Now you can listen to some of Mindforums’ favorite music while you browse through the site, if you go to the Music page on the right hand side of the site menu!!.
Please feel free to leave any comment and suggestions.

“There is nothing that art cannot express” ~ Oscar Wilde

What would you like to express with art?

The Experimental HIV Vaccine

The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, two of the most puissant media outlets, informed us of the new experimental HIV Vaccine that inflamed the hopes of many.

“An experimental vaccine regimen has shown a modest ability to protect people exposed to the HIV virus, the first time an investigational HIV vaccine has been shown to have this effect. The results from the trial, which involved more than 16,000 adult participants in Thailand, indicated that the vaccine regimen lowered the rate of contracting HIV by 31% compared with those taking a placebo, according to the U.S. National Institute of Health, which helped fund the study” (Gautam Naik, WSJ).

Out of the 8,198 people who received a placebo drug, 74 became infected with HIV.
Out of the other 8,198 people who received the real vaccine, 51 got affected.

The numbers might not be impressive or compelling, but the difference suggests a statistical difference of 31%.
This really is a “piece of good news” and gives hope in the battle against HIV. Yet, why is it that the press does not cite the actual scientific article? I find this deeply flawed. The scientific method relies on methodological and well documented studies in a strictly controlled environment. A scientific article has to be peer reviewed and approved in order to be published. Evidence for none of this was provided in either of the newspapers. This makes me wonder if the study has been peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal. It makes me question the authenticity of the results and the validity and reliability of the whole experiment.

It is worth acknowledging the limitations that researchers face when attempting to experiment with people. When people’s lives are being affected, we cannot really apply the scientific method and conduct a true empirical experiment. There is a moral code that scientists ought to follow. We cannot divide the participants in two groups and infect one of them with HIV in order to test the vaccine. In this sense, it is impossible to have completely manipulated experimental setting. Still, scientists are trying to do the best they can and control the conditions of the experiment as much as possible. This is not the subject of my concerns. My concerns are that such experiments have a lot of limitations and possible alternative explanations that might explain the observed results. An experiment of this sort does not, by any means, imply a cause and effect relationship. My fear is that such data can be simply be interpreted the wrong way. If a pharmaceutical company sees opportunity for profit and starts to sell such vaccine, typing the warnings in small font, hidden in a corner, people might be in danger. A single wrong message from the powerful media empire can convince many that a successful vaccine has been found and scientists have the results to prove it. Yet, no one is quoting the scientific study.

In this particular case, the statistically significant results can be explained by a number of unmentioned reasons. Possibly, the participants, who took the experimental vaccine did not have as many (or any) sexual relationships. Perhaps, the people who had the placebo had unprotected sex with people who were infected, whereas most participants in the other group did not. These are only a few examples of alternative explanations for the results. However, we cannot know for sure if researchers have considered these, because the media is not providing the scientific information. Unsubstantiated by the scientific facts, such reports and statements could be very equivocal or even misleading.

Commercials tell us: “Ask your doctor about … Cymbalta, Ambien, Lunesta… Ask your doctor it it’s right for your”. The easiest thing for your doctor would be to give you the prescription you are looking for. That is probably why we are on the way of becoming an overmedicated nation, if we are not one already.

I encourage each and every one of you to be more skeptical. Ask the right questions and demand an answer. Beware the small font warnings hidden in the bottom. Whenever someone tells you a ‘fact’ and makes a promise, ask him/her to state her source. Know what is in the product that you are consuming, from the prescription drugs you’re taking, to the dinner you’re having.

I rejoiced to see the following article in CNN’s Health Care in America commentary: “Drinking age of 21 doesn’t work.” Finally a sensible statement about the issue. The 21-year-old drinking age has not been an effective solution to the problem of drunk driving, or alcohol-related deaths among young adults. Not only is it ineffective, it might actually pose more risks for young people.

