healthy. The fact that you have not yet acted on these crushes shows that you draw a clear line between fantasy and reality. Problems start for people when the distinction between fantasy and reality becomes blurred or confused.

For example, you can idealise the men you have crushes on, because you do not have to go out with them month after month, year after year. If you were going out with one of these men, the occasional frustrations and boredom that are involved in having a relationship would start to reassert themselves, and you would eventually start having crushes on other people again. Similarly, if you tried to have a clandestine affair with one of these men, the fantasy would suddenly become a reality, and the reality would likely be very different from the fantasy – squalid, disappointing, and full of regret, pain and guilt.

Women experience a tension between their desire to be with exciting, confident, “dangerous” men, and their desire to be with a stable, reliable man who loves them and cares for them. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to resolve this tension, and each woman must try to work it out for herself as best she can.

Your post suggests that you are a self-aware, well-balanced person. I feel confident that you will make the right decisions.

Do YOU have a problem? Leave an anonymous comment, or send your problem in confidence to brianbarrington@gmail.com

Addicted to Big Brother

A READER WRITES: “i love watching celebrity big brother. does this make me a total dick? I saw the extras christmas special and vowed to never watch it again but it's like a vortex I can't resist hurling myself into. the guilt eats me up every day. when vern leapt into michelles arms and she spun him around my heart leapt! what should i do? what would you do brian barrington?”

BB SAYS: I once knew a woman who used to record the live feed of Big Brother during the night, so that she could watch what had happened the next day! She watched it for hours and hours every day. That was addiction. My impression is that you are not addicted. If you are just watching it for an hour every evening for a couple of weeks, in order to get you through a dark and miserable January, then that is not a major problem.

According to the philosopher Roger Scruton, vicarious experiences (i.e. experiences that are felt or enjoyed through imagined participation in the experience of others) are the enemy of life, the enemy of living a full life. Our media saturated society offers copious opportunities for vicarious experiences and escapism. Examples of vicarious experiences might include: playing computer games; watching professional sports; reading Mills and Boon novels; consuming pornography; reading celebrity magazines; reading superhero comics. These activities offer an escape from real life.

Personally, I think Scruton is being a bit harsh. In moderation vicarious experiences are fine – they can be a good way to relax, especially when life is getting us down. It is when vicarious experiences become excessive, when they start to substitute for real experiences, that you need to be careful that they are not becoming a replacement for the more rewarding, challenging and fulfilling activities that can make you grow as a person.

ART VERSUS FANTASY:

Works of art are, in one sense, also vicarious. But rather than bringing us into a fantasy world, true works of art teach us about reality, and thereby bring us closer to the real. They bring us closer to real life, rather than taking us away from real life. As such, art is challenging, rewarding and fulfilling in a way that many other vicarious experiences are not. Art teaches us how to live. Escapist vicarious experiences help us flee reality into a fantasy world; art brings us closer to reality.

In my opinion, the snobbishness about Big Brother can be a bit much. Big Brother offers the opportunity to watch people and learn about them. People are fascinating. So enjoy watching Big Brother in reasonably small doses - and see if you can learn anything about human psychology while watching.

Reader “increasingly bored by economic recession”

A READER WRITES: “When this whole economic dowturn thing kicked off I felt excited and energised. It was fun for a while. Now the novelty has worn off. It’s the same damn thing every night on the news - this bank has collapsed, that bank has collapsed. I mean Jesus Christ, just how many bloody banks are there out there? Or are the same banks just collapsing over and over again? Frankly, I’m bored with it and I feel that certain elements in our society have been PULLING THE ARSE OUT OF IT. Brian Barrington, please end the recession”.

BB SAYS: I wish I could, Reader, I wish I could. But I fear that ending the recession is beyond even my enormous powers. However, I feel obliged to strike a positive note amongst all this economic doom and gloom: 53% of economists reckon there is a 65% chance that the country will avoid going bankrupt, in which case there is a 72% chance that the recession will only last 12 years. So don't worry, only another 12 years to go …

The mysteries of female sexual psychology

A READER WRITES: "I am 32 years old and have been married to a wonderful man for the past 2 years. Despite being very happy with my husband I am very drawn to meeting other men for clandestine physical relationships. You see I have always loved the thrill of meeting new people and having that physical connection. I suppose the forbidden element adds to the fun. Also there are sexual experiences I want to have that I cannot have with my husband because they would potentially change the way we look at each other. I'm sure a man of your background can understand. In the beginning I thought that doing this once or twice would get it out of my system but it doesn't appear to have been the case. It's like drinking salt water to quench a thirst. So my first question to you is this: Is what I'm doing really wrong and do you think I can 'get it out of my system' and one day be satisfied with a cosy life with my husband.
I've been using gumtree and other websites to find interesting quirky people who stand out from the crowd and can be discreet.
Of course I receive hundreds of replies but can discount the usual 'fancy a shag' brigade.

