First of all, this issue is so frustrating because you have to isolate what people mean when they talk about these two terms.
To start with, imperialism & colonialism: the French and British had colonial endeavours in the Middle East, and particularly North Africa, during the imperial era. Algeria was a French colony. Libya was colonized by the Italians. Aden was a protectorate of the British. Napoleon invaded Egypt, but his military endeavour failed. The British occupied Egypt from 1882 and oversaw the Suez Canal, until they were ousted in 1956. Of course there was also the British Raj (but then, that's not the Middle East), and most of what the British did around the Arab Gulf had to do with protecting the interests of the Raj -- the Gulf was more incidental to British imperial interests, comparatively.
But here's what gets left out of a lot of these discussions: Britain and France were actually two separate powers, often playing off an empire which was not European at all, that is, the Ottoman Empire!
The Ottoman Empire existed for centuries (since 1299), and for much of its existence, it was ascendant in most of what we now call the Middle East. At times, the European powers allied with the Ottomans. At times, they allied with Arabs against the Ottomans. Arabs were under Ottoman suzerainty, including the sharif of Mecca in present-day Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam. The decline of Ottoman power and thus rising poverty and lapses of social cohesion is one ...more
So, I've been on a monster binge of watching knitting podcasts mainly on YouTube. And I've been thinking about starting my own and soo... I did. Watch it below, it's kind of long so if you're not into this sort of thing, feel free to skip.
I'm probably going to see if I can switch my funding interval to monthly rather than per post/thing because I have a goal of podcasting once a week, and if I add that in addition to blog posts, that puts me over my original 2-5 posts a month estimate for you guys on Patreon so this should make it easier.
In where Ellen introduces herself and idlecatknits, the craft room, and gets super excited about new socks.
(My show notes will improve with time. I totally winged this episode so I'll go over some details I missed on my next video.)
You can find me on the following ...more
So as I've written, I've been knitting a LOT of socks lately. And one thing I haven't done is blocked my socks. (For non-knitters, blocking is when you wet a project and stretch it into it's intended finished shape and let it dry that way. This eases out any kinks and unevenness in your knitting tension and gives the project a finished, professional look and can help hide any goofy little mistakes.)
Pretty much the only tool you can use to assist in blocking socks, besides your feet, are called sock blockers. But in my research to purchase sock blockers, I found that they're all pretty much ridiculously over priced for something I could easily make myself out of some wire coat hangars. So, I thought I'd share my process.
Luckily, materials are easy. Just grab some wire hangars from your closet or get some nicer ones from the store - mine I stole from my partner's closet (with permission) but we think they're from Target. They're a nice silver and a thicker gauge metal than what I was thinking of so they kind of wrecked my hands, but they look really nice. You'll also need a ruler (not pictured), pen or pencil and 1-2 sheets of paper that your foot will fit on. Printer paper will be fine for most unless you have ridiculous clown feet (no judging). You may also choose to use some heavy pliers but I found it was much more effective to just use my hands.
Step 1: Trace your foot! It doesn't need ...more
In my last blog post (which you can find here), I discussed a couple of arguments against Christianity from the materiality of the mind. One argument attacked the Christianity from scripture, and the other from the coherency of any immaterial mind through induction. This post will focus on an argument against the immortality of the soul, from the material nature of the mind. The argument can be phrased as such,
P1 – If there is a resurrection of the dead, it would require the mind cannot be destroyed
P2 – The mind can be destroyed
C – Therefore, there is no resurrection of the dead.
Lynne Rudder Baker -Professor of Philosophy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst
The destruction of the mind is evident in that it is material and can be destroyed like any other emergent material substance. It would be just like any toaster, computer, or whatever does not reduce to atoms (which is just shorthand for the most basic, or smallest material bit). If we cease to exist at any point in time, then how can a new arrangement of atoms be the same person? If we were cloned, then would it follow that we are alive twice? Or have two identities? How would it be any different when God just rearranges more atoms?
It would also be hard to consider ourselves members of Orthodox Christianity when we would reject the resurrection of the dead. It is one of the central tenants of the Christian faith. It is spoken of in ...more
A popular argument against the existence of God, and the veracity of the Christian faith, is the argument form the materiality of the mind. As a dualist myself (someone who thinks that there is an immaterial soul that is necessary for cognition), I would reject the claim that the mind is even a material substance. Such a claim, I would think, is a defensible claim. However, let's grant for the sake of argument that the mind is in fact a material substance and take it from there. Would that then disprove Christianity?
