sunnudagur, júní 06, 2004
Gilbert Talbot, my good friend from Quebec wrote his concerns about how I always seem to be in a hurry, not having too much time to think deeply and reflect on philosophical issues, which I truly enjoy doing. This is what he wrote:
"Hrannar has been saying many times that he had no time for thinking of this or that matter. To me this is a real tragedy, because I'm sure that Hrannar takes pleasure at thinking philosophically. It's obvious in his writing. But the drama is that his works forces him to speed up and then he looses the time to do the thing he enjoys most. Isn't a kind of alianation?"
This is my answer:
I've got no intentions to turn this into a discussion about personal issues, but Gilbert is right. I love thinking philosophically. Unfortunately I don't get much chance of doing that at the job where I'm at. This is one of those jobs where absolutely nobody listens to or values what you have to say, and seem to be rafts in the sea of thought, while I prefer to transform into a submarine. One likes the surface, the appearance of things, the other likes to explore the amazing world of the deep. Thinking deeply along with students should be, but isn't part of that job, since the students I have do not allow for the space I want to give them. During 45 minutes of classroom activity they shout, throw things, and insult each others and me, without showing any interest for thinking about anything deeper than the brand of clothes they are wearing, who has prettier muscles, and who drives the nicest car. Thinking seems simply put, useless to these kids. There isn't space for me to utter a single intelligent word, since what these students demand are pure assignments, externally forced discipline, and points. We can say that for any educator and philosopher, this is living hell. This is due particularly to the demographic of the students I have, children (teenagers) of millionaires, who seem to worry more about pleasures, power, and money, than virtue, education and reflections. The kind of people who would find justifiable to let others suffer in order to attain their own goals. Still, I do the best I can within the context I've been given.
I've experienced great philosophical discussions with students from various countries, but when there is no will to reflect, there will be nothing even remotely similar to the great dialogues I hope we've all experienced at some time in our professional life, in relation with philosophy for children. So, when I get home and find stimulating reflections from you folks, it is an opportunity to be who I truly am, open up for a moment, even while we are closed inside this cyberspace. However, there is always hope for better times, and I'm actively searching for those opportunities at the moment, for a place to work where I can truly give from what I know I'm capable of giving. It just takes a lot of effort and a little luck. The hurricane that blew down our little school building year and a half ago was probably not a sign of such luck, since it forced me into this environment of cruelty, evil and unhealthy competition. There is always a chance that fortune will smile upon us again.
Life, simply, isn't easy these days, but I know that with persistence and strength, better days will see the light.
"Hrannar has been saying many times that he had no time for thinking of this or that matter. To me this is a real tragedy, because I'm sure that Hrannar takes pleasure at thinking philosophically. It's obvious in his writing. But the drama is that his works forces him to speed up and then he looses the time to do the thing he enjoys most. Isn't a kind of alianation?"
This is my answer:
I've got no intentions to turn this into a discussion about personal issues, but Gilbert is right. I love thinking philosophically. Unfortunately I don't get much chance of doing that at the job where I'm at. This is one of those jobs where absolutely nobody listens to or values what you have to say, and seem to be rafts in the sea of thought, while I prefer to transform into a submarine. One likes the surface, the appearance of things, the other likes to explore the amazing world of the deep. Thinking deeply along with students should be, but isn't part of that job, since the students I have do not allow for the space I want to give them. During 45 minutes of classroom activity they shout, throw things, and insult each others and me, without showing any interest for thinking about anything deeper than the brand of clothes they are wearing, who has prettier muscles, and who drives the nicest car. Thinking seems simply put, useless to these kids. There isn't space for me to utter a single intelligent word, since what these students demand are pure assignments, externally forced discipline, and points. We can say that for any educator and philosopher, this is living hell. This is due particularly to the demographic of the students I have, children (teenagers) of millionaires, who seem to worry more about pleasures, power, and money, than virtue, education and reflections. The kind of people who would find justifiable to let others suffer in order to attain their own goals. Still, I do the best I can within the context I've been given.