One of the ways I try to illicit information about prospective partners is to ask them whether they prefer:
1. Bobbing for apples or
2. Pinning the tail on the donkey

I tend to be more attracted to those who opt for number one.
However I don't know what this tells me about the person or indeed what it tells me about me.
So my second question is can you explain this?

Finally my third question is would you fancy meeting up for a coffee in Dublin sometime. You seem like an interesting guy - although I could be wrong - perhaps you could answer my apple or donkey question above while you're at it."

BB SAYS: Very unusual indeed. Most women have very little urge for casual sex with strange men, due to differences in male and female sexual psychology. The root of these differences lies in the fact that a woman might get pregnant. So women have evolved to be much more cautious about sex than men. There is more at stake for them. Women are generally very choosy about whom they sleep with. They frequently want to make sure that the man really loves and cares about them, or that he meets some “minimum standard” – since there is often an oversupply of men who would be happy to have sex with them, if given the opportunity. Hence the saying: “Women need love in order to have sex, men need sex in order to love”. Men are much more into casual sex with random partners. The kind of woman you appear to be exists mostly only in the fantasies of sexually inadequate men. Such women are rarely encountered in the real world. However, even you seem to have criteria and standards – you only want to be with men who prefer bobbing for apples, rather than pining the tail on the donkey. How to explain these seemingly bizarre criteria? I find it hard to explain, since I myself have no interest in either activity. According to experts in sexual selection:

“Females often prefer to mate with males with external ornaments - exaggerated features of morphology. These can plausibly arise because an arbitrary female preference for some aspect of male morphology initially increased by genetic drift”

Your preferences would appear to be the result of an arbitrary female preference. Your behaviour strikes me as an unhealthy addiction – continuing it will not “get it out of your system”.

In response to your third question: I’m afraid I am not at all interesting. If we met up, you would only be disappointed. Furthermore, I am happily married.

Nevertheless, I’m beginning to think that female sexual psychology is much more complex than I previously believed. Earlier we posted a letter from a man who wants to murder someone. A girl replied:

"For some reason I can't stop thinking about this man and his murderous urges. I find him so attractive. Part of me hopes he does kill her and if he does that he gets away with it. Ooh I wonder what's wrong with me but I'm hugely drawn to this person".

Perhaps the man in question comes across as an exciting, dangerous, unpredictable male – and the woman finds him attractive because of this. However, we need to consider the possibility that the man in question is just someone who sits on his toilet and poses as a potential killer in cyberspace, in order to make himself seem more exciting and interesting than he actually is.

The peculiar sexual magnetism of stand-up comedians

A READER WRITES: “On Sunday evening my girlfriend and I attended a comedy show by the up-and-coming comedian David O’Doherty, who is known for his whimsical humour and for his use of novelty keyboards. As the show proceeded, I became aware that Mr. O’Doherty was exercising a strange sexual hold over the female members of the audience. My girlfriend even confessed to me that she found him ‘stunningly attractive’ and another woman wondered aloud whether Mr. O’Doherty was ‘in a long-term relationship or not’. I found this odd, given that Mr O'Doherty is rather scruffy looking. Can you explain?”

BB SAYS: It is, indeed, a strange one. If you look at the singles pages of any publication, people always say that they want their potential partners to have a GSOH. What is the explanation for this? Since I have no sense of humour myself, I have always found this especially perplexing. I rely on my raw, male physical appeal and my handsome features to attract women (see photo at top of this page). But I have noted that men who are far less physically attractive than me often have more success with women.

According to evolutionary psychologists, making people laugh is a way to advertise sexual fitness to potential mates. It is a fitness display. Human beings are highly social animals. In order to succeed in life and attain status, one must have good social skills. Having a good sense of humour indicates a high level of social intelligence. In order to make people laugh, one must be able to set up a mental expectation, and then knock it down. So a good sense of humour requires a keen understanding of human nature. It also requires confidence and energy, and an ability to understand what other people are thinking or feeling. All of these are useful skills in the struggle for social status and power. Social and emotional intelligence is heritable – if a person has social intelligence, he or she is likely to pass it on to any off-spring they may have. For this reason, people find people with a Good Sense of Humour attractive. They think “This person has good genes. I want to have sex with them”.