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act was passed by the Congress in 1984 and signed by the president. This Act raised the drinking age to 21. This was government’s reaction to the threatening and growing problem with drunken driving accidents and fatalities. However, this is probably the only preventative measure that the government took and it wasn’t nearly enough. Simply raising, or lowering the drinking age does not deal with the real problem. Young people need to be educated on the effects of alcohol (on behavior and driving), the importance of personal decisions and potential risks. Psychologists attest the truth of the old saying that ‘the forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest’. This is especially true for young people, who often need to resist control and authority to declare their autonomy. The author of the article makes an excellent point: “The law does not say drink responsibly or drink in moderation. It says don’t drink. To those affected by it, those who in the eyes of the law are, in every other aspect legal adults, it is Prohibition. And it is incomprehensible”(John M. McCardell, Jr). This can further aggravate the rebellious spirits. In addition, young Americans are aware that almost all other countries (except Indonesia, Mongolia and Palau) either have no minimum drinking age, or have a lower age limit (usually 18, but sometimes even 16).

It is no longer 1984. “Now, 25 years later, we are in a much different, and better, place. Thanks to the effective public advocacy of organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, we are far more aware of the risks of drinking and driving. Automobiles are much safer. Seatbelts and airbags are mandatory. The “designated driver” is now a part of our vocabulary” (John M. McCardell, Jr).

Alcohol-related fatalities have declined in the past 25 years, in all age groups. Yet, the greatest number still involves people at age 21, followed by 22 and 23. “The problem today is different. The problem today is reckless, goal-oriented alcohol consumption that all too often takes place in clandestine locations, where enforcement has proven frustratingly difficult. Alcohol consumption among young adults is not taking place in public places or public view or in the presence of other adults who might help model responsible behavior. But we know it is taking place.” It is taking place in dorm rooms, off-campus apartments or remote fields (that involve driving). Drinking in such remote and isolated places hides greater risks than ordering drinks in a bar, where the bartender can refuse to serve at any point the individual appears intoxicated. If drinking is taking place in a public setting, there are many mediators and people who can react in case of emergency and call 911. This is not the case in locked and secret places where all of the drinkers can be underage and therefore be hesitant to call the police, because they don’t want to get in trouble. The CNN article explains that “of the 5,000 lives lost to alcohol each year by those under 21, more than 60% are lost OFF the roadways, according to the National Institute of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse.”

The main problem today in not drunken driving. It is “clandestine binge drinking” “A study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry revealed that, among college-age males, binge drinking is unchanged from its levels of 1979; that among non-college women it has increased by 20%; and that among college women it has increased by 40%” (John M. McCardell).

The bottom line is that the drinking age of 21 does not eliminate the problems or change the fact that young adults and teenagers ARE drinking, even if it is considered illegal. Then, we need to be thinking how we can create the most safe environment possible, so that young people can explore drinking with minimal risks.

Allow me a moment to express my bewilderment of the media and, more specifically television and reality shows.

Almost all cable channels are adulterated with at least one ‘Reality show’ which portrays a reality that cannot be further from the actual world. And even if the portrayal is realistic, don’t we have enough reality in out lives – every minute of every day?! Come on, do you really have to hurry to your TV set in order to see ‘The Real Housewives’? If you are not one yourself, talk to your neighbor. She has 6 kids, too and she is a real housewife! Ask about her life. Ask her what it all feels like. It doesn’t get any more real that that.

I assume that the initial idea behind reality shows was to reveal the life of worthy individuals, who do have an incredible story to tell and who can inspire us, or bolster our spirit. At least I hope this was the idea. Maybe it was just good math for profit, because it is shockingly popular TV that will continue to bloom as long as there are people more enthused about the season finale than their real life. Today, reality TV is not about worthy individuals – not always anyway. It is about Megan, who apparently “wants a millionaire”, Bret Michaels who has been looking for true love on “Rock of Love” for three seasons already. Do not feel bad for him though – he finds it at the end of every season. And these are just a couple of examples in a swarm of many more.

The American reality television dating game shows have turned into a popular and acceptable way to date and have sex with many people in the same time, all of whom are conveniently located in the same house. Yes, I admit, it could be funny to watch. What is not funny about adult and, supposedly, mature successful men (millionaires) who fight foolishly for Megan’s heart and would go through all sorts of absurd challenges to win a date? What is not comical around a house full of wild girls who drink, curse, scream, fight, strip and pass out (all of this while they try to prove Bret Michaels they are his true love). All of this could be funny if I saw it in a movie that was labeled as a Parody and Comedy. It is a bit scary when I find it in Reality TV.

