Did Jesus Ever Laugh? Thomas More versus Erasmus

According to Thomas More (Renaissance philosopher and author of “Utopia”, an imagined perfect community) Jesus never laughed in the gospels. More (pictured right) thinks that the purpose of this absence of laughter was to show us that this life is a vale of tears: `To prove that this life is no laughing time, but rather the time of weeping, we find that our saviour himself wept twice or thrice, but never find that he laughed as much as once...'

And if you look through the four New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, you will see that Jesus never laughs.

But the four gospels of the New Testament are only a fraction of the gospels written to recount Jesus’ life – they are the Canonical Gospels. However, in addition to these there are numerous Gnostic Gospels, written in the centuries after Jesus’ death, but rejected as unsatisfactory by the Church authorities. In one of these, "The Gospel of Judas" Jesus laughs four times - and he laughs at his disciples, because they have distorted his message and got it so wrong. "Master, why are you laughing at us?" asks Judas. It turns out that only Judas truly understood Jesus' teachings, according to this gospel. Apparently the Gospel of Judas interprets Judas Iscariot’s "betrayal" of Jesus as not a betrayal at all, but rather as an act of obedience to the instructions of Jesus - because Jesus required a second agent to set in motion a course of events which he had planned. According to this gospel, Judas Iscariot was a hero, rather than a betrayer, and the other four gospels maligned him.

Thomas More's friend, the famous Renaissance humanist Erasmus, had a different view of Jesus. He believed that Jesus was an Epicurean. Recall that few were more despised and mistrusted by Christians than the godless, materialist, hedonist Epicurus, who languishes in the sixth circle of Dante's hell. Epicureans think that pleasure is all that is ulitmately of real value for human beings. And here is what Erasmus says about Jesus:

"If people who live agreeably are Epicureans, none are more truly Epicurean than the righteous and godly. And if it's names that bother us, no one better deserves the name of Epicurean than the revered founder and head of Christian philosophy Christ, for in Greek epikouros means `helper'. He alone, when the law of Nature was all but blotted out by sins, when the law of Moses incited to lists rather than cured them, when Satan ruled in the world unchallenged, brought timely aid to perishing humanity. Completely mistaken, therefore, are those who talk in their foolish fashion about Christ's having been sad and gloomy in character and calling upon us to follow a dismal mode of life. On the contrary, he alone shows the most enjoyable life of all and the one most full of true pleasure."

Literary Bluffers and Show-offs. Exhibit A: Nabokov

I like simple styles. As Stendhal says “Only great minds can afford a simple style”. So I am suspicious of people who write “dazzling” prose in an affected manner. You know the type. Those writers for whom style is so much more important than substance; those show-offs for whom the way something is said is so much more important than the thing which is said; those little boys who always seem to be trying just a bit too hard to impress us with the cleverness of their sentences. Even when they have little or nothing to say, by God they intend to say it, and they intend to say it brilliantly.

AA Gill (right) does it wonderfully, despite his dyslexia. He’s the best thing you will find in the Sunday papers. Martin Amis (below) tries to do it, but doesn’t quite pull it off, which is a bit embarrassing for everyone involved. Then there is Clive James. John Banville is another one. We’ll go easy on him because he’s Irish. Taking it up a notch, there is Saul Bellow. And then perhaps Joyce, when he gets a bit carried away. And Vladimir Nabokov (above). Ah Nabokov. Don’t like him at all. Never liked him. Never really read him. So the other day I picked up “Transparent Things”, and started to read it so that I could scoff at it.

And?

Well. I had to quickly engage in one of my characteristic 180 degree pivots. The writing is just amazing. Stunning. You have to take off your hat. How can someone write like that? It’s the literary equivalent of watching Lionel Messi playing football. How did he do that? You can even see the effects of reading Nabokov on this blog, as I try to be all clever in my prose. Now, you won’t have read “Transparent Things”, it being one of his lesser known works (and it wouldn’t do at all for me to be reading something well-known by him, would it? Oh no. I just had to come up with something impressively obscure). But you will all have heard of “Lolita”:

Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita.

You are now nodding your head and muttering “great opening” to yourself. How about this opening line from another of his novels, “Pale Fire”:

I was the shadow of the waxwing slain
By the false azure in the window pane;
I was the smudge of ashen fluff - and I
Lived on, flew on, in the reflected sky

I don’t know what this means, and neither do you, but it sounds cool doesn’t it? Every so often a bit of fancy writing doesn’t go astray. If you can recommend any more stylish writing of this sort, then please let me know.