According to evolutionary psychologists, human beings are social animals who compete with each other to attain power and prestige. Every human society ever analysed has unequal distributions of power and status. As Steven Pinker puts it:

People everywhere strive for a ghostly substance called authority, cachet, dignity, dominance, eminence, esteem, face, position, pre-eminence, prestige, rank, regard, repute, respect, standing, stature, or status.

In social animals like human beings, possessing power and status within one’s group, increases one’s chances of survival and reproduction. It is therefore an adaptive advantage. Pinker continues:

In all societies people recognise a kind of dominance hierarchy, particularly among men. High-ranking men are deferred to, have a greater voice in group decisions, usually have a greater share of the group’s resources, and always have more wives, more lovers, and more affairs with other men’s wives

Power increases a human’s ability to influence affairs to his own advantage. Status is also a fitness indicator to potential mates. By flaunting one’s status, one tries to demonstrate that one has better genes than one’s competitors, and thereby increase one’s attractiveness to potential mates. A display of status advertises biological fitness and is part of sexual selection. Humour is one way of doing this.

But the struggle for status, power and prestige is a zero-sum game that involves winners and losers. As Pinker puts it:

There are only so many hours in the day, and sycophants must choose whom to fawn over, so status is a limited resource. If A has more, B must have less, and they must compete.

Everybody wants to be above average, whether in looks, intelligence, popularity, fame, or wealth. But, by definition, it is not possible for everyone to be above average. Some must win and some must lose. And this is why the struggle for prestige is a zero-sum game. Conflicts of interest are inevitable.

In conclusion, women are attracted to men who are funny, because being funny is one way of indicating status, and women are attracted to high-status males.

“I was quite content with my life until I started reading your wretched blog”

A READER WRITES: “your blog has made me question my very existence. i wake up in the morning, and if it's a weekday i leap from my bed to start the working day. i love my job (even though i am paid well below the average for what i do), i love the people i work with, i love hearing stories about the minutiae of their lives. is there something wrong with me? it seems everyone else hates their job and feels it's dispiriting. please can you help me hate my job so i can be cool like your other readers.”

BB SAYS: Thank you for your wonderfully thought-provoking letter.

It sounds to me like you are currently experiencing what the philosopher Heidegger called Angst or Existential Anxiety. What did Heidegger mean by this?

According to Heidegger, human beings are conformists – we cannot stand being different from the norm. We cannot stand distance from the crowd. We are all zombies who just do what one does. We do what our society and culture expect us to do. Even rebels and “non-conformists”, says Heidegger, are just conforming to society’s idea of what a non-conformist should be. He says “We flee from the crowd as one flees from the crowd”. We go about our everyday lives as if we are sleep-walking - we rarely if ever stop to ask “Why am I doing what I am doing? What is the point of all this? Why am I living my life like this?”

According to Heidegger, when we stop to ask these questions we realise that there is no point to what we are doing, and that there is no reason why human life and society are structured the way they are. We see that human existence is groundless and absurd, that it is devoid of real meaning and significance. At moments like this, we experience guilt, death, dread, and falling – in a word, we experience Angst or Existential Anxiety. This is what you are now experiencing.

How can we respond to this Existential Anxiety? According to Heidegger there are essentially two ways to respond. The first way is to flee back to the crowd. To become a conformist. To try and deny the meaninglessness and insignificance of human life. To embrace what Heidegger calls the “they-self” – our public self, our public role, where we behave “as one does”. This is the inauthentic way to respond to Angst.

But there is another way: the authentic way. To respond authentically involves embracing and accepting one’s Angst rather than fleeing it. It involves taking ownership of one’s Existential Anxiety. It involves facing up to the meaninglessness and absurdity of human existence. According to Heidegger, if you do this you can live an authentic life – you can radically change your way of being in the world. WHAT you do will probably not change very much, but HOW you do it will change radically. You will no longer expect to get any real meaning or significance from what you do. You will embrace the absurdity of it all.

Does this sound depressing? No. According to Heidegger, people who live like this are joyous, alive, playful, spontaneous and free. They see through the bullshit. They often retain an ironic distance from what they are doing, because they know that what they are doing is essentially meaningless and absurd. They embrace what Heidegger calls “the saving power of insignificant things”. They feel no need to always be productive or efficient. Instead, they can enjoy activities that are non-productive and inefficient – activities such as drinking wine with friends, or hiking in the hills, or running, or philosophising. These activities are joyful and free precisely because they are inefficient and non-productive. A person who responds authentically to his or her Angst becomes existentially liberated, and free to respond to his or her situation in new and inventive ways. Such people have taken ownership of their lives – they live authentic lives.