Reality shows set very unrealistic expectations among the members of a society who have become addicted to them. The people who are chosen after casting are being prep-ed and treated with a serious amount of make-up. They do not represent the average person who holds a job, has a home and family to support. The excessive drinking, partying, cursing and so on are not the characteristics of a person who effectively functions in society and the life of most of us does not unfold on an epicurean set. Reality TV is not real, it’s an arranged scenery – produced and carefully directed.

So, please, turn off the TV – reality awaits! Attend to your real life – it is probably the only thing worth your attention.

About 50% of first marriages for men under age 45 may end in divorce, and between 44 and 52% of women’s first marriages may end in divorce for these age groups.

Rose M. Kreider and Jason M. Fields, “Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 1996″, U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Reports, February 2002, p. 18.

What do these numbers tell us?
My interpretation is that marriage is no longer the rock-solid and unyielding sacrament it was invented to be. Yes – invented. Holy matrimony and monogamy, for that matter, are human creations that made a lot a sense in a brutish and nasty world, where one faced a myriad of enemies and hardships. However, that was a totally different time: in 1900 the average lifespan was 47 years; in 2000 it is 77. In the past, many men lost their wives to childbirth and getting remarried was very common. Fortunately, short life and perilous delivery are no longer the norm. So, are we unreasonable in expecting monogamy to work for all of us, all the way through our long life?

Does monogamy work? Statistics show that Americans, at least, are not very good at it, and the divorce rate wavers around 50% (just compare it with Japan’s 2% divorce rate).

We can ask: “Why are so many people getting divorced?” We can also ask: “Why are people getting married in the first place?” I am not trying to disacknowledge the institution of marriage, but I am afraid many people have unrealistic expectations, or simply get married because it is the norm. Just like so many other things, getting married and having children is what is expected of you, at one point in your life. If one enjoys a ’single life’ for ‘too long’, or relishes polygamy, people start asking, ‘What’s wrong with you? When are you gonna come to your senses and settle down?’ Well, maybe it is worth considering not everyone is the marrying kind. Marriage and monogamy certainly work for many, but not all people. The sooner we realize this, the better. In our western society, getting married is still a very sensible practice (tax benefits for marriage, joined savings accounts and so on), but it makes no sense whatsoever if it doesn’t involve an exclusive, committed relationship. Yet, some people manage to save their marriage while being engaged in polyamory or swinging. Still, it is very rare, because this peculiar lifestyle cannot be stomached by all. The alternative for those who cannot abide monogamy, but do get married, is cheating and/or divorce. Hence, the 50% divorce rate and we are still asking: “Why are people getting married in the first place?”

Another problem for marriage, monogamy and relationships in general is the unrealistic portrayal of romance in the media. Many people are enthralled with the myth that they are going to meet one special person (or maybe a soul-mate) who is going to share their dreams and ideals, and satisfy them on every level (emotional, intellectual, sexual). It would be wonderful if you meet this truly special someone, but, realistically, isn’t this too much to ask from one person? Is it really plausible to expect your spouse or partner to be your best friend, your fervent supporter, to share your hobbies, interests and goals, but also to be gorgeous and, umm of course, the best sex you’ve ever had?

Wild and passionate love that conquers all is commonplace in Hollywood. The message in most movies is that romance, passion, love and happiness are the key components to a relationship. Commitment, friendship, cooperation and forgiveness sink in the background.

Many, I’m afraid, begin to believe that romance and passion are supposed to rule and define a relationship. However, when you are caught up in a stressful routine, overwhelmed with duties and worries, there is very little room left for romance. All of a sudden, your heart is not racing when you see your significant other. All of a sudden, you don’t wish to cuddle until noon on Saturday. At this point many people grow worried that the love is dying, because the passion and romance are gone. Many people think that it is probably time to move on – the marriage is not working. Don’t get me wrong, I am a big fan of passion and romance, but it is fallacious to expect them to last very long, they are just the ephemeral joys of young love. They might be what brought two people together, but are not what will keep them together. Naturally, over time, your significant other is no longer new, exotic and unfamiliar and you cannot expect your hearts to race every time you see each other. You have adapted. It is not necessarily a herald for dying love or a failing relationship. It is evidence that we are creatures who adapt to their surroundings. The contrary would be unhealthy.

