Being offended
Posted on January 16, 2022 1 Comment
Society is full of people who appear to be offended by so many things. In our ‘woke’ times (horrible term) it is apparently necessary to take offence at the slightest thing, often when the object of the offence has little to do with the person claiming to be offended. It is a little like people claiming to be traumatised about something they have read. You are not traumatised, you are upset. You have not been offended, you disagree with someone. There is a big difference.
People are offended too easily. They are offended by the slightest comment, by careless remarks, and particularly by comments made that are not in agreement with the ‘woke’ agenda. A good example is when JK Rowling remarked that women need spaces where they are safe from men, including biological men claiming female gender. Rowling made a reasonable point, basically that people with penises shouldn’t be in women’s toilets. If you disagree with this then fine, argue your alternative point, but it is not reasonable to do as some have done, refused to countenance opposition to current notions of gender and assuming those who disagree are committing hate crimes, and in this case effectively cancelled Rowling. That is just a childish or mardy response and entirely inappropriate to the circumstances. If you listen to people like Rowling (who probably represents a majority of people), all she meant is that biological women needs places they can be confident there are no biological men around because biological men can be, or can be perceived as, threatening. Tht sounds to me like a pretty strong statement in favour of caring for women.
Whether or not you agree or disagree with Rowling the point is that people should not be taking offence so easily, it endangers free speech and open dialogue. We are entitled to different opinions. It is through argument that we make progress, that ideas, morality, science, etc improve.
There is a big difference between personal offence, where someone has directly and personally insulted a specific individual, where it may be appropriate to take offence (though it is often better to ignore or respond reasonably), and indirect offence, where the comments are indirect, as is the case of Rowling. People have a right to criticise, to have an opinion, and society cannot move forward if this is not the case, if people just claim to be offended to shut someone up. That stifles debate and is illiberal – which is ironic given that many of those claiming to be offended by certain comments on transgender, race, sexism and so on also claim to be liberals on the left of politics, with the often implicit suggestion that those who oppose their ideas are right wing conservatives. This is so far from reality.
These ‘woke’ (that word again) people are not liberals, they are authoritarians, and authoritarianism, whether on the left or right, is undesirable in an enlightened society. We need to be more openminded, more accepting of different points of view. Don’t ‘cancel’ someone you don’t agree with and get offended, listen to them properly, and if you still don’t agree with them, argue your own case. Society will be better for it.
At the moment the woke people make a lot of noise and have caused significant damage to free speech and debate. People are being cancelled on social media, TV shows (and adverts) are woke, and woke people are criticising the use of books that contain supposedly unacceptable words such as nigger (my nickname as a child by the way). There are many instances of this problem and I hope to address some of them in future blogs. It is largely a very recent phenomenon and, I hope, will only be a temporary one. I don’t want to live in a society where they burn books because, as the Geman Jew Heinrich Heine said, “where they burn books, they will in the end burn human beings too.” And he was right.
Taking offence is largely something you choose to do. If you want to improve interactions among people in society, try being less offended and more openminded. We will all be better off.
Of Human Bondage
Posted on December 5, 2021 Leave a Comment
I enjoyed Spinoza when I read him as an undergraduate. I had some feeling for his interpretations of god and human behaviour. He was a rationalist, which fitted my youthful desires to understand the universe. He was a sort of pantheist, with god being everywhere and everything rather than being a bored bearded old chap sitting on a cloud punishing the misdemeanours of man. I preferred to think of him as an atheist of his time, finding a rational explanation for the state of the universe and calling it god so that it did not upset the god-ridden authorities of the age in which he lived.
Then there was Spinoza’s ethics. Spinoza reasoned that nothing was intrinsically good or evil, and was only so in relation to our perceptions of good and evil. He recognised that we had different ways of thinking, and one powerful way was through the emotions. Emotions, according to Spinoza, have some control over our thoughts and actions and though we may aim for rational thought emotions are powerful, ie we are in bondage to our emotions, hence the title of Somerset Maugham’s ‘Of Human Bondage’, a semi-autobiographical account of Maugham’s early life expressed through the main character Philip Carey.
I tried reading Maugham when I was 18, the age at which we try everything and know nothing. I hated his writing. It has taken me until now to try again. This time I enjoyed reading Of Human Bondage, but I did not like Philip Carey, and I still have a dislike, if that is possible through a novel, of Somerset Maugham. Both come across as ungrateful selfish people who are incapable of having a positive loving relationship. Philip cannot love those who love him, and only loves those who don’t deserve his love. Maugham expressed something similar in his own life.
Maugham was bisexual. In later life he said ‘I tried to persuade myself that I was three-quarters normal and only a quarter of me was queer – whereas really it was the other way round.’ He had an affair with Syrie Wellcome and later married her. They had one daughter who Maugham in later life disowned because he wanted to adopt his male secretary. Maugham lost the court case. After his marriage failed he lived for many years in France with his male lover, Gerald Haxton. The extent to which he had difficulties being in loving relationships was due to his bisexuality and the age he lived in is unknown, as is the way he expressed relationships in his works such as Of Human Bondage and the poor marriage in ‘The Painted Veil’.