As I re-read your post and deconstruct it, I think I detect a certain level of irony in what you are saying. This suggests to me that you have high levels of authenticity. You are one of life’s free spirits. In short, you are a really cool person, just like everyone who reads this blog.

Do YOU have a problem? Leave an anonymous comment, or send your problem in confidence to brianbarrington@gmail.com

Reader sits on toilet and fantasises about murdering landlady

A READER WRITES: “I like to move my bowels with the roar of a lion first thing every morning. My grandfather taught me that this was the secret to health and happiness and I must say that once new flatmates get used to the twin fulminations of my morning ritual I am usually left alone to enjoy a cleansing half hour. Before the roaring phase I like to read a little Friedrich Nietzsche as I find his work most conducive to getting the peristaltic waves going in my lower colon. So conditioned am I, after all these years, that I can hardly have a successful evacuation without a little Zarathustra to inspire my viscera into action.

After all this reading I have become enamoured with the idea of the Übermensch, a superior man who is beyond the bounds of conventional morality. I believe I fit that mould very well and believe that laws and conventions, which have been created to keep uncultured men in order, should not apply to me. This philosophy has led me to consider murdering a certain individual - an old landlady of mine. A spiteful miserable wretch of a woman, who has never entertained a kind thought in her whole life. This usurious and mean-spirited person holds a number of vulnerable people in her thrall and I believe it would be a service to Irish people if I were to end her life.

I have considered the various laws and religious injunctions against murder but I believe, and Nietzsche would appear to support me, that these should have no hold over me. I should be free to exercise my will to achieve a higher purpose. I am not without a certain cunning and I am pretty sure I could do the deed and not be caught - I find the idea of this challenge utterly irresistible.

So that's my story and I mean every word of it. I'd like to hear your perspective - do you support my position or not? If a man was going to shoot people and you had a choice to shoot him first to stop him - would you do it? I feel my situation is very similar to this question.

BB SAYS: : There is no simple answer to your predicament. I recommend you read Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky. The anti-hero of that novel was in a strangely similar situation to you. He wanted to murder his landlady. He said to himself “What would Napoleon do in my situation? He would not hesitate to do the deed. It is only cowardice that is stopping me”. Then he went ahead and did the deed. I won’t ruin the story by going into what happens next. Suffice to say, things did not work out at all like he expected. Counter-balance your reading of Nietzsche by reading Dostoyevsky. Then you will be able to make an informed and balanced decision concerning whether or not to kill your landlady.

Reader embraces Schopenhauer’s pessimism

A READER WRITES: “You have talked on your site about the pursuit of happiness and even stated that the purpose of the site was to 'help people overcome their problems and to improve their enjoyment of life'. Although this idea sounds very appealing, I would suggest that it is impossible and unattainable. Life in my humble opinion is a horrible, painful journey which, at times, is interrupted by periods of relative calm, which we then refer to or mistake for happiness. Every problem that we have the ability to overcome is quickly replaced by another more perturbing barrier. Happiness is an ideal, a human creation alluded to by philosophers and 'wise men', in order to confuse the masses and to trick them into believing that there is something worth living for. In reality such bogus nonsense only serves to highlight how miserable we really are and therefore should not be referred to as something real or attainable. It should be left on a dusty shelf somewhere along with all of mans other bogus creations, such as Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Sasquatch and God"

BB SAYS: Thank you for your thoughtful and intelligent post. Many great philosophers agree with you. In particular the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, who has been mentioned before on this site, and who is sometimes known as the Philosopher of Pessimism. The ideas in your post are remarkably similar to his. Here is a quote from Schopenhuaer:

“To our amazement we suddenly exist, after having for countless millennia not existed; in a short while we will again not exist, also for countless millennia … That human life must be some kind of mistake is sufficiently proved by the simple observation that man is a compound of needs which are hard to satisfy; that their satisfaction achieves nothing but a painless condition in which he is only given over to boredom; and that boredom is a direct proof that existence is in itself valueless, for boredom is nothing other than the sensation of the emptiness of existence. For if life, in the desire for which our essence and existence consists, possessed in itself a positive value and real content, there would be no such thing as boredom: mere existence would fulfil and satisfy us. As things are, we take no pleasure in existence except when we are striving after something - in which case distance and difficulties make our goal look as if it would satisfy us (an illusion which fades when we reach it). Even sensual pleasure itself consists in a continual striving and ceases as soon as its goal is reached. Whenever we are not involved in one or other of these things but directed back to existence itself we are overtaken by its worthlessness and vanity and this is the sensation called boredom. We shall do best to think of life as a process of disillusionment: since this is, clearly enough, what everything that happens to us is calculated to produce”.