We have become love junkies with serious commitment problems. This is not surprising, considering we are a consumerist society that is used to satisfying its every craving. Leased cars are only good until the next model is available. Presents come with gift receipts. Goods can be returned, or exchanged. You can enjoy a free trial of most games, programs, services, massage chairs, mattresses and most other products. Imperfectly, there is no free trial in marriage. There are no guarantees, or your money back. No option for return, or exchange and nothing is risk free. On the contrary, you have a lot to risk and a lot to compromise. Have we lost grasp of these concepts? The overabundance of products makes us capricious and easily bored, and explains our commitment issues.

Does monogamy work? Does marriage work?

Don’t expect to find a single right answer, just keep an open mind and , possibly, understand that one lifestyle is not for all.

The eighteenth century, following the age of Reason, gave birth to a new philosophical, intellectual and cultural movement that transformed the mentality of people not only in the Old Continent, but in the New World alike. This era, known as the Age of Enlightenment, promoted human intellect, reasoning, liberty and virtue. The symbolism behind Enlightenment is found in the elaborate metaphor of light being cast upon the world to reveal the truth in science, social and political order, education and all other human affairs. Probably the best way to describe the spirit of this historically significant period is to view it from the eyes of its most pronounced thinkers. In his work, Immanuel Kant explains: “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one’s own understanding without another’s guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one’s own mind without another’s guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude) ‘Have the courage to use your own understanding’ is therefore the motto of the  Enlightenment.”

Questioning the established order and investigating various phenomena in our physical and metaphysical world anew are characteristic of the Enlightenment. After Newton’s work and the powerful new wave of inventions and discoveries, nothing in the world appeared the same. People felt that if they have been wrong about so much in science, they are probably wrong about other aspects of their surroundings. This intensified the search for answers and despite governmental censorship and persecution, the voices of Enlightenment thinkers could not be silenced, their beliefs – not to be apostatized. On the contrary, the cogent concepts developed by Enlightenment thinkers exposed their true potential with the French and American Revolutions where the people confronted their oppressor and declared themselves independent.

A radical principle during the Enlightenment was the notion of liberty – social, political and religious. Near the beginning of the towering movement, these ideas gathered intellectuals and artists in a common pursuit of freedom of speech and artistic expressions. The Masonic salons and lodges became a favorite spot for intellectuals eager to share their thoughts. As these individuals supported the ideas of freedom and equality, the doors of the salons were open to virtually everybody. These were probably the first places to welcome catholics, jews, men and women alike. This movement significantly changed the public sphere, especially in the the growing and flourishing cities that offered relative anonymity for unorthodox thoughts.

Even at that point, the Freemasons were viewed as a threat to the Catholic church, because of the notion of brotherhood and religious tolerance they had established. This strong reaction and disapproval are already a proof that the Enlightenment was doing what it was intended to do – challenge the existing order. As the movement unfolded, more radical ideas were aired, causing clamor and disturbance which transformed countries for good: “By the 1780s, the Enlightenment had moved out of the comfortable milieu of salons, lodges, and coffee-houses and into new social and domestic spaces. True to its populist roots, it had become further democratized.”2

Most of the prominent thinkers of the time opposed the idea of hereditary monarchy and the church’s exclusive control of social life. Furthermore, many were generally hostile to religious dogmas, embracing the idea that human affairs should be governed by reason and knowledge, instead of religious tradition and mysticism. Yet, amidst the general atmosphere of cult to knowledge and rationality, different philosophers voiced different ideas regarding these fundamental pillars of societies. Still, there is not doubt the radical ideas of that time agitated the collective psyche and transformed the zeitgeist, paving the path for the French and American revolutions, and democracy. 

Among the great ideologists of the Enlightenment are John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, Denis Diderot, Immanuel Kant, Moses Mendelssohn, Montesquieu and Thomas Paine. Despite their ideological differences, they all embody the spirit of the Enlightenment which is still alive in their compelling works. 

