ON RESPONSIBILITY 1

Responsibility exists as general abstract idea although one can't see it: one grasps it. Reasoning persons become under the idea of responsibility when acting without brainwashing, pressure of threat, or acting and reasoning as the autonomous mind. 

It's a fact we distinguish responsible from irresponsible people, like wise from ignorant. But if the word "responsibility" is nothing but a subjective belief and one's belief is true for him, then everybody is as responsible as somebody else. So each person's private beliefs would be true: what things seem to each person to be like, that is also what they really are like.


But then nobody can distinguish responsible persons from irresponsible ones. That claim would not correspond with the visible fact: people have objective properties. We know that somebody is smart and that somebody is stupid. So knowledge is not relative.


We don't see Mrs Jones is responsible: she hasn't "being responsible" as visible quality such as color red and form tight are.

                      The electric lights mean the urbanized areas. Human beings go 

                          towards light. Happiness? Who faces the concequences?

When asking "Who is responsible for this mess?", we want to know the guilty who is the first cause in an institution: they who command can't shift the act on someone else. The chain of causes ends in managers.

We are all responsible to the future human race, according to Bertrand Russell.

The Condition of Free Society

A society without public criticism is not worth anything.

Public criticism means ability to evaluate independently the thought repeated by majority. Repeating means "only one choice open".


                            One can be liberated but is not free from the liberator

                          (Liberty Leading the People by Delacroix; 1830; Louvre)

The embraced is not free to choose. He or she is programmed to repeat. It is: repeating single truth. Thus the brainwashed can't criticize publicly. 
                                                                                      
If the masses have embraced one doctrine, then ...                                
                                                                                                                                                               

HUMAN'S SECURITY NOT STATE'S SECURITY

Hey come on! A state's most important goal is not to guarantee its military security by armed forces in the system of sovereign powers. So, in the present global world, the balance of Great Powers is not the essence of international relations of nations. 

                  Negotiation is the main institution between leaders, not

                    states (UN Climat Summit in 2009; David Karp/AP).

More exactly, says the libertarian, there are only individuals and societies, not states, nations and fatherlands which are ideas within Russian, Chinese and American nationalists' minds. 

Yes but that doesn't prove the claim that states' main goal is not the military security.


I'm sorry. Very sorry. I mean... I mean that now the economical well-fare is the main goal for most political leaders. The central problem for them is not war and the use of force, like it or not Mrs. Realism. Pure anarchy doesn't prevail in the global society because people do have peaceful contacts across borders and because global context, like international law and United Nations, sets moral judgments for states' behavior in which the use of force is not the automatic reaction. For example, nuclear weapons affect every humans when using. So, any national leader doesn't really want to use them in real conflicts. They are too costly. It follows from that nuclear weapons entail negotiations and peaceful interactions between the societies rather than very dangerous interventions.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/03/201039185911248940.html

To my mind, humanitarian issues and individual humans' security have become more important from the cold war to the post cold war era than the security of some state. The picture of pure anarchy is insufficient for evaluating the present international global society. 


That is, everybody in the globe are affected by nuclear weapons, transnational terrorism, the climate change and the organized crime. From that follows that nobody can protect against these phenomena by armed forces. Not even Great Powers! For instance, the transnational terrorism forces Great Powers to cooperate. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8592968.stm         Mr. Chavez: People 

                                                                                              consists of individuals!

Only if every individuals, including artists, writers and philosophers, have protection in a society, people's security exists. There are many societies in which a man and a woman are not in safe. Therefore, some governments doesn't protect the people's security when claiming that they secure states' security by the use of violence towards some citizens and minorities.


The goal of the domestic politics is people's security not state's existence in the system of the sovereign nations. By means of the use of force the governments don't solve the problems of human's life but create more problems. War and violence against individuals and states are nowadays more morally unthinkable than in the past. 


So is the world moving beyond the anarchy of the sovereign state system?

ON ANARCHY IN WORLD POLITICS

The concept "anarchy", strictly speaking, means the absence of governments and rulers. But "anarchy" doesn't mean total chaos because in international relations between countries chaos doesn't prevail but mostly order. That is, there is order in the political world due to the balance of power between states.
 

  He's not a world's leader

but a leader of North Korea. (beloved?)

