Samuel Jones' Diary, Part A

                 
Well, another year has come and gone. I did intend on writing a nice little Christmas blog, but I never did get around to it. Frankly I’m surprised I managed to go a complete year and still be writing blogs on here.

                This time of year makes me think about one of my favourite books – Bridget Jones’ Diary by Helen Fielding. At the beginning of the book the protagonist, Bridget Jones, sets down a whole lot of New Year’s resolutions, and at the end she presents a little summary of the year that was. I tend not to bother about making resolutions because they tend to go out the window within a few days. I did try to get around it one year by saying that my only resolution was not to have any New Year’s resolutions but then I realised I’d broken it before I’d even started it.

                I would like to reflect on the year though. It’s been a long year – full of travel and heartbreak and friendships and breakups and sunburn and heartships and friendups and sunships and heartburn. So I thought I’d take a look at 2011, Bridget Jones style.

Number of overseas holidays: 2

Number of countries visited: 9 (impressive)

Number of ex-boyfriends: 1

Number of current boyfriends: 0

Number of times have fallen in love: 6

Number of times have decided to give up on men altogether and become a nun: Several hundred

Number of times have actually become a nun: 0

Number of languages attempted to learn: 15

Number of languages can actually speak (excluding English): 0

Number of languages can actually speak (including English): ½

Number of religions have wanted to convert to: 3

Number of religions have actually converted to: 0

Number of messages sent on my phone: … Oh dear.

Number of times have attempted to get fit: Aprox. 13

Number of times have succeeded in getting fit: 0

Number of books finished writing: 2

Number of books started writing: 5

Number of blog posts: 28

Number of publication rejections: 2

Number of articles published: 2

Number of books I now own: 700+

Number of New Year’s resolutions made: 7

Number of New Year’s resolutions met: 1

You’d think that having read some of those things I’d be depressed. And I was until today. But this has been an amazing year. I have done so much, learnt so much, grown so much. The good and the bad… I don’t regret it. No regrets. And I think I’m ready to face another year.

Farewell 2011. You shall be missed.

A Concise History of History Part 4

Chapter Four - Ancient Cultures: Greece
What follows are some of the earliest written records of the Socratic method. This was a philosophical means of debate, created in Ancient Greece by the world renowned philosopher, Socrates. It is a method by which a person would make a philosophical statement and Socrates, by carefully questioning and needling them, would prove the statement to be false. In court this is known as ‘cross examination’. In Australian politics this is known as ‘Kerry O’Brien’.

Socrates used this method to point out inadequacies in people’s professed knowledge. While many people believed they were knowledgeable while being totally ignorant, Socrates believed that knowledge of his ignorance actually made him more knowledgeable than the ignorant people who thought that they were knowledgeable. This resulted in much confusion and debate in which people attacked each other’s knowledge or lack of knowledge, resulting in the revelation that nobody knew anything at all. We would now recognise this as a ‘government’.

The following is a dialogue between Socrates and a student, recorded by Plato. This particular exchange was left out of Plato’s major works, but was discovered recently in a cave outside Athens by historian and linguist Peter M. Donoghue.

Student: I think, therefore I am.

Socrates: So because you think, that means you exist, is that right?

Student: That is what I just said.

Socrates: Then it would be safe to assume that because something is capable of thought, it exists.

Student: That’s right.

Socrates: But is it not true that rocks exist?

Student: That’s right – rocks exist.

Socrates: And are rocks capable of thought?

Student: Err… maybe? I mean, no one’s ever asked them…

Socrates: (loudly) Is it not true that rocks are incapable of thought?

Student: As far as we can tell, yes, rocks don’t think, but…

Socrates: But rocks still exist, even though they don’t think.

Student: Yes, but…

Socrates: And you also exist, even though you do think.

Student: Umm… yes…

Socrates: (triumphantly) So you think, therefore you are not a rock.

Student: … Err…. Are you sure you did that right?

Socrates: Eh?

Student: Well, is not the point of your valued method of debate to contradict my initial statement?

Socrates: That is correct.

Student: And was not my original statement ‘I think, therefore I am’?

Socrates: That is also correct.

Student: Therefore the previous exchange between us was not an example of the Socratic method, correct?

Socrates: Correct… Err… what’s the score?

Student: Fifteen-love.

Socrates: Damn. Alright, try this. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Student: Are you sure that’s Socratic?

Socrates: Trust me.

Student: Well, yes, all things that fall make a sound.

Socrates: But is it not true that if you are not near a falling tree then you can’t hear it?

Student: Well… yes…

Socrates: So how can you be sure that it’s making a sound?

Student: Because trees make a sound when they fall.

Socrates: I don’t think you’re entering into the spirit of this.

Student: Well how about this. If the tree doesn’t make a sound, how do you know the tree is even falling?

Socrates: That’s not the point.

Student: And is it not true that a tree that may or may not be falling also may or may not exist?

Socrates: Well, I suppose…

Student: And so is it not true that the tree, the woods and even the concept of falling are merely human constructions and probably don’t exist anyway?

Socrates: One could say that…

Student: So does that not prove that this philosophical concept is completely ridiculous?

Socrates: I feel you’ve just weakened your argument.

Student: Thirty-love.

Socrates: Let me try this one. If you put a cat in a box, is it dead or alive?

Student: That depends – what was it when it was put in the box?

Socrates: Alive.

Student: And are there air holes in the box?

Socrates: No.

Student: Then I’m going to guess it’s dead.

Socrates: But if you can’t see it how do you know if it’s dead or alive?