I've experienced great philosophical discussions with students from various countries, but when there is no will to reflect, there will be nothing even remotely similar to the great dialogues I hope we've all experienced at some time in our professional life, in relation with philosophy for children. So, when I get home and find stimulating reflections from you folks, it is an opportunity to be who I truly am, open up for a moment, even while we are closed inside this cyberspace. However, there is always hope for better times, and I'm actively searching for those opportunities at the moment, for a place to work where I can truly give from what I know I'm capable of giving. It just takes a lot of effort and a little luck. The hurricane that blew down our little school building year and a half ago was probably not a sign of such luck, since it forced me into this environment of cruelty, evil and unhealthy competition. There is always a chance that fortune will smile upon us again.
Life, simply, isn't easy these days, but I know that with persistence and strength, better days will see the light.
Í dag var enn eitt mót í Bikarsyrpu Taflfélagsins Hellis og Eddu Útgáfu. Ekki tókst mér nú að vinna mótið í þetta skiptið, en gekk þó bærilega, fyrir utan eina skák, þar sem ég varð fyrir miklum truflunum frá eiginkonu minni. Hún vildi að ég færði bílinn minn sem var fyrir utan hús, en ég var í miðri skák gegn Snorra G. Bergssyni. Þetta pirraði mig mjög mikið.
Sigurvegari mótsins var Ingvar Ásmundsson, og fékk 7.5 vinninga af 9 mögulegum. Stórglæsilegur árangur hjá Ingvari, en mótið var mjög sterkt, eins og svo oft áður, þrátt fyrir færri þátttakendur frá fyrri mótum. Mig grunar að það hafi spilað inn í að Íslandsmótið í Hraðskák var haldið í dag, en þar tóku 19 keppendur þátt. Þetta mót sló því við, en 31 keppandi tók þátt í þessu móti í dag. Eins og eftir síðasta mót, ætla ég að setja fram nöfn þeirra sem stóðu sig best í mótinu og strika við þær skákir sem ég tefldi, hvort ég vann, tapaði eða gerði jafntefli, með því að setja +, -, eða / fyrir framan nafn andstæðingsins.
Fyrst mun ég skrá titil, svo alþjóðleg skákstig keppenda, og loks íslensk skákstig þeirra.
Lokastaðan:
1. Ingvar Ásmundsosn (FM - 2298 FIDE - 2280 ELO) 7,5 v. af 9
2.-4.
+ Magnús Örn Úlfarsson (FM - 2398 FIDE - 2385 ELO) - Tefldi við Magnús Örn í síðustu umferð, en fyrir hana var hann efstur ásamt Ingvari. Ég var lengi peði undir, en hafði biskupaparið gegn riddara og biskup, og tókst að opna stöðuna þar sem biskuparnir nutu sín mjög vel.
Hrannar Baldursson (2137 FIDE - 2040 ELO)
- Snorri G. Bergsson (FM - 2285 FIDE - 2275 ELO) - Í byrjun þessarar skákar byrjaði konan mín að hrópa á mig, vildi að ég færði bílinn. Ég sagðist ekki geta það, en allt kom fyrir ekki, hún hélt áfram að hrópa án þess að virða svör mín. Fyrir vikið lék ég hrikalega af mér, en Snorri fékk ódýran vinning í staðinn.
6,5 v.
5. Arnar Þorsteinsson (2263 FIDE - 2220 ELO)
6 v.
6.-8.
- Davíð Kjartansson (FM - 2273 FIDE - 2275 ELO) - Ég tapaði þessari með svörtu, en báðum skákunum sem ég tapaði, gerði ég það með svörtu. Á meðan á skákinni stóð, vissi ég upp á mig sökina, að ég tefldi mjög glæfralega með því að hrókfæra langt, stutt hrókfæring hefði skilið stöðuna eftir í jafnvægi. Davíð tókst að koma á gífurlegri sókn þar sem vonlaust var að verjast.
+ Lenka Ptacnikova (WG - 2214 FIDE - 2160 ELO) - Þessi skák var mikil barátta þar sem lengst af var staðan á borðinu jöfn. Í þrítugasta leik fórnaði ég manni fyrir sterka sókn, en ekki mát þó. Hins vegar var erfitt að tefla stöðuna frá sjónarhorni Lenku, og tókst mér að hala inn vinning í rúmum 60 leikjum.