Burning 18.3 billion of your money

I hope they are lying. I hope the government does not really intend to put 18 billion more into Anglo-Irish Bank. I hope they are just pretending that they are going to give Anglo all this money in order to boost “international confidence” - but that really they intend to wind it down. That’s our only hope now. That the government is lying.

According to Lenihan "Winding-up the bank is not and was never a viable option" because an immediate wind-up would lead to a fire sale of assets resulting in additional losses of €30bn. Yes, but those losses would NOT fall on the Irish taxpayer, if the winding up takes place AFTER the government bank guarantee lapses at the end of this year. And unless the government is insane, they will allow this guarantee to lapse. The foreign banks to whom Anglo-Irish Bank owes money would then need to make the best of it once the bank is closed down.

So really the government must be lying. Because if they are NOT lying, you know what this means? You want to know why the government would be doing this? It’s hard to believe the reason. I have difficulty believing it myself. It is incredible. But here is the reason: if Anglo-Irish Bank is closed, the foreign creditors will seize all the worthless property and land and sell it at knock down prices. That would mean that houses and apartments and land would become affordable to ordinary Irish people, which would be great for the people who live here, and a great boost to our economy’s competitiveness. But it would be a disaster for Fianna Fail and their property developer chums, as well as for the other banks.

Think about that all you young people out there, as your pay is being cut, or you are losing your job, or as you struggle to pay your mortgage, and are told that there is “no money” for any of these things. The state is taking 18 billion of YOUR money and pouring it down a hole. That is eighteen thousand million euro. You could build about 50 major hospitals for that, assuming each hospital cost 300 million euro. We have become so accustomed to hearing these large figures being thrown around that we no longer know what they mean – how many schools will be underfunded, how many hospitals will be understaffed, how many people’s incomes will be reduced, in order to pay for it.

Pedal Pumping – the hot new sexual fetish

Apparently “pedal pumping” is a strange sex fad in conservative America, in which men watch women trying to start stubborn cars.

According to the Daily Beast:

“The foot is slender, sleek, unmistakably female, and about a size 8, partially enclosed in a six-inch, sequinned white-satin stiletto sandal. In the video, it repeatedly and fruitlessly depresses the car's gas pedal as the woman revs the ignition and coaxes, "Come on. Start." Cherry-red polish glints on her nails, and a gold ring encircles her middle toe.

Aroused yet?

If so, congratulations: You're into pedal pumping”

Personally, I find it implausible that only conservative, working class Americans would find this a turn on.

The United States joins the Civilised World

I see the United States has passed health care. Or that’s the impression I’m getting any way. It’s impossible to work out what the hell is going on over there. At the very least, it appears that something a bit like universal health care has sort of been passed. Whatever. It sounds to me like good news over all.

But Jeez, you underestimate the persistence this guy Obama at your peril don’t you? People have spent the last year denouncing him for being “weak” and “vacillating”. The right have relentlessly targeted his health care reform, calling it “socialist” and “communist”. For a while it looked like this campaign had worked, because a couple of months ago Obama lost his super-majority in the Senate. Who would have bet on health care reform passing then? Not me. But now Obama has achieved what so many Presidents have tried and failed to do. This is the most significant piece of social legislation in the US for the last 60 years. The bill is imperfect, but it’s a start. Once the principle of universal health coverage is established, it always proves wildly popular, and impossible to reverse.

There's nothing Modern about Post-modernism

A READER WRITES: “I must object to your response to my question. I can’t believe that you don’t prefer the excitement and originality of postmodernism to dry, boring, passionless analytical philosophy. What a yawn it is! At least the postmoderns aren’t boring – they are saying something new and fresh.”

BB SAYS: There’s nothing modern about postmodernism. People have been saying the exact same things that postmodernists say since at least the time of the Ancient Greeks. For example the Ancient Greek sophist Gorgias wrote a book called On the Non-Existent in which he made the following three claims:

1. There is no such thing as reality.
2. Even if there was such a thing as reality we couldn’t know anything about it.
3. Even if we could know something about reality, we could not communicate it using language.