“There is only one inborn erroneous notion - that we exist in order to be happy. So long as we persist in this inborn error ... the world seems to us full of contradictions. For at every step, in great things and small, we are bound to experience that the world and life are certainly not arranged for the purpose of maintaining a happy existence - hence the countenances of almost all elderly persons wear the expression of disappointment.”

Nevertheless, according to Schopenhauer, wise men and sages can achieve a state of blessedness, by giving up on their attempts to be happy. If you want nothing, then you have everything you want. Life involves suffering; suffering is caused by desire; the extinction of desire is the only means to salvation. This, according to Schopenhauer, is the only way to cope with life. He says that the great ascetics have accomplished this. He also says that the aesthetic experience of great art temporarily lifts us beyond desire. Aesthetic contemplation is a temporary way to escape the pain of existence, by permitting the disinterested contemplation of reality.

Reading great philosophers like Schopenhuaer can help to liberate us from propaganda and myths – by escaping from those myths, we attain salvation - we free ourselves from the false hopes that inevitably lead to despair, and which serve only to increase our suffering and pain. It sounds to me like you are well able to see through the myths that lead us astray, and I am confident that you have the strength within you to approach the blessed state that ascetics speak of.

“Should I buy a home?”

A READER WRITES: “Should I buy a home in Ireland? My mortgage broker is advising that I buy now, as the market has bottomed out. He is offering me a one-bedroom apartment with paper walls, in a remote suburb of Dublin, for 750,000 Euro. According to property developers I know, prices are going to rise dramatically in the months ahead and ‘now is the time to buy’”

BB SAYS: Of course you should buy a home. The purpose of human existence is to own your own house. That is the reason we were put on this earth. If you take out a 35 year mortgage now, you will own your own one-bedroom apartment in 35 years, and the monthly repayments will probably only cost you about 50% of your disposable income. After 35 years, you can take out another mortgage, and if you live for a very long time (say, for four hundred years), you will eventually own a dozen properties – one to live in, and another 11 holiday homes in picturesque corners of the country.

Any fool can see that the property market has now bottomed out. Unemployment is rocketing. Wages are collapsing. The banks are starved of credit. Rents are falling through the floor. Ireland has the highest household and personal debt anywhere in the world. Multi-nationals are fleeing the country in droves. The country is littered with ghost estates and half-built apartment blocks. By conservative estimates, there are only about a couple of hundred thousand unsold properties in the country. The market capitalisation of Irish banks has decreased in the last year by an average of 97% - because they have borrowed money from foreign banks to lend to property developers, so that they could build houses that nobody can afford. When the banks collapse, taxes will need to increase hugely in order to fund the government’s bank guarantee. Emigration is starting again, the country’s population is in decline. There is massive deflation.

So all perceptive observers agree that property prices are now at rock bottom. Ignore “independent, unbiased advice” from economists and other doom-mongers. Instead, listen to property developers and mortgage brokers, because they know what’s really going on.

750,000 for a one bedroom apartment in Dublin is what is known as “a steal at twice the price”. For 750,000 Euro, you could buy a 12-bedroom mansion in the South of France with a swimming pool and 100 acres of olive trees. Or a 4-bed penthouse apartment in the upper East side of New York. But why would you do that when you can get a one bedroom apartment on the outskirts of Dublin for THE EXACT SAME PRICE? The fact that the walls appear to be made of paper should not deter you – the paper walls allow you to follow the intimate lives of your neighbours, which revitalises community life in our fragmented, isolated modern world.

If you don’t buy now, you will never own your own home. Carpe Diem.

“Your blog reminds me of diarrhoea” says misguided Richard Dawkins fan.

FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER WRITES: “Seeing the incredible volume of output on your blog this week, it is as if you've had years of constipation and now suddenly you've had a dose of the runs. Let it flow, let it flow, let it flow”

BB SAYS: Thank you for comparing my website to diarrhoea.

Your moniker appears to be a reference to Richard Dawkins, who uses the example of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to try and expose what he believes to be a fallacious argument sometimes used to defend belief in God. When atheists complain that the existence of God cannot be proven, believers sometimes reply that the existence of God cannot be disproven either, and that one should therefore believe in Him. According to Dawkins, this argument is an example of shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof exists on the person who claims that a particular entity exists. It is not possible to prove a negative. Suppose I claim that a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists somewhere in outer space. You may object that I cannot prove that such an entity exists. I reply that you cannot disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster either, and that therefore you should believe in It.