In attempts to identify a governmental system that would benefit the human condition and protect human virtues and liberty, many thinkers tried to see the individual in a basic and pristine condition. This is generally viewed as the ‘state of nature’ and its portrayal captured the interest of many philosophers. John Locke, for example, envisioned the natural condition of mankind as one of absolute freedom. Being able to live one’s life as best seen fit was an inborn right, not a privilege. Yet, Locke explains, this is not to say that people can commit wrongdoings and harm others. On the contrary, there is morality within us that is unspoiled in this pristine primitive condition without luxuries, or hierarchal order. The law of nature, as perceived by Locke, is the basis of all morality and commands that we do not hurt others’ life, health, possessions and liberty. The only thing that can disturb such peaceful order is another’s attempt to overtake our property, or enslave us. In this case, people have to defend themselves and try to preserve their freedom. Yet, this is precisely why a sovereign is needed in any society – in order to protect the peace and natural rights of people. It is easy to see how these ideas might have been a strong influence behind the American revolution. The Declaration of Independence outlines these same ideals and contains the pain of a people who have been oppressed and aggressed against, but also their strength and determination to attain liberation. In 1825, Jefferson himself explains the influence behind the revolution: “Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion”

Many historians dispute Locke’s influence, while others, like Carl Becker write: “Most Americans had absorbed Locke’s works as a kind of political gospel; and the Declaration, in its form, in its phraseology, follows closely certain sentences in Locke’s second treatise on government.”

Locke’s liberalism is incontestable in the declaration of Independence and his convictions have certainly motivated the colonies to stand up and protect their property.  Property, in Lock’s writing, plays a very important role. Private property is the reward when one combines all his efforts with nature. Only when one puts himself into his work and nature, then land is made one’s own. Logically then, the colonists felt they had made the land their own when they set foot on the New Continent and started cultivating it. Paradoxically, they did not think America belonged to the native peoples, who have not invested their work in it. Therefore, settlers reasoned, the natives had no legitimate claim of private property. Near the outbreak of the Revolution, American settlers already had strong connections with the land and felt aggressive incursion from the King of England and his officers. As explained in the Declaration, the conditions called for immediate actions: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world…”

 The line of reasoning clearly reminds of Locke’s deductions. Another concept of his becomes evident – the notion of the Social Contract, which was a principal idea. This theory conveyed that if the sovereign fails to protect the people and abuses his power, disregarding people’s liberty, it is their natural right to overthrow this leader.

 Other parts of the Declaration of Independence that manifest Enlightenment ideals and, probably, Locke’s line of thought, affirm: “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” 

 Locke himself explained in his writings that a government’s purpose was indeed to secure life, liberty, and property. The notion of happiness was first identified as a conscious effort of governments in this document, but the rest is clearly influenced by Locke’s Enlightened spirit. As discussed by historians, the ideologists of the American revolution were attentive of issues of public virtue and corruption. In fact, corruption was considered the greatest threat to liberty.  This partly explains the antagonism towards the covetous royal governments that were in the habit of imposing higher and higher taxes to maintain their luxurious lifestyle. This was, in fact, characteristic and very important aspect in both the American and the French Revolution.

Similarly to John Locke’s influence on the American Revolution, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire are generally considered the fundamental thinkers behind the French Revolution. Voltaire was a restless opposer of the French aristocracy and the authority of the church and the state. After being put in jail based solely of the word of a French aristocrat, he left France and settled comfortably in the intellectual circles of England.

 At the time, England had already had its revolution and had transformed its institutions to a constitutional monarchy. Voltaire became a fervent proponent of the English ways: “this is a country where all the arts are honored and rewarded…where one thinks freely and nobly without being held back by any servile fear.”