Well, that’s basically what all the postmodernists say. Whether it’s Derrida (pictured above trying to look enigmatic), Lacan, Foucault, or Braudrillard. All these writers are making the same three banal points. If you look beneath all their jargon, and all their self-important posturing, they are just saying the same things that Gorgias said over 2000 years ago. But they dress it up in fancy language in order to make it appear more original, more complex and more mysterious than it is. What they are saying is neither original nor interesting.

Postmodernism is what happens to many people who spend too much time in university arts departments. They start thinking that there is no reality for words to refer to. And why wouldn’t they think that?

So again, I reject BOTH the continental, postmodern approach to philosophy AND the pro-science, ultra-rational analytic approach. True philosophy consists in the Golden Mean between these two approaches. A great philosopher is both a scientist AND an artist, both a Presocratic AND a Sophist. For example, the Platonic dialogues, in which Socrates is the hero, provide a way of speaking about human life and the world that is both scientific and poetic, both rational and passionate, and hence superior to either science or poetry.

The Banker as Psychopath

Quite a few readers have contacted me to say that I should not be feeling any “pangs of sympathy” for Sean Fitzpatrick, given that he has cost the country billions that could have been much better spent on schools ‘n hospitals. He has ruined and damaged countless people's lives. And now he has been released, for the moment.

I agree that he should be locked up forever, but I reserve the right to feel some sympathy for people. The difference between normal people and the psychopaths who run banks is that the latter are incapable of feeling ordinary human emotions such as sympathy, pity, empathy, guilt or shame. Psychologists say that sociopaths or psychopaths are simply missing the normal human moral emotions, and that is why they act as they do. They can feign feeling these emotions but they don’t really feel them. Some estimates suggest that 2% to 4% of men are sociopaths, to one degree or another. Hardly any women are sociopaths. Senior figures in politics, business and finance often display psychopathic behaviour. The stereo-type of the psychopath is that he must be a serial killer, but that's not the case at all.

In any event, although we should be aware of psychopaths, we should not become like them, since what distinguishes us from them is precisely the ability to feel compassion for the suffering of others.

The characteristics of pyschopaths are, in terms of clinical diagnosis:

1. Glibness/superficial charm
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth
3. Pathological lying
4. Cunning/manipulative
5. Lack of remorse or guilt
6. Emotionally shallow
7. Callous/lack of empathy
8. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
9. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
10. Parasitic lifestyle
11. Poor behavioral control
12. Promiscuous sexual behavior
13. Lack of realistic, long-term goals
14. Impulsiveness
15. Irresponsibility
16. Juvenile delinquency
17. Early behavioral problems
18. Revocation of conditional release

As is clear, most of the above characteristics apply to the people who run our financial systems. The reason these kind of people end up in control of banks is precisely because they are psychopaths, since no morally normal person would do what is required in order to gain control of a bank. We should acknowledge this obvious fact and regulate banks accordingly. But we should strive to feel sympathy and compassion for everyone, even though it is often very difficult to do so.

Help Kevin Myers Leave Ireland

In a recent article in the Independent, Kevin Myers expressed a wish to leave Ireland and go and live "somewhere civilised". A Facebook Group has been created for people who would like to support him in this, and even contribute to paying his air fare out of the country.

If you would like to join the group and help Kevin Myers fulfill his dream of leaving Ireland, please click below.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=373581257868

Finally

Seanie has been arrested.

There was a documentary recently where a typically obnoxious reporter hunted down Sean Fitzpatrick on the street and started hounding him with questions. Fitzpatrick did his best to scurry away from her. “Are you sorry for what you did?” she shouted at him. “Of course we are sorry” replied Fitzpatrick. He sounded like he meant it. To date, he has been co-operating fully with the authorities during all investigations, unlike some of the other senior banking figures.

As I watched him slink away from the reporter, down the steps into the basement of some building, a pathetic figure, I felt a pang of … of … well … I felt a pang of pity for him.

The Philosopher’s Ten Commandments

1. Do not fear Death. Do not hate Death. To hate death is to hate life, since one entails the other.

2. Pursue all things in moderation, save wisdom. Follow the Golden Mean.

3. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

4. Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead.

5. Seize the day. Enjoy what you can, endure what you must.

6. Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand.