Of Human Bondage is a sad novel, with unfortunate characters who in the main do not achieve much of value. Unhappiness runs through the pages, whether the discussion is about Philip who never really settles to anything, or the surrounding characters, who are mainly failures in their own ways. Philip searches for the meaning of life. Early on he rejects god, and eventually he discovers that life has no intrinsic meaning (similar to Spinoza) and that the only meaning is at the personal level. When he achieves this knowledge he still does not act on it and work out ways in which he can be happy, instead he continues fumbling through and making continual errors. We see this best of all in the failed relationships he has with others, whether friends, family or lovers. Even at the end where there appears to be a little hope he still cannot attain happiness. He cannot love well.
‘To read without joy is stupid’
Posted on November 27, 2021 Leave a Comment
The title is a quotation by John Edward Williams, a US novellist I knew nothing about until a couple of days ago when Sue showed me his novel, Butcher’s Crossing, in Derby Waterstones. On the back it suggested that this was a book that influenced Cormac McCarthy, so as a fan of McCarthy I bought it and read it in just a few hours.
It is set in 1870s USA, specifically Kansas and Colorado, a decade or so after the war, in the last days when men could make money from buffalo hides. The story involves a young man who heads west to the small town with a pocketful of money, a bequest from an uncle, with a view of having some sort of adventure. He teams up with Miller, and they have an adventure, they go buffalo hunting.
The descriptions are vivid, whether of nearly dying of thirst crossing the plains, or the details of shooting and skinning buffalo. The book somehow manages to contain a wealth of interest in a very simple story. I thoroughly recommend it.
The genre is Western Realism, in a similar vein to McCarthy’s Blood Meridian (itself somewhat anti-Western, about a gang that goes around killing Indians). There are no shootouts, no one plays pokers or rustles cattle, there is just the realism of trying to survive in difficult circumstances, and the knowledge someone needs in order to do so.
Williams was from Texas, he served in the US army during the war, then ended up teaching English literature and creative writing. His other books include Stoner, a campus novel that I will be obtaining and reading soon, and Augustus, about Caesar Augustus. I hope to be discussing them soon. A biography of Williams, by Charles Shields was entitled ‘The Man who Wrote the Perfect Novel’. I have only read one of them so far, but the title does seem to be a fair description.
Time to end the Covid restrictions?
Posted on October 7, 2020 Leave a Comment
I have thought for some time that the Covid restrictions are possibly more dangerous to our health than allowing Covid to run its course ‘naturally’. The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD, https://gbdeclaration.org/) comes at a critical time, when governments are imposing yet more restrictions on movement, meetings and economic activity. For those who have missed the flurry of scientific argument over the last few days, the GBD is a document signed by several thousand scientists and medics who believe that the current restrictions should be removed and herd immunity allowed to run its course with Covid, with the proviso that the old and the vulnerable should be protected. It does not spell out in detail how all this should happen, but it is a starting point.
It is time that this position was laid out for debate. For too long the discussions about the impact of Covid have been too narrow, with the strong view that we need to wear masks, socially distance, work from home, etc, even though there is little solid evidence that these are having a positive effect – there is no control group to make a comparison with. While the science around a new virus is inevitably going to be ambiguous, the data contradictory, and speculations rife, we have had little opportunity to challenge the status quo. This is not only poor science, it also undermines the liberal consensus that has dominated Western society for centuries. Where controls are shown to be necessary we can accept the,, but it is not acceptable to force people to act in ways contrary to their wishes without very strong evidence, and then for as little time as possible.
Herd immunity was briefly considered and rejected by the UK Government early in the crisis. Perhaps at the time this was the right decision, perhaps not. Seven months on we know more, though we still lack consensus. The contradictions in the data and analyses are still present, the limitations of the actual data signficant. What we do know is that Covid tends to kill the old and the sick. It has relatively little impact on other groups. Yes, some younger people die, and there is the problem of long term illness in some people which seems to be a result of Covid infection, but most people are only affected to a minor degree.
While older people are expected to die – that is the nature of things – you may be wondering how we can think about a strategy that might allow younger people to die. Who are these younger people who are getting seriously ill and dying from Covid? Presumably people with underlying health conditions are at risk as with older age groups. Are there other factors involved such as illegal drug use making someone vulnerable? Is it drinking habits? Are there other general social risk factors which lead to a higher risk of having a severe response to Covid? We need to know these things, and if it is the case that there are risk factors then younger age groups need to be educated about them so they can make choices about how to behave.
To turn to the detrimental effects of the restrictions. Should we be imposing these restrictions on the general population when we know they are having a detrimental effect on both health and the economy?
The economic restrictions have put many people out of work, many others have reduced income, many businesses have gone bust or are struggling, cash reserves are dwindling fast both at the national level and in terms of individuals’ and businesses’ bank accounts. The health impact of the damaged ecomony is unclear, but it is inevitably going to be – already is – severe.
