Vaingloriousness

"There's nothing wrong with an enlarged gap between rich and poor"

Said a privately educated middle class university student.  An enlarged gap between rich and poor is evidence of the failings of society, politics and economics. The fucking failings of mankind. The urge to retaliate to this imbecility is insatiable, to name and shame, out this idiot for his close minded naive opinions; but he's not the only one.

I, for one, didn't realise we were living in 1920s America where economic prosperity was stipulated by narrow minded money obsessed bankers with no understanding of the poor such as Andrew Mellon. I didn't realise it was every man for himself. I thought we'd evolved somewhat past that point.

Do milestones such as the Great Depression and the Financial Crisis not signify that the 'every man for himself', hierarchical, money obsessed economy model doesn't work? We're still in a deficit, there are still people living below the breadline. Really- what is the point?

But we've got out own Andrew Mellon, our own big money-big business-crush the poor chancellor of the exchequer: George Osborne, who fails to understand over half of the population.

In light of the public shock facing the Philpott case Osborne claims:

"The courts are responsible for sentencing, but I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state, and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state, subsidising lifestyles like that. I think that debate needs to be had."

It isn't a fucking lifestyle issue. It's an issue of evil. Society can produce 'bad' people. But not evil. It's intrinsic. It's not due to the benefits system and the welfare state that Philpott to murdered his children- it's because he was intrinsically evil- anyone would have to be to do that. Nature not nurture: fucking naivety. Maybe rather than looking at reforming the welfare state it is the judiciary system that needs to be analysed; because really, is his 'life' sentence good enough?

Society is unjust. Rather than punishing Philpott adequately for his crimes, MPs are calling for the welfare system to be analysed and thus punishing the poor. It's blatant stereotyping and it's completely uncalled for. As it stand only 3% of the total cost of welfare goes to the unemployed including the Philpott family and 40% is spent on the elderly- how does it seem right then to claim that the welfare state needs reforming due to this case? A reform that would simply widen the gap between rich and poor, desecrate equality and destroy lives. Statistics and figures should have no prevalence over people's quality of life. Money should mean nothing but it consumes fucking everything.

In a society based on logic the concepts of 'underprivileged' and 'deprived' would not exist and people would not be perceived as either rich or poor

-but simply people.

Welcome to the Jungle

The mistreatment of animals is a daily occurrence: something that is necessary to continue our selfishly homogeneous lifestyles. Animals are used on a daily basis for our own benefit: food, clothing, medicine, souvenirs and most of all for monetary profit. Basically the exploitation of animals aids our filthily greedy capitalist society. This 'profit' currently exceeds $10 billion annually. Is it worth it? This includes 26.4 tons of ivory hacked from 2760 elephants. 2760 lives destroyed. In no way is that justifiable. In no way can 'profit' be worth a life... of any species. I can not stress enough how money is a symbol of nothing but our own HUMAN greed. Why should animals suffer at the hands of our selfishness? For what? So some egotistical human with more money than sense can own a nice rug, a trinket, a souvenir. Degrading a corpse- or part of one- basically. Animals are not disposable.

The WWF campaign speaks for itself -literally: 'I am not medicine', 'I am not a trinket', 'I am not a rug'. This is either personification or fucking true. If you reject animal rights, then you must reject the idea of animals as a 'conscious thinking thing' (John Locke), otherwise this is genocide. The use of speech in the campaign hardly raises an eyebrow on first view, however it is clear that to reject these claims one must interpret the advertisement as purely anthropomorphising animals and giving them attributes, such as thought and speech, that are not applicable to them. In contrast, by accepting the opinions and voices of these animals as advertised, one is accepting the fact that animals are in fact a 'conscious thinking thing' in the same way as humans, and thus, should be treated equally.

How is there any hope, though, for equality between species if there's not even equality within species?

Our monetarist, capitalist society, is devoid of any concept of equality; women are still fighting for equal rights across the globe, racism and discrimination are still prevalent in every sector and ageism is illustrated daily by government policy. Of course, if we can't even respect our fellows then we are going to exploit other species. 