However, in my own opinion, Dawkins is guilty of using his own fallacy in this argument: the fallacy of false analogy. A Flying Spaghetti Monster would be a physical, material entity that exists in time and space. It would therefore be possible in principle to empirically verify the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster – by going and looking at it, for example. However, God is supposed to exist beyond time and space, outside of the physical, natural world. God is a supernatural entity, not a natural entity, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. God transcends the phenomenal world. Because of this, it is not possible to empirically verify the existence of God. God is a fundamentally different type of entity to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That is why belief in God tends to be based on faith, rather than evidence. When it comes to natural entities like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we tend to demand empirical evidence for their existence. But for a supernatural entity like God, no such empirical evidence is possible, because God is a fundamentally different kind of entity. The religious virtues are faith, hope and love. The ability to spot an empirically verifiable hypothesis is a scientific virtue, not a religious one.

In any case, the multiverse is a VERY big, peculiar place, and there may well be Flying Spaghetti Monsters out there somewhere. If people want to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then I support their right to do so.

Do YOU have a problem? Leave an anonymous comment, or send your problem in confidence to brianbarrington@gmail.com

Metaphysics and Anal Sex: the connection

A READER SAYS: “Dear Brain Barrington, My wife and I have been married for 2 years but a fundamental disagreement threatens to tear our marriage apart. She has developed a radical attachment to the epistemological deductions of Logical Positivism - she cannot abide my interest in Metaphysics and has thrown out a lot of my books. She takes every opportunity to rubbish a priori propositions in front of our friends just to belittle me. This has shaken our relationship to its foundations. As well as this she is insisting that we cut down on anal sex as she says that it's degrading. I don't think we can continue - I can't see a way out but there are children involved and for their sake I want to try - I really do. What would you do Brian Barrington?? Console me with your philosophy.”

BB SAYS: Your relationship appears to suffer from a basic problem of lack of mutual respect. A successful relationship requires compromise. If your wife agrees to become more tolerant of your metaphysical musings, then in return you can agree to become more tolerant of her lack of interest in anal sex.

But it can be very difficult for a relationship to survive basic and important metaphysical disagreements of this sort. I would recommend that you both take a course in Husserl’s Phenomenology – it may provide a philosophical framework that leaves room for both metaphysical speculation and logical positivism – it will permit your wife and you to “bracket” your metaphysical disagreements, and make philosophical progress in other areas.

Regarding your sexual issue: according to Christopher Hitchens “the four most over-rated things in life are champagne, lobster, anal sex and picnics.” Solve your problem by focusing on the other over-rated things in life – bring your wife for a champagne and lobster picnic. If this does not work, consider confronting the probable source of your obsession with anal sex: your repressed homosexuality. Your sublimated homosexual energy may be manifesting itself in your metaphysical flights of fancy. The two problems are likely to be connected.

Gratitude

I would like to thank readers for the exceptional interest they have shown in this website since it was launched. It has been inundated with requests, comments and questions. It may take some time to respond properly, but I promise to respond to all inquiries, either on the site, or privately. I do not wish to rush the response, but to give each query the time it deserves. I would also like to thank readers for their compliments and encouragement (and criticism too!). If you have found the site entertaining or useful, then please tell people you know about it, so that they can participate as well.

All the best, BB

"Perfect Happiness Unachievable"

A READER WRITES: “BB, I'm not sure you are helping society with your blog in that you are raising expectations in people that happiness is achievable. Do you think it is possible to determine if a person is happy or not. Do yo think there is a measurable point where we 'see the light' and become happy. Are you so naive as to think that there is some universal standard of happiness that we can aspire to or if you think there is, have you any suggestions how one might identify when it is reached. If perfect happiness cannot be achieved, then we are in constant pursuit of something that cannot be achieved which can only lead to frustration, or if perfect happiness does exist, then having achieved it we have nothing left to aspire to which also leads to frustration. BB you are sending us on a wild goose chase, I respectfully request to spend some time researching the benefits of Nihilism. Yours Truly. Q”

BB SAYS: Thank you for your comments and pertinent questions. I think our positions are actually much closer than you might think.

Once one accepts that perfect happiness is unachievable, one becomes liberated to enjoy life for what it is, without false hopes. False hopes eventually create despair, when those hopes are not realised. As the philosopher Spinoza says: “Fear cannot exist without hope nor hope without fear”. By conquering hope, one overcomes despair and fear, and achieves a kind of liberation. Perhaps the by-line on this site should read “Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here”.

But even if perfect happiness is not possible, is it possible to increase one’s happiness? You advocate abandoning the quest for “perfect happiness” because doing so will reduce frustration. But surely reducing frustration increases happiness? According to Spinoza, by abandoning hope and delusions, and living in the real world, one can approach a state of blessedness and bliss.