I will answer that it does not. There are two arguments in favor for this position. One is an inductive claim, the other is a deductive argument from scripture argument. I will be focusing on the former and providing an external source to the later. The deductive argument can be formulated as such,
P1 – If scripture is accurate, then it would not teach dualism
P2 – Scripture does teach dualism
C – Scripture is not accurate
C2 – Christianity is false
A Christian materialist can in fact reject the second premise of the above argument. Christian materialists can provide alternative readings of Christian scriptures. For more on those, there are two made posts by New Zealand philosopher Glenn Peoples that you can find (here) and (here). The argument I will focus on is the inductive claim against Christianity. Such an argument can be framed as such,
P1—All minds that we know of are material
P2—Claims of Spiritual beings, (such as God) who are immaterial minds, ...more
This last weekend I got my new gaming computer parts in the mail and I spent Sunday and Monday with a good friend building it and getting everything set up and ready to play. This is mainly a picture post with captions to tell the story. (Sorry for some potatoes.) Here's the PC Picker Parts List for those who want more specific details. Enjoy!
Computer Parts! They all arrived on Saturday. The case (not pictured) had arrive a couple days earlier.
Sunday night, putting in the motherboard first...
It has cool dragons on it... I was amused because you're never going to see this again.
Ran into a small snafu where the optical drive doesn't fit in with the size of the motherboard we got. No big deal, we managed to install all the drivers needed with some creative applications of USB drives.
All the guts are in! Minus the CD/DVD drive.
Glamour shot of the case. Nice and minimal.
IT LIVES!! The mesmerizing blue light from the power unit. The power status LED on the front of the case shoots a bright blue circle onto the ceiling too.
Here's my first set up! I've got a 42" TV as a 2nd monitor, a 24" Dell monitor for my main monitor, PC on the floor, and my old 2011 iMac off to the right, currently off because I ran out of outlets.
The total was just over $700 with all parts from Newegg. The monitor was purchased separately on ...more
A popular argument from analogy made by Anarcho-capitalist and libertarian groups is that taxation is a form theft. According to one of the founding pioneers of anarcho-capitalism Murray N. Rothbard,
Like the robber, the State demands money at the equivalent of gunpoint; if the taxpayer refuses to pay his assets are seized by force, and if he should resist such depredation, he will be arrested or shot if he should continue to resist
Source - http://www.zazzle.ca/taxation_is_theft_t_shirt-235175146059250354
In order to respond to such an argument, I would go to the Bible to show where the disanalogy can be found. While the argument is inspired from texts within the Bible, it does not require a belief of either the inspiration of the Biblical texts, nor even the existence of God. Now, there is little doubt that the Bible teaches Christians to pay taxes. According to Paul,
For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor
Likewise, Jesus Christ also tells Christians
Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?” But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites? Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius. And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said ...more
Skepticism is a sword that cuts both ways. While one might consider it a challenge to tradition and authority, it also has the potential to challenge the ideas of those who would dare attack the status-quo. David Hume, one of the poster boys of skepticism during the enlightenment, was also a conservative of sorts. The American philosopher Donald W. Livingston explores this political inclination of Hume in chapters 11 and 12 of his work Hume’s Philosophy on Common Life.
The British conservative tradition is not interested in rationalist and liberal abstractions, rather it concerns itself with concrete traditions. Livingston describes conservatism as “a reaction, thoughtful or otherwise, to the attempt to determine the social or political affairs of common life by metaphysical thinking”. Not only is Hume skeptical of this when it comes from traditional religious metaphysical reasoning (look no further than the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion), but also when it came to the metaphysical reasoning of political parties as well.
It was during the American political debate that something which resembled what I will call Humean conservatism shined forth in the words of Mike Huckabee when he was asked by Brett Baier on the topic of the transgendered serving openly in the military. According to Huckabee, the point of the military is in killing America’s enemies and breaking things, and not in providing a basis for social experimentation. Huckabee’s response was not to question the moral character of the transgender movement (not to say he doesn’t), but his response was to put ...more
One common -- and pernicious -- argument against naturalistic explanations of persons is that if people are just conglomerations of atoms, then they are not morally relevant (or that they lack moral significance; herein, I will assume that 'moral significance' and 'moral relevance' are interchangeable). The point, I take it, is supposed to be that, in virtue of their composition, anything composed of atoms would fail to have the right sort of properties to be morally relevant (whatever those sorts of properties are). For example, Christian apologist Brian Colon writes, "If all that exists is matter, then that would mean that we are nothing but matter as well. If that’s true then why do we believe that humans are worthy of respect? Humans really are worthy of respect. This is inexplicable on the Atheistic Worldview." Call this the atomic objection. In this post, I will show that the atomic objection fails spectacularly and argue that theists should not advance the atomic objection against their atheistic interlocutors.
1. What's so wrong with being composed of atoms?
At minimum, the theist needs to do more work to spell out exactly what the atomic objection is supposed to be, or why it's so objectionable to think that humans are composed of atoms. Notice that one way to make humans sound morally insignificant is with locutions of the following sort: 'humans are just x', where x can be filled in with whatever humans are taken to be composed of. For example, the materialist might say, "humans are just ...more
Sometimes I just like to draw. Here are a few quick-ish drawings I did last week.
They aren't my most polished work, but as I said, they were quick.
You can see the full album including the reference photographs here.I also accept commissioned portrait work on my ...more