In both evolutionary and religious terms animal rights are prominent. In evolutionary terms, the human race is derived from animals, the history of animals including us is an intricate interlaced web of development- should we abuse our ancestors? Materialistically, without a psyche, there is nothing to distinguish the human race from animals other than an alleged 'higher intelligence' and this is no justifiable reason to exploit and abuse: we don't mistreat mentally disabled humans as they have a lower intelligence, do we? - rather we care for them more. Religiously, animals were created by God and therefore hold the same sacred attributes as us with the idea of stewardship also being highlighted in the Bible: 

"The righteous care for the needs of their animals"- Proverbs 12:10

Although there is a sense of ownership here, it is still clear that animals have certain rights that should be respected and this is our responsibility. Arguably, this is rather outdated as the Bible usually is on the topic of equality and rights; even so the general message completely conflicts with the current treatment of animals in our society. It seems evident also that the mistreatment of animals correlates with morality- 'righteous'- the mistreatment is morally wrong. This raises the question: where does the current mistreatment of animals derive from if not from science or religion? 

Our ravenously selfish vaingloriousness. 

We're the brutes, the beasts, the animals- it's not fun and games.

Personal Statement #2

The art of writing is genius. Nothing within literature is purely coincidental. Every letter, every symbol is as purposeful as a painter's brush stroke, creating a whole, magnificent picture. The enrichment of reading extends far beyond a literary context; to philosophy, history, culture and politics through the formation of these words on a page; their paragraphs and chapters, their rhythm and rhyme to stage directions and setting. Every literary device is a secret communication between writer and reader; Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby is a prime example of this. Take the 'green light' at the end of Daisy's dock, in a literal sense it's just a green light, but Fitzgerald's intentions are far more than this. The 'green light' is an emblem of the American Dream, the 'dark water' separating Gatsby from this light, and ultimately Daisy, highlights the impossibility of this ideal and the constraints of society as well as a fear of the unknown, the interpretations are endless. The beauty of such symbols within literature is their subjectivity, creating an intimate relationship between writer and reader and inspiring further writers. I have been inspired by such literature, and have consequently started my own blog(www.philosophycomm entary.blogspot.co.uk) where I comment and offer insight on current affairs including the Jimmy Savile scandal, the Olympics, political engagement and the American presidential election; to name a few,indicating my own passion for writing.

Nothing complements the study of literature more than History. History is the study of our genome, the movement of our species since time began: the history of lost societies and those that still hold prevalence in the present. What can be more fundamentally intriguing and poignant than learning and analysing the history of our entire existence? Nothing. A whole historical period is embodied by the literature of it's age; Jane Austen's reserved novels highlighting the society of the early 1800s, Tennessee Williams' A Streetcar Named Desire capturing post-war dissent in America, and Philip Larkin's High Windows expressing the social change in the 1960s. The harmony between the study of English Literature and History became evident during my A levels where my study of 1920s America coincided with my reading of The Great Gatsby in English. The theme of the unreachable American Dream, and questions of morality, symbolised by the eyes of Dr. T.J Eckleburg, underpinned my understanding of the 'boom' and 'bust' years of America, and in some respects brought facts into a reality, enhancing my understanding of this period, as well as permitting me to enjoy my two passions simultaneously; English Literature and History.

My interest in literature and history strove me to write for myself, starting with my school newspaper, whereby I wrote articles on political pieces including the student protests against the, then proposed, raise in tuition fees. Finding this rather limited I endeavoured to start my own blog where I could write on a range of topics. Alongside my studies and interest in writing I have also worked at The Royal Bank of Scotland Group for 18 months as a Customer Service Associate within the Collections department. Through this I have gained the communication skills necessary to negotiate with customers, the confidence to discuss issues with managers, the experience to train other members of staff and the responsibility of managing my team in my own manager's absence whilst also meeting individual and team targets through which I have won The People's Choice Award in my department.