7. Know Thyself. The proper study of mankind is man.

8. Know what things are in your power, and what things are not in your power.

9. Question Everything. Know what you know, and know what you do not know

10. Make your quest for knowledge both a means to an end, and an end in itself.

Notes: Broadly speaking, the first five commandments deal with the moral virtues, while the second five deal with the intellectual virtues. According to Aristotle, if someone possesses both moral and intellectual virtue, they possess complete expertise in the art of living, in both a practical sense and a theoretical sense. Commandment Number 1 relates to courage and is based on the Epicurean teaching about death. Overcoming the fear of death is the key to living courageously. Commandment Number 2 is based on Plato’s teaching about the virtue of moderation. Number 3 is the Golden Rule, the essence of morality and justice, found in all societies. Number 4 is from Oscar Wilde. It deals with love, compassion and charity – which is the one great virtue missing from the traditional Greek list of the four cardinal virtues. Number 5 is a combination of an Ancient Roman axiom, and a quote from Goethe, dealing with prudence or wisdom – completing the list of the cardinal virtues. This quote from Goethe combines what is best in Stoicism (“endure what you must”) with what is best in Epicureanism (“enjoy what you can”). Commandment number 6 is from Spinoza – and deals with the power of knowledge to reduce suffering. Number 7 is from Socrates. Number 8 is from the great Stoic philosopher Epictetus. Number 9 is from the Socratic: “I know only that I know nothing”. The 10th commandment is an exhortation to be curious at all times, since, according to the philosopher Hobbes: “Desire to know why, and how - curiosity, which is a lust of the mind - exceedeth the short vehemence of any carnal pleasure.” Commandments 9 and 10 complement each other – the wise man is neither an extreme skeptic, nor an extreme dogmatist – he pusues the Golden Mean in all things.

Continental philosophy versus Analytical philosophy

A READER WRITES: “As you doubtless know, there are two main schools of philosophy in the contemporary Western world. The first is Analytic Philosophy, which predominates in the English speaking world, and which often focuses on logic and science. The second is Continental Philosophy, which dominates on mainland Europe, and which is associated with postmodernism and existentialism, and which may be said to be more artistic in outlook. Which school do you favour?”

BB SAYS: I favour neither. A plague on both their houses. My philosophical hero is Socrates, and my guess is he would not have had much time for either Analytical philosophy or Continental philosophy.

From a Socratic point of view, today’s Analytic philosophers are analogous to the Presocratics of Ancient Greece, and today’s Continental philosophers are analogous to the Sophists of Ancient Greece. Socrates is famous for attacking both the Presocratics and the Sophists. If Socrates was around today, I think he would be hostile to both Analytic Philosophers and Continental Philosophers.

Socrates attacked the Presocratics for not putting human beings at the centre of their investigations. For Socrates, the proper study of mankind is man. The Presocratics, by focusing on questions of science, logic, maths and metaphysics, forgot that wisdom consists not in that kind of knowledge, but rather in knowledge of how to live well. In this respect, they were like many contemporary Analytic Philosophers, with their emphasis on logic and science. For example, logic might be a means to the end of attaining wisdom, but by focusing too much on it, a certain type of philosopher is in danger of forgetting the ultimate end towards which he properly must strive. That is true of the Presocratics, and it is also true of today’s Analytical philosophers.

The objections that Socrates directed towards the Presocratics could plausibly be directed at many of today’s Analytical Philosophers and Scientists.

Socrates attacked the Sophists for a different reason. The sophists, like today’s Continentals and postmodernists, were experts in using fancy words in order to impress audiences. They could use clever arguments to confuse people - or to entertain people in order to get attention for themselves, and to attain fame, notoriety and money. But really they were not interested in truth. The Presocratics, for all their faults, were at least genuinely interested in truth. The sophists, on the other hand, had a tendency to indulge in super-sophisticated discourse, the purpose of which was more often to try and impress or confuse, rather than to attain truth.

The objections that Socrates directed towards the Sophists could plausibly be directed at many of today’s Continental philosophers and postmodernists.

Socrates, and those who follow him, represent the true spirit of philosophy. Socrates combined what is best in Continental Philosophy (the openness, and the focus on the human condition, the artistry) with what is best in Analytic Philosophy (the clarity of language and the love of truth, reason and rationality).

So both Continental philosophy and Analytical philosophy are corruptions of true philosophy. At their best (Heidegger in Continental Philosophy and Wittgenstein in Analytic Philosophy) they can teach us useful things and they can approach genuine philosophy. But overall, they have lost sight of the Socratic inheritance. Heidegger is great because he transcends the limitations of the Continental school, and Wittgenstein is great because he transcends the limitations of the Analytic school.

Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confused

Will not be blogging for the next week or so my little chums – taking some time out to research some seriously interesting posts, which I will share with you upon my return. While I am away, I invite you ponder these words of wisdom from Alexander Pope (of all people)

“Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of Mankind is Man.
Plac'd on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest,
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
In doubt his Mind or Body to prefer,
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much:
Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confus'd;
Still by himself abus'd, or disabus'd;
Created half to rise, and half to fall;
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;
Sole judge of Truth, in endless error hurl'd:
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world!”

Mullingar Judge Neilan: A new hero for our nation

Local legend Judge John Neilan, known for his intemperate outbursts in Midland courts, has now become an official NATIONAL legend – a spokesperson for a whole generation of fucked-over young Irish people.

Angrily dismissing a case in which a couple owed a bank money for a confusing car loan, Neilan announced that he would rather “lie in a gutter with a pig” than meet a banker. Leaving aside the undertones of beastiality, few would disagree with the general sentiment here.

He lashed out at bankers for "flying off to lovely places", "sunning themselves" and having board meetings so elaborate that "the king of Saudi Arabia wouldn't be as well feted". He continued: "If they had an ounce of decency, then they would leave their offices in shame, with their heads hung low.”

The judge issued a call for a national revolution: “There was a time in the past when banks and their buildings would be dismantled stone by stone by the people in outrage at what is being done" before concluding that bankers are “totally, utterly, absolutely removed” from any reality.

If this man ran for election, who wouldn’t vote for him?

Alistair Darling and his Amazing Eyebrows: Intelligent Design Theory Finally Vindicated

If Labour lose the next general election in Britain, what will you miss most? I like to think that I am not alone in saying that what I would really miss are Alistair Darling’s Astonishing Eyebrows. What I could never work out was: how does he find the time to run the British economy? Combing, grooming and dying those amazing eyebrows is surely a full time job in itself. And what evolutionary explanation could there possibly be for nature to have produced such an extravagant facial phenomenon? I fear even Richard Dawkins would struggle to account for the ostentatious presence of those two mutant caterpillars. Does Darling use them to sense the vibrations of his prey in the total darkness of his subterranean hunting grounds? Or are they the result of some form of sexual selection, like the peacock’s tail, that Darling and his ancestors have used to hypnotise, bewilder and seduce the female of the species? No. They are an evolutionary mystery, irreducibly complex, like the bacterial flagellum. In fact, those eyebrows may well turn out to be the natural phenomenon that finally destroys the Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Synthesis that is nowadays so fashionable, because many will conclude that a wonder such as this could only be the result of Intelligent Design.

The Best Country in the World: France

Previously we discussed the best cities in the world. Now the time has come to discuss what country has the highest quality of life. Where, all things considered, is the best place to live in the world? One strong candidate is Australia – it's sunny, it's rich, it's safe, it's friendly, it’s beautiful, everything works, it's optimistic, the cost of living is not outrageous, the restaurants are good, healthcare is good. If you like beach life and outdoor activities you are sorted. One disadvantage is that it's very far away from everywhere. Also, it doesn't have much in the way of history or culture. Because of this, Australia is the admirable runner-up.

The winner is France.

If you like architecture, France has the best selection of cathedrals, palaces and castles in the world.
If you like urban life, Paris is (when all joking is put aside) the best city in the world.
If you prefer rural life, France has the most beautiful villages in the world.
If you like skiing or hiking and wilderness, there are the French Alps.
If you like sun and beaches, there is the Cote d'Azur.
France has the best food in the world and the best restaurants in the world.
France has the best cafes in the world. It's got the best wine in the world, and the best cheese in the world.
Family life is very strong, with low divorce rates and so forth. People tend to live near all their relatives, and be close to them. The whole country is designed to make parenting easy.
France has the best healthcare system in the world.
It has a brilliant infrastructure - flawless motorways. Or if you prefer trains, it's got the best trains in the world as well.
If culture is your thing then France has the best museums and art galleries in the world. They love ideas and debate and art.
French is the most beautiful language in the world. No question about it.
The people are stylish, and well-dressed.
The women are beautiful, and if you go to a beach, they aren't wearing anything.
France has the same smug, bourgeois prosperity as places like Belgium and Switzerland, but it also has an edge to it - it's not boring or predictable.
France is also near lots of places - if you want to pop over to Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy or wherever, you can be there in no time. You get good vacation time as well.