After cold war period in the world's stage there aren't only states as actors but also other players: multinational corporations like Nokia, human rights movements like Amnesty International, terrorist networks, organized crime, etc.  
                                                                 
                                                                           He's not a world leader. (beloved?)                                                                                                      
 
But the structure of world politics is an anarchic system of states meaning that 1) there is no higher government over states and 2) it's a self-help system. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/staging_site/in_depth/georgia_russia_conflict/default.stm

"Anarchy in world politics" could be defined also, like a famous philosopher Thomas Hobbes did, as a war of all against all. That is, there's not higher ruler to enforce order. A good example about that kind of situation would be a town without a sheriff in the Old West or Somalia at present time. In Somalia nobody has a monopoly to keep in order as different clans and groups fight against each other.
                                                                                                                                                                  So, if there is not the international police enforces sanctions against lawbreakers or states and political leaders,  then world politics is a self-help system. And that's true because in international relations no one has a monopoly to use force. As a result, especially Great Powers such as China, US, Russia and some European countries, the governments don't trust each other and feel suspicion. In domestic politics, however, police and courts, by the government's power, can pass sanctions to lawbreakers and prevent their freedom to act.


Finally, althought political leaders and peoples have their right to self-determination, there is always possibility to intervene in other sovereign state's political system in world politics by the armed forces. It occurs due to anarchic system of states: look at Georgia, Iraq and Afghanistan! So, there are expectations to the rule: one hasn't right to intervene in the affairs of another state.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/12/2009121194338739472.html

ON VALUING

When talking about valuing we have in mind some objects which we value, appreciate, respect and regard highly. So we respect what we value. We can say valuing is some kind of relation because there are a person, valued objects and a relation "valuing" between these things. In general form, that is, "x value(s) y".

It is, of course, banal to tell that we value our money, cars, a house, clothes, food, children, a spouse, lovers, friends, work etc. It is as banal to notice different people value different things. Most of us value beautiful material goods but what we regard as beautiful varies.

But a valuing person and a valued object can be one and the same: a person x values him or herself. We, that is, care about ourselves. However, most of people care about their appearance, own body, faces: looking after one's looks is very important in Western democracies. How do you know that?, someone asks. By watching humans' behavior in cities. By observing, my friend. And what are we seeing? We are seeing different actions: they take a shower, brush their teeth, take exercise, buy new clothes, go to the hairdresser. "I don't go out without make-up", many women exclaim.

The valued objects, however, aren't always concrete stuff but immaterial. The abstract objects valued by persons can be love and goodness, a poetry or a play of Shakespeare, theorems of logic and mathematics, values like Rights and Liberties, traditions, some lifestyle being religious or not, a country and subcultures etc. For instance, the idea of nationalism is powerful but it is clear that ideas are not physical moving bodies such as rocks.

Yet, what is this relation "valuing"? Valuing is wanting to maintain or keeping up something. It is caring about and caring for somebody. If one maintains friendship, one respects friendship.

Valuing is also not wanting to part from somebody. If we really value our car we don't want that somebody touch it or take it. The problem is that other persons don't necessarily value relationship with us or care about us. Cars haven't own will and interests. So cars don't leave us but other persons may want to do so. Therefore, valuing is a personal mind's state being grounded on some belief-system. And it matters whether valued objects are lifeless material things, other person or a relationship, or an abstract object.

Finally the most important thing. Everybody wants to be respected. Sometimes. Everybody wants to get respect for his or her activities. From somebody and sometimes.

FRAGMENTS OF PHILOSOPHY: FREEDOM OR OPEN FUTURE AND UNWILLINGNESS

If we see an eagle flying in the sky we think it as wild and free: nobody has been able to catch it. So, if one hasn't been caught and prevented to go wherever one wants by some external factor, one is wild and free. Thus, his or her future is open.

More exactly, their future wouldn't been determined beforehand. Thus, they will not become as something  materializing in the future person which means their social identity aren't decided by someone else. For example, parents' order their son will become a doctor will come true if their son become a doctor as adult. When their thought materializes in the future, the son as doctor makes their thought true. But then their son's future wasn't open to him but determined.

Getting ahead on one's ca-

reer is just a kind idea in mi-

nd. The career means you 

haven't choices. 

Furthermore, the career limits one's number of possibles alternatives and, therefore, one's future is not open. If it's known beforehand what Mrs Jones becomes in the future, her future is not open. So foreknowledge destroys one's freedom because he or she hasn't choices available.


Let's suppose next an ideal situation in which we can do whatever we want. Yes indeed! Anything You want. Nice, isn't it? My dreams come true, you are shouting.


But in the real world, in this actual world humans don't lack moral understanding. That is: humanity implies morality; morality implies non-natural; therefore, humanity implies non-natural.

It's a brutal fact that we use moral words and grasp and follow moral judgments. Many times we don't want to do whatever we can in a particular situation. So we limit and prevent our freedom to act in certain way. So we aren't unlimited free agents.