Halldór Brynjar Halldórsson (2174 FIDE - 2200 ELO)
5,5 v.
9.-15. Pálmi Pétursson (0 FIDE - 2120 ELO)
Bragi Halldórsson (2211 FIDE - 2200 ELO)
+ Heimir Ásgeirsson (2105 FIDE - 2020 ELO) - Þessa skák vann ég frekar létt, en Heimir lék af sér heilum manni í 13. leik. Hins vegar spriklaði hann stórskemmtilega það sem eftir var skákarinnar. Hann hefur oft gert mér skráveifu, hann Heimir.
Gunnar Magnússon (0 FIDE - 2040 ELO)
Jón Kristinsson (2289 FIDE - 2290 ELO)
Sverrir Unnarsson (0 FIDE - 1840 ELO)
Oddgeir Ottesen (0 FIDE - 0 ELO)
5 v.
16.-21.
+ Jóhann H. Ragnarsson (2122 FIDE - 2045 ELO) Ég á það til að tapa fyrir Jóhanni skákfrömuði úr Garðabæ, en í þetta sinn tókst mér að jafna taflið með svörtu nokkuð fljótlega og smám saman vinna af honum lið, og loks skákina.
+ Gunnar Björnsson (2172 FIDE - 2070 ELO) - Hérna lenti ég á erkifjanda mínum en góðum vin Gunnari Björnssyni og tókst að snúa á hann með svörtu. Ég gaf honum ekki tækifæri á að tefla drekann, því að með þeirri byrjun rúllar hann yfir mig. Þetta var fórnarskák, rétt eins og gegn Lenku, en í 9. leik fórnaði ég biskup fyrir kóngsvarnarpeð Gunnars. Var þetta hörkubarátta eins og alltaf milli okkar, og hefði skákin getað farið á hvorn veginn sem var, en skákgyðjan hún Kaíssa var í för með mér að þessu sinni.
/ Sæberg Sigurðsson (2078 FIDE - 1985 ELO) Hérna gerðum við stórvinur minn Sæberg jafntefli, þrátt fyrir mikla baráttu af beggja hálfu. Í lokastöðunni höfðum við bara kóng og peð á sitthvorum kantinum, en hvorugur okkar gat tekið áhættu án þess að tapa skákinni. Sæberg hafði andspænið í lokastöðunni.
+ Ágúst Bragi Björnsson (0 FIDE - 1750 ELO) - Ágúst Bragi tefldi skákina mjög vel, en mér tókst að nýta reynsluna til að knýja fram vinning í örlítið betra endatafli fyrir mig.
Sigurður Eiríksson (0 FIDE - 1800 ELO)
Magnús Matthíasson (0 FIDE - 1585 ELO)
4,5 v.
22.-26.
Tómas Veigar Sigurðarson (0 FIDE - 1745 ELO)
Ingvar Ásbjörnsson (0 FIDE - 1275 ELO)
Haraldur R. Karlsson (0 FIDE - 0 ELO)
Kristján Halldórsson (0 FIDE - 1750 ELO)
Bjarni Jens Kristinsson (0 FIDE - 0 ELO)
4 v.
...Og aðrir fengu færri vinninga...
Frekari umfjöllun um mótið má finna á http://www.skak.is og skákina sem ég tapaði fyrir Snorra G. Bergssyni, ásamt nokkrum öðrum, þar sem hann mátaði fallega, má finna á skákhorninu, http://www.skak.hornid.com/
Stórskemmtilegt mót!
Sigurvegari mótsins var Ingvar Ásmundsson, og fékk 7.5 vinninga af 9 mögulegum. Stórglæsilegur árangur hjá Ingvari, en mótið var mjög sterkt, eins og svo oft áður, þrátt fyrir færri þátttakendur frá fyrri mótum. Mig grunar að það hafi spilað inn í að Íslandsmótið í Hraðskák var haldið í dag, en þar tóku 19 keppendur þátt. Þetta mót sló því við, en 31 keppandi tók þátt í þessu móti í dag. Eins og eftir síðasta mót, ætla ég að setja fram nöfn þeirra sem stóðu sig best í mótinu og strika við þær skákir sem ég tefldi, hvort ég vann, tapaði eða gerði jafntefli, með því að setja +, -, eða / fyrir framan nafn andstæðingsins.