Further, Voltaire utilized his vivid wit, irony, satire and hyperbole to communicate his revolt against aristocracy, religious intolerance and the concept of Providence and metaphysical optimism. Along with his recognized letters, Candide is a powerful work that unravels the injustice and absurdity in the French political and social order as well as the Catholic dogma. This was, indeed, an intellectual tool of criticism and strong satire. Voltaire was repulsed by the corruption and double-facedness within religious institutions (priests are supposed to be celibate, but instead they become the carriers of syphilis). These strong opposition of his undoubtedly affected the mentality of the French, who were just as tired, repulsed and discontent with the reality. Once again, reason and liberty were the underlying principles that fueled the revolutionary movement aiming to abrogate the hereditary monarchy: “The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression … The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation … Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.”

Jean-Jacques Rousseau is another Enlightenment thinker who discussed the Social Contract and is credited with influencing the French Revolution. Just like Hobbs and Locke, he used the methodological concept of the State of Nature in order to strip the individual of artificial cultural influence and, thus, find precisely what a legitimate government should be. In his acclaimed essay “What is the Origin of Inequality Among Men” Rousseau introduced the principles of a reasonable government that would maintain obedience and liberty. Essentially, Rousseau saw men to be free, but in contract among themselves, establishing sovereignty of the people and identifying a leader, but knowing no master.

In reality, however, Rousseau finds the individual restrained by inequality. This was the reasoning behind one of his most famous quotes “Man was born free; and everywhere he is in chains”

 The concept of the General will is essential to understanding Rousseau and also very controversial. It was initially introduced in his “Discourse on Political Economy” which explains absolute equality is achieved when everyone surrenders himself in the general whole. Thereafter, no one has interest of gaining for himself, or taking from others as everything is common and free for all. The sovereign, as a legitimate  and efficient leader, only embodies the general will and should only be interested in protecting it. This attempt to rationalize France’s political order assuredly influences the social upheaval right before and during the French Revolution.

It is important to note that neither the American, nor the French revolution evolved in vacuum. On the contrary, they aired the restless spirit of a prominent era, where many thinkers exchanged ideas and intricately influenced each other. Therefore, it is hard to point a single ideologist behind the revolutions. Moreover, it is the zeitgeist, with the complexity of all  the political, social and religious philosophies that triggered these events. The two revolutions, divided by a vast ocean and more than a decade also were interrelated. Ironically, France, under Louis XVI, supported the colonists during the American Revolution, which only worsened the economic situation in the country, headed the people to famine and intensified further remonstration, which ultimately lead to the King’s assassination. After the American Revolution set the example that Enlightenment ideals can be achieved, the French Revolution committed to the same path. Some of the American revolutionaries, Benjamin Franklin among them, have stayed in Paris where they were contacted by French intellectuals. Undoubtedly, this affected the mentality of the people before the revolution. And while it is true that the average revolutionary , or villager had not read the works of Enlightenment thinkers, their ideas positively affected the social atmosphere.

The Age of Enlightenment significantly reconstructed the political and demographic map of the world and, to a large extent, created institutions as we know them today. It left a huge body of knowledge, art work and philosophical musings. It can be seen in both the beauty and harmony of the arts and the turmoil of historical revolutionary accounts. Mozart’s melodic and uplifting tone was a prelude to majestic social opposition and idealistic search of liberty and equality. Tragically, this was also proem to the terrors of France. In the end, the Enlightenment, with all the changes it inspired, was the manifestation of the human will, intellect and free spirit. People dared to know!

Celebrating scientific progress, high standards of living and globalization, modern societies boast to have better understanding for matters in the world. It is true that the human kind learned a lot. Now we have the facts in textbooks, journals, in the news, but does it mean that humanity has build up better understanding for those facts? Charlotte Bronte states: “Prejudices, it is well known, are most difficult to eradicate from the heart whose soil has never been loosened or fertilized by education; they grow there, firm as weeds among rocks.”

To a great extent I support that opinion. One who is not aware of the genealogy of our kind is, no doubt, much more likely to be prejudiced towards people from a different race. Someone who does not believe that all people are equal, can be prejudiced towards the lower or the upper class. Some person from the upper levels of society may assume that those who are poor are either lazy or not talented at all. Someone situated on the bottom of the social hierarchy is likely to think that all rich people are scoundrels who manipulate and take advantage of others. The population of developed countries may have heard that peoples in Africa and Eastern Europe live in extreme poverty, their governments not being really successful. Then, unless they have plenty of information about those issues and a clear view of these peoples’ problems, they may readily assume the countries in Africa and Eastern Europe suffer because they are not hard-working and smart and, thus, cannot progress. One who cannot accept the fact that sexual differentiation begins in the chromosomes and that further brain development and behavior depend on the hormones that are constantly released, may be a sexist. Someone who is not aware of recent research that reveals homosexuals do have certain physical/brain differences, and it’s not all about nurture, may be strongly prejudiced against homosexuals.