FRAGMENTS OF PHILOSOPHY: SILENCE

When does silence exists? When nothing is heard, then silence exists. So if there aren't noises and sounds, stillness is present. But then no things make a noise. They are still silent.

Yet, noises and sounds imply other subjects uttering sounds, babies, adults, birds, cars, TVs etc. But does silence exist outside hearers in the world and without a creature who can hear? If, for example, there are only material lifeless particles and bodies in the universe, are there sounds and quietness also? I don't think so. Maybe waves and vibration of air move in the open space. 

Let's suppose you hear nothing: it's fully as quiet as the grave. You claim the head is empty. You haven't any thoughts. But try to find mind's silence. You do "hear" your mind's buzzing. 

Now try to stop inner "voices". I bet you aren't able to. So where is your willpower? Where is freedom you love so much? During the life there's not silence within You.

Oh Lord! From where inner ideas come and where they go! Nobody knows. 

 

Is there Silence in the air? No.

We can't hear it in snaps. Books

keep quiet about their stories.

After opening one of them it 

starts to tell you its story.

(Main Library of City of Turku)

DOORS: THEIR FUNCTION

Houses without doors are not good buildings. We aren't able to go in or come out. So we can conclude that if buildings appear to us, there are also doors. Home without a door is not very functional, we claim. And that's true!, I shout back to you.

But is the function of doors to function as passages? My claim is: it's not.

                                        

You can't step inside, smiles City of Turku.

From outside one goes in but if looking from inside the house one comes in. In the same way, one goes out from inside the house comes out from the house to out of doors in which a secret agent is waiting.

We are strangers. Sometimes guests. Often relatives of someone. As a result, we can't go in from doors whenever we want because doors don't open to us. Most of doors of the big cities are closed. Someone else decides when the front doors will open. Try to enter other territories, public buildings, people's homes, stores and shops, bars and clubs, shopping malls, and you will see that I am right.

They who control the door are free to go and come.They lock up it. They are safe inside. They order who comes in. And we aren't warmly welcomed.

But is there any security from the rest of the World? No, the West is too the Rest and this individual is not safe inside. Values, ideas and words of the society push their way into his home - . Inside. To the individual Mind. You can't lock up your Mind's door. It is always open. To the manipulation of a consciousness.

Yet, when going to work people lock up the home door. They don't want somebody goes in secretly. Their intention is keeping threats outside. We are not threat. But they don't believe us. We're outsiders. 

However, there are people who can't walk out from rooms. They are locked behind many doors. Inmates, insanes and terrorists. You can come out if they dare let you free. If they decide so. Before opening the door it stays locked. You and me are safe. But we are locking up ourselves behind the doors. We don't walk out from the house. They and you eat us. The outcast. We, they - or You.

A MEANING OF THE CONCEPT "IDEA"

There are many ways by which we can define ideas. One of them is the following: ideas are mental contents and psychical images. These are natural symbols because we can't create and change them however we want. When one is sensing darkness one can't change it for redness. Ideas have been understood also as sensations being qualities. They would be qualities of a mind. Thus ideas would occur within a person and they have shorter temporal duration than their owner. After imagining the person remains although that imagination disappeared.


The idea as the natural symbol means that it is the copy of a archetype. So the idea represents some other entity than it is. And this other represented in a person is independent of a perceiver, but not always.



For instance, memories, mental pictures, imaginations, illusions, delusions and hallucinations, impressions and sensations are ideas if defining ideas as psychical images. When Mrs. Smith is recollecting her daughter, she sees a mental image of the daughter in mind. But it is clear that this mental image is very different than the real daughter. Likewise, if Mr. Jones perceives a flying dagger being hallucination, then it implies that the dagger flies in his mind's sight. So there's not any dagger in the room. And it is a idea which doesn't represent a physical dagger. (Maybe there's not room: he is dreaming.)


As a result, a future idea doesn't represent at present an object which exists in the future. Many hope the world's peace and justice in their heart. But this idea, unfortunately, wouldn't necessarily materialize in the future. And many times our kind ideas never realize because the world doesn't go as we like. The present economical crises is a good evidence that people's hopes have collapsed: we must invent something new.


Finally, we must notice we don't perceive only one idea at a time but many. Our mind's experience is full of things such as thoughts, beliefs, feelings, desires, impressions, memories, imaginations, visions and hearings simultaneously. However, our private plurality of experience, from seeing from inside of a person to the immediate area, doesn't agree with the world of bodies outside of a mind. The world doesn't represent a mind's ideas. Yet a mind's ideas within a human organism can represent the world of bodies. But not always.

That was a bad business idea.