I read a post this morning it has me thinking- It says that it is time for men to accept men, and include those who want to be different to a stereotypical manly man eg include men who want to man up in a dress with a full beard. It proposes that the term man should be able to encompass all types of men without the relabling of such people as woman, or womxm.
I like the idea that ”man” might expand and encompass what a man is and might be rather than just hoping a label tweak or purloin will do.
Personally I am happy to follow protocol and call anyone what they like and let them do what they want if it dosen’t affect me or mine negatively.
Thinking about why this is this a problem and how I might explore the ideas of truth, freedom and the govenace of such things in my work I searched out previous efforts and philosophic arguments that examine belief and discovered Russell’s teapot. I immediately held a picture in my minds eye of Harold Gillmans tea pot orbiting out in space. I am just going to have to paint this……although I think my children may favour the Unicorn angle.
My research so far :
Russell’s teapot is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.Russell wrote that, if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the ground that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell’s teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.
Invisible Pink Unicorns
This was developed further in 1990 in a student manifesto – Invisible Pink Unicorns..
”Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can’t see them.” — Serah Eley
Flying Spaghetti monster
Bobby Henderson in 2005 took this idea of faith and belief without proof to challenged the teaching of held beliefs in education by and created The church of Flying Spaghetti monster.
This has allowed held ideas and beliefs to be challenged in courts of law.
So not a silly as it first appeared.
In 1995 Carl Sagan, the scientist gave us The Demon haunted world. Sagan look at how we should seek out and understand the difference between myth and fact and use that to establish the truth. Some how I feel I’m edging back to a detective story of sorts.
In the essay The Dragon in my Garage from the book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle In the Dark, Carl Sagan uses the example of an invisible dragon breathing heatless fire that someone claims lives in his garage. The supposed dragon cannot be seen, heard, or sensed in any way, nor does it leave footprints. There is no reason to believe this purported dragon exists.
Ann Druyan (Goodreads Author), Review
How can we make intelligent decisions about our increasingly technology-driven lives if we don’t understand the difference between the myths of pseudoscience and the testable hypotheses of science? Pulitzer Prize-winning author and distinguished astronomer Carl Sagan argues that scientific thinking is critical not only to the pursuit of truth but to the very well-being of our democratic institutions.
Casting a wide net through history and culture, Sagan examines and authoritatively debunks such celebrated fallacies of the past as witchcraft, faith healing, demons, and UFOs. And yet, disturbingly, in today’s so-called information age, pseudoscience is burgeoning with stories of alien abduction, channeling past lives, and communal hallucinations commanding growing attention and respect. As Sagan demonstrates with lucid eloquence, the siren song of unreason is not just a cultural wrong turn but a dangerous plunge into darkness that threatens our most basic freedoms
In the South Park episode “The Poor Kid“, a strict agnostic couple tell their foster children that God might exist, but then again, it’s equally possible that there might be a “giant reptilian bird in charge of everything”. At the end of the episode, the bird actually does appear and eats Kenny.
So how do we establish what is true?
Are blind faith and beliefs dangerous?
Do we need proof and should the law and in turn education be allowed to decide what we are allowed to believe and what proves it is true?
It is good to know that Pirates who were always beyond Law will be taken care of by global warming – according to the Pastafarians.(Followers of the flying spaghetti monster). They have declared 19th September Pirate day…they happily beard up wear flamboyant costumes and can be men or women. Maybe we should all be pirates.
One thing we can always be sure of is Kenny always gets it before the end.