I also wonder, what if prejudice is deeply implanted in humans? What if we cannot escape being prejudiced? Is it not possible that this is some kind of self-defending mechanism that we have developed in the process of evolution? Often, our prejudices are targeted at people and things that are different or deviant in some way. Probably, this is heritage from evolution – being prepared to aggress towards another species that may threaten you. Are we fooling ourselves when considering we are reasonable creatures capable of eliminating prejudice on the basis of deep knowledge and understanding? As a reply to such a question, William James says: “A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely re-arranging their prejudices”. Supporting this view, I believe reason may help us recognize our prejudices, try to avoid them, despise them, even overcome some, but the moment we face yet another new, deviant thing, some novelty prejudice is likely to occur.

As much as I want to embrace the idea that humanity can live in ‘peace and harmony’, having forgotten what we used to call prejudice, I still strongly doubt that. Sadly, when it comes to predicting whether we can eradicate prejudice I recall George Aiken’s words: “If we were to wake up some morning and find that everyone was the same race, creed and color, we would find some other cause for prejudice by noon.”

“Your life has a limit but knowledge has none. If you use what is limited to pursue what has no limit, you will be in danger.”

~Chuang Tzu, The Secret of Caring for Life

The words of ancient Eastern philosophers echo through the ages and teach us to “go by what is constant” and “go along with the natural makeup” (Chuang Tzu). Instead, we have chosen another path – one that leads to a dark and cold future, wrapped in metal coating and not a touch of green. By trying to prove we are the conscious nervous system of our planet, we have tried to distance ourselves from our African roots and from our primal forefathers that have inhabited the jungle (oh, what a disgrace to us!). We have tried to prove we are not governed by primitive drives. We have done this and it is all good. Along the way, however, we made one crucial mistake – we parted from our instincts as well.

Preserving our instincts could make us hold on to the simple things in life and develop skills that enrich our lives and the world around us. Instead, we have let go of our human instincts and have become completely lost in the abstract ether of infinite knowledge. There is only so much a mind can comprehend in a lifetime, but we crave for more. It is no surprise, then, when a scientist makes a catastrophic invention. A scientist fixated on mastering the unknown, who has lost touch with his human instincts, is the father of the atom bomb. A scientist who tries to change the natural way of things and assume the role of an all mighty creator, like in Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’, becomes the father of a monstrous creature. Knowledge is powerful and it could only be tamed, and guided in the right direction by modesty and morality. Without the moral compass guiding our pursuit of knowledge, we lose direction. Knowledge becomes the purpose itself and we fail to think about its consequences. Instead of creators of life, which we initially intended to be, we become the reason for destruction and desolation. Some knowledge we might not be ready to realize. A five-year old child does not possess the cognitive, moral and social development that is expected in high school. Similarly, we have to be able to understand our own limitation and stay away from fields we are not ready to take on. The ultimate knowledge, again, is to ‘know thyself’. “If you fully explore your mind, you will know your nature. If you know your nature, you know Heaven” (Mencius, All Things are Prepared Within Me).

We are now so separated from the natural world, that Daniel Dennett in “Freedom Evolves” almost ironically describes human beings as mechanical structures: “What you are is an assemblage of roughly a hundred trillion cells, of thousands of different sorts… Each trillion robot team is gathered together in a breathtakingly efficient regime that has no dictator but manages to keep itself organized to repel outsiders, banish the weak, enforce iron rules of discipline – and serve as the headquarters of one conscious self, one mind.” There is incredible wisdom in these words and unfortunately we fail to understand it. We are incredibly efficient and smart! As a natural creature, born from this earth, we are exceptionally gifted, intelligent and capable. Just considering how flawlessly and efficiently our Autonomic Nervous System works shows we are efficient. Our heart beats constantly, our lungs contract, out pupils dilate, hormones and neurotransmitters are constantly on the run – all of this without our slightest deliberation. Being the self-centered species that we are, we still fail to appreciate our uniqueness has evolved in us through nature, but we refuse to grant it more respect. Almost as an insecure person trying to fight an inferiority complex, we strive to be more efficient, more knowledgeable and capable.

