Good action counts for a lot.  But once a person has the ideology of power fixed in their head, they can never feel safe enough. Goodness flies out the window. There is never enough power, never enough wealth.  It is not the imperative of greed, it is the imperative of survival.  Technology now allows us to survive without willful cruelty and domination, but that does not make sense to power-driven individuals.  They want the power and the glory.

So what do we do about the callous power-centred leaders of most countries whose desire for control and personal wealth is unrestrained?

That’s a trick question.

“We” never do anything. 

If “we” have any influence at all, it is to sustain and support the existing social system. “We” are responsible for those leaders … for the way they think, how they got into such positions, and why they stay there.  So the British “we” is responsible for UK atrocities not the PM and cabinet; the German “we” was responsible for Nazism in Germany not Hitler; More...

Must we battle against evil?  Evil certainly poses an issue: What to do about it.   "Doing" is a practical question, so it can be handled by THEE.

And then there is the «problem of evil»: why a God that is absolute goodness can allow suffering and cruelty to exist.  This is a philosophical question.  Most of us don’t live inside a philosophical world, although judging by blogs and websites the number of amateur philosophers seems to be exploding.  More...

Prediction in science is easy, if it's a physical science.  But not too much should be expected from findings in the social sciences—so says a Professor of Philosophy. How right he is.  He was asking if social science is useful for guiding public policy.  But is that the correct question?

The question here is not whether social science is useful or not for prediction.  (Most of it is pointless or even harmful in my view.)  The issue is whether prediction is possible in relation to social life generally and public policy specifically.  Having clarified that, we can consider what assistance from academia might be required. More...

Are you and your brain essentially the same thing?  There is a materialistic fashion at present to answer: "Yes. Of course, how else could it be?"  But: It could be that transcendental ideas are relevant and some medical scientists would agree.

However, in recent years scientific fellow-travellers have fallen in love with a reductionistic neuroscience.  They have no trouble writing sentences like: 

When we are deprived of sensory input, we generate images using our memory and keep our consciousness agents busy by playing back memories.  

But do «we» generate those images?  Do «I» play back memories?  Or do such things happen to me/us?  Do you reach puberty or does puberty happen to you?  Do you grow old?  Or is aging happenstance?

There is an enormous difference More...

Wherever I turn in the self-help and «transform your life» blogosphere these days, I run into the advice to "find your passion" and then do it.  What are they talking about?

The blogger never explains.  Well, she (it can be a he but it's more often a she) makes it clear that writing a blog to tell you to find your passion is her passion.  It has transformed her life: so she's made it.  And if we know what's going on in her head or life, then we will surely understand.  But that demands loads of empathy and imagination.  Just too heavy: any über-successful blogger-advisor knows the golden rule: Don't Make Me Think!

So perhaps she is just demanding that the reader use common sense: "Everybody will know what I mean.  So why bother explaining?"  Perhaps it's like obscenity. More...