Fyrst mun ég skrá titil, svo alþjóðleg skákstig keppenda, og loks íslensk skákstig þeirra.
Lokastaðan:
1. Ingvar Ásmundsosn (FM - 2298 FIDE - 2280 ELO) 7,5 v. af 9
2.-4.
+ Magnús Örn Úlfarsson (FM - 2398 FIDE - 2385 ELO) - Tefldi við Magnús Örn í síðustu umferð, en fyrir hana var hann efstur ásamt Ingvari. Ég var lengi peði undir, en hafði biskupaparið gegn riddara og biskup, og tókst að opna stöðuna þar sem biskuparnir nutu sín mjög vel.
Hrannar Baldursson (2137 FIDE - 2040 ELO)
- Snorri G. Bergsson (FM - 2285 FIDE - 2275 ELO) - Í byrjun þessarar skákar byrjaði konan mín að hrópa á mig, vildi að ég færði bílinn. Ég sagðist ekki geta það, en allt kom fyrir ekki, hún hélt áfram að hrópa án þess að virða svör mín. Fyrir vikið lék ég hrikalega af mér, en Snorri fékk ódýran vinning í staðinn.
6,5 v.
5. Arnar Þorsteinsson (2263 FIDE - 2220 ELO)
6 v.
6.-8.
- Davíð Kjartansson (FM - 2273 FIDE - 2275 ELO) - Ég tapaði þessari með svörtu, en báðum skákunum sem ég tapaði, gerði ég það með svörtu. Á meðan á skákinni stóð, vissi ég upp á mig sökina, að ég tefldi mjög glæfralega með því að hrókfæra langt, stutt hrókfæring hefði skilið stöðuna eftir í jafnvægi. Davíð tókst að koma á gífurlegri sókn þar sem vonlaust var að verjast.
+ Lenka Ptacnikova (WG - 2214 FIDE - 2160 ELO) - Þessi skák var mikil barátta þar sem lengst af var staðan á borðinu jöfn. Í þrítugasta leik fórnaði ég manni fyrir sterka sókn, en ekki mát þó. Hins vegar var erfitt að tefla stöðuna frá sjónarhorni Lenku, og tókst mér að hala inn vinning í rúmum 60 leikjum.
Halldór Brynjar Halldórsson (2174 FIDE - 2200 ELO)
5,5 v.
9.-15. Pálmi Pétursson (0 FIDE - 2120 ELO)
Bragi Halldórsson (2211 FIDE - 2200 ELO)
+ Heimir Ásgeirsson (2105 FIDE - 2020 ELO) - Þessa skák vann ég frekar létt, en Heimir lék af sér heilum manni í 13. leik. Hins vegar spriklaði hann stórskemmtilega það sem eftir var skákarinnar. Hann hefur oft gert mér skráveifu, hann Heimir.
Gunnar Magnússon (0 FIDE - 2040 ELO)
Jón Kristinsson (2289 FIDE - 2290 ELO)
Sverrir Unnarsson (0 FIDE - 1840 ELO)
Oddgeir Ottesen (0 FIDE - 0 ELO)
5 v.
16.-21.
+ Jóhann H. Ragnarsson (2122 FIDE - 2045 ELO) Ég á það til að tapa fyrir Jóhanni skákfrömuði úr Garðabæ, en í þetta sinn tókst mér að jafna taflið með svörtu nokkuð fljótlega og smám saman vinna af honum lið, og loks skákina.