France combines all the virtues of Northern European countries (well-organised, productive, good social services) with all the virtues of Southern European countries (a passion for life, romantic, good weather, strong family ties, good food and wine).

France is the best country in the world. Scientists agree.

(Interesting fact about the above famous photograph of Paris: It was posed. It was a set up. But do you see the guy with the glasses to the left walking by in the background? He wasn’t part of the set up. He was just some Irish bloke who happened to be walking by at the time. He had never travelled out of Ireland before, but was going to Rome on a pilgrimage and had stopped over in Paris. I think he was from Killester.)

Mystery: why does this website have so many readers in the Philippines?

A big hello to everyone in the Philippines. I hope you are all well. Congratulations on your excellent taste in websites. It has been a long-standing ambition of mine to make it big in your beautiful archipelago nation. And according to Google Analytics, I can now strike this particular item off my list of Things To Do Before I Die.

Tax the rich until they scream for mercy

The politics of envy? BRING IT ON! We should tax the rich until they do us all a favour and take their “talent” elsewhere.

Those who have an immoderate love of money are imprisoned by their immoderation. Like all addictions, it damages the addict as much as anyone else.

Monbiot gets it right: “Extreme wealth invariably leads to captivity. Its victims live in an open prison … Everywhere on earth they live behind walls and razor wire, guarded by cameras, dogs, watch towers and sensors. The walls that shut the world out also shut them in.” Extreme wealth also means that one will inevitably be surrounded by flatterers, sycophants and greedy hangers-on, making it harder to find true friends and true love.

This might all be fine if the addiction of the super-wealthy did not damage society as a whole. But extreme inequality of wealth damages not just the wealthy, but also the non-wealthy, who become poisoned by their envy of the wealthy. I’ve previously discussed how economic inequality led to the global credit crunch. High levels of economic inequality mean that in order to try and keep up with the wealthy, the nearly-wealthy need to spend more and more. And then the nearly-nearly-wealthy need to spend more in order to try and keep up with the nearly-wealthy. And so on down the scale. This leads to a cascade effect on expenditure. Over the last thirty years in the West, median incomes have not been increasing much, while the incomes of the richest ten percent have exploded, which means that the only way for the non-wealthy to try and keep up is to borrow more and more money. That’s exactly what happened. And the rest, as they say, is economic history. In the West, it tends to be the countries with the highest levels of inequality that have the highest levels of personal debt.

So it is now patently clear that very rich people destroy societies, and that is why we need to make sure that the wealthy go somewhere else and ruin someone else’s society.

But unfortunately it’s not that as easy as you might think to get rid of these avaricious bastards. As Monbiot adds: “It's a bitter blow. When the government proposed a windfall tax on bonuses and a 50p top rate of income tax, thousands of bankers and corporate executives promised to leave the country and move to Switzerland. Now we discover that the policy has failed: the number of financiers applying for a Swiss work permit fell by 7% last year. The government must try harder to rid this country of its antisocial elements … The universal public response, as Tracey Emin found when she announced that she couldn't possibly survive here on her scanty millions, is ‘Go on, then – jump’”.

Why are men unfaithful?

A READER WRITES: “I enjoyed your piece on celebrity scandals. But why are so many successful men so unfaithful to their wives e.g. Tiger Woods, Ashley Cole and John Terry? Should women like me stay away from successful men?”

BB SAYS: “A man is only as faithful as his options” – Chris Rock

To women, it can sometimes feel that they need to make a choice between going out with a boring, mediocre guy who will be faithful to them, or a successful, exciting guy who will be unfaithful to them.

But actually you could say that it is even worse than that - there are no shortage of of boring, mediocre guys who will also be unfaithful to you. It’s just that no one writes about them in magazines. So you might as well go off with a successful one if you get the chance. At least then you might have a few thrills in your life.

However, in reality it is not as bad as all that either. We hear about the successful guys who are unfaithful, but we don’t pay any attention to the many who are faithful and well-behaved. So, although the media can make it appear as though all successful men are unfaithful, it’s not entirely true – it’s just that we focus on those ones, because they are more fun to focus on.