Is it possible to determine if a person is happy or not? One method used by researchers is to ask people if they are happy or not, or to rate their own levels of happiness. People self-report widely varying levels of happiness. Are those reports correct? It’s difficult to know. One is reminded of Woody Allen in his film Hannah and Her Sisters:

Allen: “I can't think. This morning I was so happy. - I don't know what went wrong.”
Friend: “You were miserable this morning.”
Allen: “I was happy, but I just didn't realise I was.”

Shakespeare was not “a minor English poet”, complains reader

A READER WRITES: “You refer to a ‘minor’ English poet who advises us that ‘the course of true love never did run smooth’. I remind you that the poet in question was William Shakespeare. He was the greatest English poet of all time. There was nothing ‘minor’ about him”.

BB SAYS: Thank you for pointing out this correction. Shakespeare was, indeed, not a minor poet. Consider this marvelous quote from Macbeth:

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Reader wants to “achieve stuff”.

A READER WRITES: “Your website doesn't exactly inspire me to work harder on my very important documents in my very important job...don't you realise I am trying to achieve stuff here....and your writing only inspires me to go for a walk and look at stuff??”

BB SAYS: If you enjoy frenetic activity and busyness, then that is probably what you should be doing.

But I invite you to consider the thoughts of the French thinker Pascal. He says “nothing is so insufferable to man as to be completely at rest, without passions, without business, without diversion, without study. He then feels his nothingness, his forlornness, his insufficiency, his dependence, his weakness, his emptiness. There will immediately arise from the depth of his heart weariness, gloom, sadness, fretfulness, vexation, despair. Since men are not able to fight against death, misery, ignorance, they have taken it into their heads, in order to be happy, not to think of them at all.”.

But according to Pascal, the attempt to use activity, distraction and busyness to avoid confronting the truth of our human condition is doomed to fail - “all of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone … Error does not lie in seeking excitement, if people seek it only as a diversion; the evil is that they seek it as if the possession of the objects of their quest would make them really happy. In this respect it is right to call their quest a vain one. He who does not see the vanity of the world is himself very vain.”.

Pascal concludes: “If our condition were truly happy, we not need diversion from thinking of it in order to make ourselves happy. The only thing which consoles us for our miseries is diversion, and yet this is the greatest of our miseries. For it is this which principally hinders us from reflecting upon ourselves and which makes us insensibly ruin ourselves. Without this we should be in a state of weariness, and this weariness would spur us to seek a more solid means of escaping from it. But diversion amuses us, and leads us unconsciously to death.”

NEWSFLASH: Many female readers claim to have boyfriends who are jerks

In a post earlier today, a female reader of this site confessed that she suspects that her boyfriend is a “jerk”. Since then, floods of women have contacted me, saying that they also think that their boyfriends might be jerks. Why are women seemingly so attracted to jerks? One reader provided the below list of reasons. It might help women to understand why they are going out with jerks, or why they are attracted to jerks. The list also might offer tips to help single male readers become jerks, and thereby increase their success with women.

TEN Reasons Women Go Out With Jerks Instead of Nice Guys:

10) More fun to complain about them to your friends.

9) Guys who actually like you just aren't challenging or exciting.

8) When you do date nice guys, they turn into jerks anyway, so why not save time and go for the jerk in the first place?

7) You won't get as emotionally attached to a jerk, so you'll be more in control.

6) All the other women want them, so they must be worth having.

5) Affection means more when it comes from a guy who doesn't normally give it.

4) Guaranteed to cheat on you so someone else can endure his lack of lovemaking skills most of the time.

3) No need to feel guilty for abusing or deceiving them

2) Jerks will actually tell you when they don't like what you're doing instead of getting mad about it six months later.

1) Looking for someone you can't trust, and won't care about too much, but who will abuse you mentally and financially, but you don't know any lawyers?

Reader experiences Schadenfreude when hearing about other people’s problems

A READER WRITES: “why does it make me feel so much better about myself when i read other people's problems? is that the right grammar? people's or peoples'? your readers will probably be judging me on my poor grammar. [readers'?]. anyway. bottom line - churn out more problems the crazier the better. it'll cheer me up because i'm nasty like that.”

BB SAYS: Your grammar is perfectly correct. In any event, grammar is unimportant, as long as your meaning is clear, which it is.

So hearing about other people’s problems makes you feel better? This is perfectly normal, and, indeed, desirable and mentally healthy.