+ Gunnar Björnsson (2172 FIDE - 2070 ELO) - Hérna lenti ég á erkifjanda mínum en góðum vin Gunnari Björnssyni og tókst að snúa á hann með svörtu. Ég gaf honum ekki tækifæri á að tefla drekann, því að með þeirri byrjun rúllar hann yfir mig. Þetta var fórnarskák, rétt eins og gegn Lenku, en í 9. leik fórnaði ég biskup fyrir kóngsvarnarpeð Gunnars. Var þetta hörkubarátta eins og alltaf milli okkar, og hefði skákin getað farið á hvorn veginn sem var, en skákgyðjan hún Kaíssa var í för með mér að þessu sinni.
/ Sæberg Sigurðsson (2078 FIDE - 1985 ELO) Hérna gerðum við stórvinur minn Sæberg jafntefli, þrátt fyrir mikla baráttu af beggja hálfu. Í lokastöðunni höfðum við bara kóng og peð á sitthvorum kantinum, en hvorugur okkar gat tekið áhættu án þess að tapa skákinni. Sæberg hafði andspænið í lokastöðunni.
+ Ágúst Bragi Björnsson (0 FIDE - 1750 ELO) - Ágúst Bragi tefldi skákina mjög vel, en mér tókst að nýta reynsluna til að knýja fram vinning í örlítið betra endatafli fyrir mig.
Sigurður Eiríksson (0 FIDE - 1800 ELO)
Magnús Matthíasson (0 FIDE - 1585 ELO)
4,5 v.
22.-26.
Tómas Veigar Sigurðarson (0 FIDE - 1745 ELO)
Ingvar Ásbjörnsson (0 FIDE - 1275 ELO)
Haraldur R. Karlsson (0 FIDE - 0 ELO)
Kristján Halldórsson (0 FIDE - 1750 ELO)
Bjarni Jens Kristinsson (0 FIDE - 0 ELO)
4 v.
...Og aðrir fengu færri vinninga...
Frekari umfjöllun um mótið má finna á http://www.skak.is og skákina sem ég tapaði fyrir Snorra G. Bergssyni, ásamt nokkrum öðrum, þar sem hann mátaði fallega, má finna á skákhorninu, http://www.skak.hornid.com/
Stórskemmtilegt mót!
föstudagur, júní 04, 2004
Hér birti ég svo hugleiðingar mínar um hugsunarleysi í heimspekilegum samræðum og leiði að því rökum að heimspekilegar samræður séu listform sem þurfa að miða við gildin eða hugmyndirnar sannleikann, fegurðina og góðmennsku.
I would like to comment more on "caring thinking" and moments when thoughtless words slip out, as they do every day in our lives, and even on this discussion list, by highly educated professionals in the fields of philosophy and education.
ON THOUGHTLESSNESS
In order to get a permission to be "direct", that is speaking your mind without worrying if what you have to say will insult, hurt a person's feelings, or simply not express what you want to say, the COI needs to have established trust and some safe-net among its members. Perhaps some cultures develop the personal habit in people of becoming more direct than others in saying exactly what they mean without worrying about the implications of what they have said. Even though a community of inquiry has become well established, it's doubtful that unthoughtful comments would be tolerated for long. They might be tolerated in a group of children or teenagers up to a point, but the toleration level might be even less among adults, that are "supposed" to know how to behave as responsible citizens. After having thought more carefully about what I expressed this morning, about the difference between talking accompanied by previous reflection, or without such reflection, I've come to believe that the matter isn't that simple.
ON THE PHILOSOPHER
A person who wants to be direct, needs to have a philosophical outset on life. His or her thoughts need to be by nature or education, philosophical, and without any malice, vanity or shallowness. A philosopher is an artist, and part of the art of philosophizing, is the skill to dialogue well, express your thoughts without implanting "talk-stoppers" into the dialogue. A good philosopher will encourage the ones around him or her to think for themselves, and to participate in the philosophical dialogue. If the philosopher does anything to hinder others to participate freely in the discussion, s/he would not be doing what a philosopher should do. I think that when a philosopher tells another person that what the other person just said was stupid, or deals with it in a cynical or ironic manner, that philosopher has stepped outside the realms of philosophy and has gone into the murky realm of rhetorics. As soon as the discourse becomes emotional or affectual, in a harming way, the dialogue will not benefit. However, positive emotional responses, such as sincere smiles, agreement, friendly disagreements, acknowledgement of the others thoughts, will improve the community of philosophical inquiry.