Another area of concern is that many hospitals restricted or shut down their normal care for people when the Covid crisis started. Health workers were shifted into Covid-ready positions, beds were cleared for the expected rush of Covid patients. This meant that many people with severe illnesses who required urgent treatment did not receive it. How many died, how many have a reduced life expectancy, how many remain more ill than they should be, remains to be seen. During the crisis period of April and May this year many more people died than we would normally expect. It is assumed they died because of Covid. That is probably so for some. It is also very likely that many died because they did not receive treatment for other serioous diseases.
I should declare a personal interest. Just before lockdown I was diagnosed with heart failure and with atrial fibrillation. That makes me ‘vulnerable’ (which is partly why I am happy to consider the argument of herd immunity, I may end up one of the victims (In the end the population matters more than the individual). I have recently had successful treatment for my atrial fibrillation that has made my health and my life significantly better. I should have received this treatment in April or May. I received it in September. Just a small example, but it shows the impact of the NHS shutting down much of its general treatment for Covid. Healthwise, I have been very ill most of the year instead of for two or three months, economically I have been off work since January. This has cost my employer a significant amount of money. I could have been back at work in May (hopefully I will be back in November).
Yes, I have signed the Great Barrington Declaration. I have joined the thousands of other scientists and medical practitioners who want to change the way we are dealing with Covid. Yes, there are problems with the position. It might be wrong, but we need to at least look at the alternatives to the current course of action which is undoubtedly causing a great deal of problems regarding health and the economy both within the country and across the world. I worry that once we get back to normal and analyse the impact of Covid we will find significantly more problems because of our over-reaction (?) than because of the virus itself.
Rural rides
Posted on April 21, 2020 Leave a Comment
In the early 19th Century William Cobbett rode around England to find out about the attitude of rural people towards the corn laws. It is time for our politicians to do the same.
There is a big difference between urban and rural areas of the UK. The new law on lockdown is clearly designed for people who live in large towns and cities (London, to be honest). The – some would say – draconian measures dished out to people walking along roads and in parks is quite shocking to those of us lucky enough to live in more rural areas. People do need to get some fresh air. In our village we do not need restrictions relating to exercise. We can get up and go out at any time of the day, walking from home, and head into the hills and fields, following the wide array of footpaths – we have around 70 just in our parish and many more in adjacent parishes. It is easy to avoid paths that go through farmyards, and if we meet people we can easily pass at 2 metres to retain social distancing – and there is nothing to stop us having a chat with them.
We are lucky in having the expanse of the Peak District nearby, an ideal spot for longer walks, drives or even picnics. There is no problem with ensuring social distancing if people are careful. We might have to watch out for the Derbyshire police drones on Calver Edge, but hopefully they have learned their lesson on that one! Over-policing really is not necessary in these circumstances.
We tend to have more and bigger gardens in the countryside (I know this is far from universally true), and this has implications for further activity. The closure of nurseries and garden centres at such a critical time of the year was senseless, clearly devised by city-based politicians and advisers. Whether we are rural or urban, we need seeds, plants, fertiliser and so on in order to ensure our gardens are functioning. This has a number of benefits in lockdown. Through gardening we can grow food and we can exercise – with both physical and psychological benefits. Even for those with limited or no garden space, being able to visit a garden centre and get plants and herbs for the window sill has obvious benefits. Garden centres also tend to be rather spacious, even more so than supermarkets, and so are ideal for social distancing.
My son works for another National Park. He is working from home. One of the activities he should be doing is carrying out surveys in the woodlands of that park. He is, under current rules, not allowed to do so. Why? Because the city-based politicians say so. Again, there is no problem with him driving to these woods, walking around making notes, driving home again and writing up the reports on is computer.
Another instance. We keep hearing reports about not allowing people back to work because of the dangers of overcrowding the public transport system. In our village we have one bus an hour going either way (and not in the evening). It is often mostly empty. Most people go to work by car. While some people use public transport, restricting work because of public transport fears has little relevance for most people in most rural areas.
The economy needs to start working as soon as possible, as said daily by the politicians, though they seem to do little about it, but it is not necessarily going to be the same everywhere. The countryside is the ideal place to start reducing the lockdown. Farmers have never stopped working (they never do), and there are plenty of other countryside activities that can be started up. Not only that, being out in the countryside has psychological benefits for people who have been cooped up in their houses for too long.
Please politicians, start the process of getting the economy moving again by focusing – at least a little – on the countryside. Rural areas play a key role in the economy and leisure, and there is no good reason why we cannot differentiate lockdown rules between city and village. There is no harm in having a drive or a walk in the countryside – or even, dare I say it, sitting in a field and having a picnic. Let’s join William Cobbett and his Rural Rides. Cobbett did after all explore England by horseback in order to find out the views of farmers and other rural people in order to advise the Government on the correct course of action (I know, corn laws, not CV-19, but you get the point).
Dr Nigel Hunt 