People assumed the role of decision-makers on the planet. Did we think the laws that ruled the Earth and evolution thus far were not worthy anymore? Did we believe we could do a better job? Before we knew it, scientists started writing books about the “Sixth Extinction” and the “World Without Us.” For the most part, people are so incredibly busy trying to grasp the enormous body of knowledge, that most people do not take the time to ponder: “Now what will we do with our knowledge?” (Daniel Dennett). Sadly, just because we are the decision-makers this does not imply we make the right decisions. People have found the way to satisfy intellectual curiosity through the pursuit of scientific knowledge. Arguably, after the scientific method, science is to many what religion is to others – a source of truth – a worshiping altar of the “commitment to reason and evidence” (Daniel Dennett). Overwhelmed by this reason and evidence, moving from a hypothesis to a theory, always proving something, scientists might lose the connection with the purpose of their efforts and the betterment of human kind. Of course, this is only made easier because, overall, we have already lost our instinctual relation with nature.

Beware the information and knowledge pollution! Rediscover your natural instincts!

“All nature teaches that man is born for happiness”

~Andre Gide

Yet we have never agreed on a single definition of happiness. Is it well being? Is it wealth? Is it the abundance of love and respect? As Homo sapiens evolved and inventions made life easier and more comfortable, people discovered more free time… and their minds wandered. As people found protection from the merciless powers of nature, they found they are not entirely at the mercy of the Gods. And their minds wandered. Greek mythology tells the stories of industrious and brave men who stole the fire from the gods, cheated death, opposed and defeated supernatural beings. The realization that people were worthy of praise and happiness was born. The Myth of Sisyphus remains one of the most intriguing and genuinely philosophical readings of all. The simplicity of the plot and the complexity of the ideas depict the very paradox of human existence.

The Myth of Sisyphus is a eulogy of the strength of the human spirit and a lament of men’s ordeals.

Reflecting on the ancient story, Albert Camus draws an interesting parallel with the life and work of modern men reaching a profound conclusion: “Happiness and the absurd are two sons of the same earth. They are inseparable;” “There is no sun without shadow … One always finds one’s burden again” (Albert Camus). Maybe these simple phrases manage to capture the complexity of our path on earth. Perhaps, the pursuit of happiness is the prophet of our catastrophe? Still, this is so hard to investigate because “happiness” is an elusive concept, meaning different things to different people. It might also transform its meaning for the individual throughout a lifetime. When people lived and slept under the naked skies, happiness might have been constant – found everywhere – in fertile rain and sunshine. As minds wandered, the definition of happiness escaped us.

Further, modern governmental structures make a conscious statement about happiness. “A major element of the American experiment in democracy has been to make the pursuit of happiness a conscious political goal – indeed, a responsibility of the government,” says Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in “Flow”. People are granted the opportunity to pursue happiness and yet no one cares to define it. This might be considered careless, as some people, we would never want to meet in person, might have a disturbing understanding of happiness. In an active argument with positive psychologists, criminologists and clinical psychologists can tell many stories of disturbed individuals, whose concept of happiness we would hardly accept. Narcissistic personalities derive pleasure and joy from power over others, and exploit people with no remorse, being arrogant and self-centered. Antisocial personalities obtain enjoyment by manipulating and tormenting others (The DSM-IV). Schizophrenics, psychiatrists argue, are incapable of experiencing real happiness, as they often cannot distinguish reality from delusions.

What makes people happy and is it safe, and reasonable to encourage them to pursue it? In fact, if future governments continue this line of reasoning, they might agree on a single definition of happiness and try to enforce it. Then, if someone could manage too hook up people on happiness (certainly not impossible with the ideas of Post-Darwinian medicine), they would become careless and indifferent with joy – completely oblivious to the misfortunes of others.