ON PHILOSOPHY AS ART
What triggered me to think along these lines was a reading I did a few years ago from Tolstoy's "What is Art?" where he mentions the importance of art not only being skillfully done, but that the artist also needs to aim for truth, beauty and goodness, for the piece of art to become good art. The same is needed for a philosophical discussion to become good, there needs to be aim for truth, beauty and goodness, from the participants. If there isn't, the dialogue simply won't work.
POSSIBLE REACTIONS: ON PHILOSOPHIZING BY YOURSELF AND PHILOSOPHIZING BY OTHERS
Now, a critic might protest, and say that the criterias for doing philosophy well are different, and that they have nothing to do with these Platonic ideas, or ideals.
A philosopher who doesn't dialogue with people in a circle, but reads and writes philosophy, is doing philosophy, but a different type of philosophy. Perhaps that could be called linear and passive philosophy, as such philosophers follow either certain ideas, thoughts, philosophers, or essays, and then respond to them in their own way, without needing to be concerned about the feelings of anyone. Philosophy in COI is complex and active, whereas a participant needs always to be on his or her guard towards the thoughts of other members in the community, while trying to figure out his or her own ideas - attempting to sort them out while perhaps there isn't any time to do it well. Confusion clouds our minds as we discuss new ideas, but with experience we know that we can trust logic to clarify these confusions, even while discussing. These two different ways of doing philosophy may conflict. Each has certain characteristics that the other may not have. Attempting to take care of what you write, in sense of concern for not hurting anyone's feelings, in an essay about Aristotle's Metaphysics is not as relevant as when you are discussing the potential and reality of nothingness and everything with other people in a COI.
TO CONCLUDE
A philosopher within a COI is a completely different creature than a philosopher sitting in his study reading books or articles on philosophy. The philosopher, or facilitator, in COI also needs to be an educator, or if educator, with good basis in philosophical thought, one who cares for the well-being of his companions, whether they are his or her students, or peers. Sensitivity to the context is probably the key to caring thinking, as each of us in a setting with more than one person, are capable of creating immense complexity of thoughts, emotions, and relations. Just by looking at a person passing you by on the street gives you certain sensations - it can trigger memories, fears, attraction, etc., all of which we need to count for in a good philosophical COI. If it's so difficult for us to communicate in a healthy manner on this internet discussion list, which is of course a whole different creature than REAL-LIVE-COI, how complex is doing good COI for each of us?
Some might think, from this account, that doing philosophical COI might be too complex because of all the emotional implications and natural barriers that appear between people who try to communicate well, and truly it is, we just have to be aware of how philosophy is much larger than any single one of us, during a session of COI, and that doing such philosophy needs to be accompanied by the studious one that takes often place in a closed room.
I hope I've been clear.
Best wishes
Hrannar Baldursson
Puebla, Mexico
I would like to comment more on "caring thinking" and moments when thoughtless words slip out, as they do every day in our lives, and even on this discussion list, by highly educated professionals in the fields of philosophy and education.
ON THOUGHTLESSNESS
In order to get a permission to be "direct", that is speaking your mind without worrying if what you have to say will insult, hurt a person's feelings, or simply not express what you want to say, the COI needs to have established trust and some safe-net among its members. Perhaps some cultures develop the personal habit in people of becoming more direct than others in saying exactly what they mean without worrying about the implications of what they have said. Even though a community of inquiry has become well established, it's doubtful that unthoughtful comments would be tolerated for long. They might be tolerated in a group of children or teenagers up to a point, but the toleration level might be even less among adults, that are "supposed" to know how to behave as responsible citizens. After having thought more carefully about what I expressed this morning, about the difference between talking accompanied by previous reflection, or without such reflection, I've come to believe that the matter isn't that simple.