Unhappy people have a tendency to automatically compare themselves with people who are better off than themselves, to people who have fewer problems than they do themselves. People who are worse off are invisible to them. Even if they are objectively in quite a good situation, these type of people can still be desperately unhappy, because they constantly compare themselves with the few people who are better off than they are, while ignoring the huge amount of people who are worse off than they are.

In contrast, happy people have a tendency to automatically compare themselves to people who are worse off than they are, or to people who have more problems than they do. This makes them grateful for what they have, and it keeps their own problems in perspective.

In general, people have a tendency to feel like failures, and to believe that there are legions of normal, balanced, mentally healthy, productive people out there who do not have any problems. In reality this is not the case. In reality EVERYONE is messed up, and EVERYONE feels like a failure, and EVERYONE has problems. But the erroneous belief that there are lots of people out there who do not have many problems is part of the reason that people feel like failures – they are comparing themselves against a mythical standard of “normalcy” that does not in fact exist. If you realise that everyone is a failure, at least in some respects, then it helps you to feel a bit better about your own failings.

Life is difficult. Just getting through the day is a total triumph. If you manage to get through the day, then give yourself a pat on the back, and dare to feel good about yourself, because getting through the day is about all that can be expected from life.

“Work is dispiriting, but also necessary” suggests a reader.

A READER WRITES: “BB, I agree and identify with much of what you say about work being dispiriting and that ambition does not lead to happiness. However, if everyone lived as you suggest (or I, myself, would like to): not working (or at least not working very hard), not focused on achievement, would this necessarily make a better society? After all, we rely on driven types to provide us with things to make our life easier: electricity, roads, medicine etc... And doesn’t our happiness depend, to some degree, on a functioning, rational society (as opposed to, say, an anarchic one)?”

BB SAYS: You make some superb points, and I agree that this is an immensely difficult area. I would invite you to consider the below ideas:

Think about the people you know. What is one of the things that they complain about the most, or that causes them the most agony and misery? Their jobs. They feel imprisoned and trapped in their jobs. They hate it. They sit in traffic for hours everyday, they sit at their desks for hours everyday, they subject themselves to bullying and humiliation from their bosses – and all for nothing.

Here is the big secret of capitalist societies: there is very little work that actually NEEDS to be done. Machines and computers can do most of it. The “work” that actually needs to be done by human beings, could be done without too much fuss or bother. This is why there is unemployment and (more importantly) underemployment or disguised unemployment. It is also why there are so many “jobs” that are not really necessary. The capitalist system manufactures demand for many products and services that people do not really need. The purpose of the system is to create WAGE-SLAVES, in order to keep the masses under control. In advanced capitalist societies, wage-slavery has replaced slavery and serfdom as the chief mechanism for keeping the masses under control. Capitalism is designed to keep most people in a state of DEBT, so that they need to remain in employment and in servitude. As Ambrose Bierce once said “Debt is an ingenious substitute for the slave-driver’s whip”.

Previous revolutions overturned slavery and serfdom. There still needs to be a final revolution to overturn wage-slavery, and eliminate the concept of “employment”, which is inherently an unjust, exploitative, master-slave relationship, that reduces people’s freedom. Although it may be difficult at the moment to see how such revolution or reform could happen, it still needs to happen. In previous eras, people would have had difficulty seeing how slavery or serfdom could be overturned. We need to think in terms of centuries, not decades. As technology improves, the need for work actually decreases – people should have more leisure time, not less leisure time. In a properly organised society, there would be no employment and no corporations. People would still “work”, but on their own terms. They would devote themselves to philosophy, art and genuinely creative pursuits. This may seem idealistic, but I repeat: there was a time when the abolition of slavery and serfdom seemed “idealistic”.

Our main objection should not be to work, invention or creativity. As you point out, these can all be good things. We do not object to people being driven. We do not object to Franklin inventing electricity or Curie inventing penicillin. We do not object to other people making similar inventions in the future. Nor do we object to people doing the things that really need to be done by human beings. Our main objection is to the concept of employment and the concept of the corporation, which cause so much misery and waste. The concept of the Corporation needs to be replaced by the concept of the Co-operative.

On an individual level, how do people respond to the unjust condition of being employed? They rebel in various different ways – either by refusing to work, or by pretending to “work” and engaging in silent rebellion against the forces that oppress them. I hold to the hope that such rebellion and disobedience will eventually create a better future for all of us.

As Oscar Wilde once said: “Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion”.

For more information on wage-slavery, look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

Consider the attached analysis from Noam Chomsky, who is currently the world’s most influential intellectual, and who has long been a fierce critic of capitalism, corporations and wage-slavery:

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Noam%20Chomsky%20on%20Private%20Tyrannies%20--%20Corporations