But if you are a good judge of character, and are not taken in by superficialities, then, unless you are unlucky, you will probably end up with a guy who will be faithful to you. On the other hand, if you are an idiot, you will in all likelihood end up with a jerk. People tend to get the partner they deserve. Not always, but generally. As James Joyce once said “Always see a man's weakness in his wife”. The same is true of the fairer sex “Spot a woman’s weakness in her husband”.

What is Great in Christianity

A READER WRITES: “I read your sneering review of the Bible. Can you really find nothing of any value in the Bible or in the Christian tradition?”

BB SAYS: The two great traditions at the heart of Western Civilisation are, on the one hand, the classical tradition of Ancient Greece and Rome, and on the other hand, the Christian tradition. Or, if you like, Athens and Jerusalem. Or perhaps: Philosophy and Theology. The tension between these two traditions has been the central dynamic throughout the course of Western history.

The four great virtues advocated by the classical philosophical tradition of Ancient Greece are Wisdom, Courage, Moderation and Justice. These are the four virtues that, according to Greek philosophy, are required in order to live a good life. But there is another great virtue that, I think, is missing from the classical list, and that virtue is Love, or compassion, or charity, or humanity. I submit that the absence of this virtue is a weakness of classical Greece and Rome, and that it is Christianity that has done most to put this virtue at the centre of Western Civilisation.

The great command of Jesus is “Love your neighbour as yourself”. The other great commandment of Jesus is “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might”. Now, how can an atheist love God, since the atheist says he does not believe that God exists?

Well, according to the greatest Christian theologian of all time, Aquinas, God is Truth. “God is truth itself: I am the way, the truth, and the life". Thus, to love God is, in the final analysis, to love Truth, to pursue the highest Truth. And this is also the central task of classical philosophy, since philosophy means the love or the quest for truth, knowledge and wisdom. I therefore suggest that, at their highest levels, the task of philosophy and the task of theology are one and the same.

So love is the central Christian message, as is clear from the following immortal words of Paul:

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; Does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; Does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; Bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”

To the four classical virtues, Christianity adds another three, making seven in all: Wisdom, Courage, Moderation, Justice, Faith, Hope, and (the greatest of all) Love.

Now, atheists frequently ridicule Faith and Hope. But it is well to remember that life is hard, and full of suffering, and that when life grinds you down, Faith and Hope are frequently what we must turn to. In the darkest hour, you will search for a long time before you find better words than these to heal a broken heart:

“Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.”

Or these:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

I want to be clear that this is not an argument for the superiority of Christianity. I am just suggesting that those who regard themselves as atheists or humanists or philosophers, need not be blind to what is best in Christianity, just as they need not be blind to what is best in the other great religious traditions.

Freud versus Diogenes the Cynic on Work and Love

According to Freud, love and work are all that are required in order to have a fulfilling life. “Love and work... work and love, that's all there is”. They are “the cornerstones of our humanness”. It follows from this that if you have neither work nor love, then you have no life.

One can understand what Freud was getting at. Many of us have, at some stage in our lives, had neither love nor work, and few of us would deny that these were challenging, if not excruciatingly difficult, periods.

On the other hand, if you have love but no work, or work but no love, then you may just about get by. And if you are lucky enough to have both, then you are, as they say, well set up.

What about the Ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes the Cynic? He was a different kettle of fish altogether. His basic philosophy was: if you want nothing, then you have everything you want. He was the first Bohemian, the original hippie, the quintessential drop out. He lived in a tub, and went around with a bowl (see picture above). He believed that one should live a dog’s life.

So what was Diogenes’s attitude to work and love?

Well, he never did anything much. In one famous anecdote Alexander the Great was returning to Greece after conquering Asia. Alexander saw a little crumpled, dishevelled heap on the side of the road. It was none other than Diogenes the Cynic. Feeling generous, Alexander went up to the poor wretch, announced himself, and told Diogenes he would grant him whatever he wished. Diogenes said: ‘Actually, there is something you could do for me. Could you move slightly to the left, as you are blocking my view of the landscape’.

On another occasion Diogenes was found masturbating furiously in the village square, in full view of everyone. When someone went up to him and reprimanded him for his disgraceful behaviour, Diogenes replied: ‘If only I could make my stomach full just by rubbing it.’

Words to live by.

So that’s Diogenes the Cynic. He didn’t need work or love in order to lead a fulfilling life.

So fuck you Freud.