Overall, I regard myself to be a persevering, imaginative individual driven by challenges. Thus I feel that Queen Mary University of London will be the ideal environment for immersing myself in the studies of English and History and to expand my own skills as a writer.

The Dawkins Delusion

Extract from Chapter 9 of The God Delusion (2006) by Richard Dawkins

Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.

I strongly dislike Richard Dawkins. Not because of his close-,minded atheism but because of his assertion that teaching children about hell and damnation has the same impact on their lives as sexual abuse.

First of all, the man is a fool, devoting his life to ridiculing people's beliefs, ridiculing something that he doesn't even believe in; logically he is ridiculing non-existence, and therefore nothing. Dawkins cites his own experience of 'sexual abuse' as a 'mild feeling-up', lucky for him that he can describe his experience so lightly. But what Dawkins disregards with his naive comment is that such abuse is subjectively experienced, and many are not as fortunate as him. Dawkins agrees that sexual abuse is 'horrible', but this term seems rather feeble in describing the horrendous physical and emotional abuse entailed by sexual abuse and that ever pressing question: 'why did it happen to me?'.

What ever 'abuse' Dawkins thinks that bringing up children catholic inflicts, at the end of the day, there's always someone there to reassure them that it's not real, it's fictional. There's a whole scientific movement against it: it's called evolution. Surely the scale of this opposition is enough to convince one who has suffered 'the long-term physical damage' of Catholicism that what they fear, such as the depictions of death and purgatory, are fictional?

Unfortunately there is not a worldwide movement pleading the case that sexual abuse is fictional and that it can't hurt you any more. Sexual abuse is in no way comparable to the telling of a scary story. It will always be real.

Social Apocalypse

I feel like all I write about are fucking paedophiles and shootings. Does this not just reiterate the fact that something radical- revolutionary- needs to be done to rectify these social problems? Society is decrepit, with hateful acts rotting away at it's score, seeping hate, disillusionment and resent. The stench is impenetrable. The cause lost. Where does family, friends, love and happiness stand in a society that secretes paedophiles and murderers?

Society is perverse. There is no saving what we have become. Bring me social apocalypse because that sounds like fucking salvation from where I'm standing. I'm sick of languishing in a society of hate and greed where innocent people's lives are corrupted by the immorality of other's. It's not fair that one person has the power to inflict torturous, unforgettable pain on someone else. There is no justice. No punishment could ever rectify the abhorrent memories stored in one's mind, those memories that resurface like clockwork- daily. As much as I think rot in hell to those paedophiles and murderers and rapists and all those other immoral cunts out there their acts can never be rectified.

There's no fucking point in anything. There's no rosy, hazy future of rainbows and sunshine just the grim reality that we are falling deeper into this abyss of immorality where nothing can save us.

I am fucking angry- we should all be fucking angry.

C of (In)Equality

A resounding knock-back to women's rights occurred this week. Yes women's rights- we're still fighting for those. It might seem like something you'd read in a history textbook or on a museum display. Women's rights, mis-representatively so, evokes images of suffragettes marching in green, white and purple; a time of political protest, a time of inequality. We look back and think 'well thank you for that ladies, procuring us the vote and all that', but do we not realise that this struggle is not over? That feminism should still play a role in every woman- every girl's life?

'I hate feminists' some women say. For some reason this term draws up an image of a hairy arm-pitted lesbian. But why? A feminist is defined as 'an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women' (Oxford English Dictionary 2012) this should be every woman, every female should be a supporter of her own rights- at least. Why would any woman want to limit her own rights; prevent equality in the workplace, equal representation and an equal right to education? They don't. Many women feel, as we are taught in history, that our battle for equality is over, it was procured in the past; however the evidence from the last week or so suggests otherwise.

One establishment that one would expect to support equality to the highest level is the Church. Everyone's heard the phrases 'love thy neighbour' and 'treat other's as you would like to be treated' which are apparently fundamental principles of the Church of England, after all it was Jesus that said them. One would assume that equal rights for men and women would be right up the Church's street. Evidently this is not so. For some reason 'neighbour' and 'other' are only applicable to men; white heterosexual men for that matter and us women are left outcast amongst other's who are deemed 'undesirable' by the Church. Targeting the Church of England directly, how can the state headed Church claim to be 'of England' when it is more unrepresentative of our country than any other establishment?