Students: Because cat’s need air?

Socrates: Hmmm… Perhaps there were air holes in the box. I’ll have to check that.

Student: Where did you get that one from anyway?

Socrates: Schrodingerclese. You know what he’s like with putting animals in boxes.

Student: That poor cat. But returning to the point in question, is it not true that the fact of whether or not the cat is dead or alive is not determined until we open the box?

Socrates: That is correct.

Student: So it is safe to say that until we can see that cat we do not know what state it is in?

Socrates: That is also correct.

Student: So following on from this we can also say that the cat either exists or does not exist, is that true?

Socrates: It is.

Student: So I pose to you that the question should not be whether the cat is ‘dead’ or ‘alive’, but whether the cat ‘is’; that is – if you put a cat in a box, is it?

Socrates: … What?

Student: Forty-love.

Socrates: I don’t like this game anymore.

Student: You started it.

Socrates: Let me try this one. You have often said that courage is the endurance of the soul.

Student: No I haven’t.

Socrates: Well, it has been said by people that courage is the endurance of the soul.

Student: By who?

Socrates: Pardon?

Student: Who has ever said that?

Socrates: … People. And I put to you…

Student: What people?

Socrates: Eh?

Student: What people say ‘courage is the endurance of the soul’?

Socrates: Oh. Um… Philosophers.

Student: You are a philosopher, are you not?

Socrates: I am.

Student: And philosophers say things such as ‘courage is the endurance of the soul’, am I right?

Socrates: That is right.

Student: Which are things that nobody else says, correct?

Socrates: Correct.

Student: Then it would be true to say that philosophers say things that no other person has said before?

Socrates: Yes, that is true.

Student: Then is it not also true that philosophers make all this stuff up as they go along.

Socrates: Yes. Hang on…

Student: And that you made up this method to feel smug and intelligent without really saying anything.

Socrates: But…

Student: And I put to you that this entire exercise has been a waste of my time. Fifty-love.

Socrates: I need to find a new student.

Lifestyles of the mundane and famous.

Author’s note: This piece was written in early November, but due to illness, laziness and China the publishing was postponed. At the time it was written it had been inspired by recent news reports.

Does anyone actually know who Kim Kardashian is?

She's been everywhere in the headlines recently;

'Kim Kardashian files for divorce.'

'Camera falls on Kim Kardashian's head.'

'Kim Kardashian sues over look-alike.'

'Kim Kardashian regrets porn shoort - Kim Kardashian says she only stripped off for Playboy because her mother told her to.'

I had to stop looking them up; they were both fascinating and horrifying.

Ok, one more. 'Kim Kardashian embarassed by breasts - Kim Kardashian says she has prayed to God for smaller breasts.'

That's the last one. I swear.

What will come next? ‘Kim Kardashian wins Nobel Peace Prize’? ‘Kim Kardashian; first woman on Mars’? ‘Gaddafi was killed by Kim Kardashian’?

It wasn’t until I looked her up on Wikipedia that I discovered she was an; ‘American business woman, socialite and TV personality’. In other words, she’s no one in particular. Yet she is apparently a celebrity.

I have made a lot of complaints about the cult of celebrity; about how the media follows their every move and the public raises them to the height of Gods. But at least in a lot of cases these are the common or garden variety of celebrities. They are singers, pop stars, sportsmen and women, actors and actresses. But when it comes to people like Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton who have not appeared to have done anything of note to achieve their fame, it all gets a bit bewildering.

Where do we find these people? Perhaps there is some sort of criteria that media outlets have in order to decide who is worthy of their attention (actually, having studied journalism for three years, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the case). Perhaps, if a certain individual is brought to their attention, they have to be ticked off against a stringent checklist. Young. Check. Female. Check. Rich. Check. Has made a sex tape. Check.

What’s more, you would think that once you were in the public eye you would be more careful about what you said to the media. Remember Jessica Simpson and her amazing reality TV show? Wasn’t that fun? I don’t care if TV producers are going to pay you millions – in fact, that should make you more suspicious. If the whole world is watching, for goodness sake don’t make a fool of yourself by asking if tuna is chicken. It’s the modern day equivalent of Marie Antoinette saying ‘Let them eat cake’.

In all honesty I do feel a bit sorry for these pseudo-celebrities sometimes. It can’t be easy being the butt of international jokes. They are, after all, human beings just like the rest of us. The difference however is that every slip up, every mistake, every embarrassment and every personal moment is out there for the world to see. We, on the other hand, can hide behind our anonymity. Can you imagine the headlines if we were all famous?

‘Bryan passes out drunk on his neighbour’s lawn.’

‘Laura drops glasses into toilet.’

‘Jenny goes through messy and heart wrenching divorce.’

‘Adam sends naked picture of himself to girlfriend.’

‘Offelbert in court battle to change his name.’

Everyone should be able to make mistakes and be human without it being plastered all over the global news networks. It’s in the International Charter of Human Rights. I think. It should be.

So in the end who is really to blame? Is it we, the consumers of media; a society who idolises the rich and terminally idiotic? Or perhaps we should blame the media who feeds us this tripe in order the boost circulation instead of reporting on things which really matter? Or when it comes down to it is it the celebrities themselves who eat up the fame and pander to the camera like a panda, pandering to a camera?

Perhaps it’s all three. Perhaps it’s a necessary part of the society, just like birth, death and Texas. Whatever the reason, it appears that the Kardashians of the world are here to stay; rich, stylish and clueless.

May God help us all.