The guardian newspaper has argued that the Church, by voting against the ordination of female bishops, has committed it's own suicide speeding up the previously gradual death of the Church's importance in society. But rather than this has the pledge for women's equal rights been murdered?

Parliament has suggested that the Church be forced on this issue: but applying force does not equal change. To some extent it's not worth it- female bishops permitted for the wrong reasons, and realistically not many women will step up knowing the hostility they will receive from male bishops. But parliament has a point, for one, the House of Lords holds 26 Lords Spiritual, all male, impacting the degree in which the House of Lords represents the people and also holding significant influence over the passing of measures through the House. In terms of the law, religious institutions fare immunity from such equality legislation such as the Equality Act 2010, however the EU could challenge the immunity of the Church of England with the equality of women being one of the foundations of the 'Treaty on the Functioning of the EU' regarding occupation and employment. Again, the Church may be forced into allowing women the same opportunities as men. Force is not the answer, by using force we are only having favours granted for us by men, this doesn't change the attitudes to women within the Church, nothing can do that, our own salvation lays within our own persuasion but as women seem disinterested by this gender battle our hopes are pretty low...

As the Church's stature dwindles due to this issue we might wonder why people are making the effort to change the attitudes of an already dying institution. One simple reason:

this isn't religion anymore it's politics.

The Green Light

"He stretched out his arms toward the dark water in a curious way, and, far as I was from him, I could have sworn he was trembling. Involuntarily I glanced seaward—and distinguished nothing except a single green light, minute and far away" (The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald) 

The American Dream; an ideal that was, and still is, inexplicably unreachable.  However, was this ideal in danger of being on an even more unreachable precipice in the last week? As with Gatsby, there's always that object, the dark water, blocking our ability to fulfil our dreams, be that the restrictions of society, our own fears or the actions of others; it is arguable that this dark water, this object preventing us from reaching our dreams and fulfilling our desires was going to have a face: Mitt Romney's.

Romney's political stance, the political stance of GOP in it's entirety, jeopardises any hope that the American Dream still exists. Like Gatsby's world, the proposed policies of Romney involved money, and money alone; reminiscent of the laissez faire-minimal government-maximise profits ideology of the 1920's, with one difference: economic state. The idea to maximise profits and minimise government policy seems justifiable in a society where social issues are non-existent, however, this utopia is purely fictional. Similarly to the 1920's, 2012 America has many social issues; issues of welfare, rights and still, race. Romney condemned Obama's social policies as 'extraordinary financial gifts', citing free health care and contraceptive medications in particular, things that we, in Britain, perhaps take advantage of. Nonetheless, doesn't the fact that we take advantage of these things, show how essential they are to our welfare?

Romney claims that the 'big issues for the whole country' are: military strategy, foreign policy and a strong economy. But what about freedom, education and healthcare? Surely these are greater, and more widely applicable issues for the population of America. The foundation of every society should be personal liberties: freedom of speech, press, the right to vote and so on. But, even in America, these liberties are still not established. Romney's stance on social issues projects anti-abortion and anti-gay rights and therefore anti-freedom, setting back the progress of the last 60 years. Is this really in the best interests of the American population: imposing on, rather than granting further rights?

The loss of, or lack of such rights seriously imposes on any ideal of the 'American Dream', an ideal dependent on the ability to choose, and hence the availability of freedom. The loss of our, the common people's ability to achieve their 'American Dream' allow people, like Mitt Romney, to achieve theirs. This is unethical, at least, according to Kantian Ethics: an act that uses others as a means to an end is wrong. The eyes of a Dr T.J Eckleburg looks over us judging our morality, or lack of, placing our dreams on a precipice.

And so, the dark water ebbs onwards between us and our dreams, until disillusion forms and we are left with nothing, hardly a glimmer of hope.

All in the name of political ideology.