ON THE PHILOSOPHER
A person who wants to be direct, needs to have a philosophical outset on life. His or her thoughts need to be by nature or education, philosophical, and without any malice, vanity or shallowness. A philosopher is an artist, and part of the art of philosophizing, is the skill to dialogue well, express your thoughts without implanting "talk-stoppers" into the dialogue. A good philosopher will encourage the ones around him or her to think for themselves, and to participate in the philosophical dialogue. If the philosopher does anything to hinder others to participate freely in the discussion, s/he would not be doing what a philosopher should do. I think that when a philosopher tells another person that what the other person just said was stupid, or deals with it in a cynical or ironic manner, that philosopher has stepped outside the realms of philosophy and has gone into the murky realm of rhetorics. As soon as the discourse becomes emotional or affectual, in a harming way, the dialogue will not benefit. However, positive emotional responses, such as sincere smiles, agreement, friendly disagreements, acknowledgement of the others thoughts, will improve the community of philosophical inquiry.
ON PHILOSOPHY AS ART
What triggered me to think along these lines was a reading I did a few years ago from Tolstoy's "What is Art?" where he mentions the importance of art not only being skillfully done, but that the artist also needs to aim for truth, beauty and goodness, for the piece of art to become good art. The same is needed for a philosophical discussion to become good, there needs to be aim for truth, beauty and goodness, from the participants. If there isn't, the dialogue simply won't work.
POSSIBLE REACTIONS: ON PHILOSOPHIZING BY YOURSELF AND PHILOSOPHIZING BY OTHERS
Now, a critic might protest, and say that the criterias for doing philosophy well are different, and that they have nothing to do with these Platonic ideas, or ideals.
A philosopher who doesn't dialogue with people in a circle, but reads and writes philosophy, is doing philosophy, but a different type of philosophy. Perhaps that could be called linear and passive philosophy, as such philosophers follow either certain ideas, thoughts, philosophers, or essays, and then respond to them in their own way, without needing to be concerned about the feelings of anyone. Philosophy in COI is complex and active, whereas a participant needs always to be on his or her guard towards the thoughts of other members in the community, while trying to figure out his or her own ideas - attempting to sort them out while perhaps there isn't any time to do it well. Confusion clouds our minds as we discuss new ideas, but with experience we know that we can trust logic to clarify these confusions, even while discussing. These two different ways of doing philosophy may conflict. Each has certain characteristics that the other may not have. Attempting to take care of what you write, in sense of concern for not hurting anyone's feelings, in an essay about Aristotle's Metaphysics is not as relevant as when you are discussing the potential and reality of nothingness and everything with other people in a COI.
TO CONCLUDE
A philosopher within a COI is a completely different creature than a philosopher sitting in his study reading books or articles on philosophy. The philosopher, or facilitator, in COI also needs to be an educator, or if educator, with good basis in philosophical thought, one who cares for the well-being of his companions, whether they are his or her students, or peers. Sensitivity to the context is probably the key to caring thinking, as each of us in a setting with more than one person, are capable of creating immense complexity of thoughts, emotions, and relations. Just by looking at a person passing you by on the street gives you certain sensations - it can trigger memories, fears, attraction, etc., all of which we need to count for in a good philosophical COI. If it's so difficult for us to communicate in a healthy manner on this internet discussion list, which is of course a whole different creature than REAL-LIVE-COI, how complex is doing good COI for each of us?
Some might think, from this account, that doing philosophical COI might be too complex because of all the emotional implications and natural barriers that appear between people who try to communicate well, and truly it is, we just have to be aware of how philosophy is much larger than any single one of us, during a session of COI, and that doing such philosophy needs to be accompanied by the studious one that takes often place in a closed room.
I hope I've been clear.
Best wishes
Hrannar Baldursson
Puebla, Mexico
Hérna svara ég stuttlega pælingum um það þegar manneskja segir í heimspekilegri samræðu að eitthvað sem annars sagði sé heimskulegt. Stóra spurningin er, er slíkur heiðarleiki til góðs í hópi fólks sem er að ræða heimspekilega saman. Hér kasta ég fram spurningu, en síðar svara ég henni betur, eftir góða umhugsun.
Hello
Since I brought the whole concept up, it would be better that I responded shortly to the thoughts of Beate. I haven't been able to find good time to write or think about these very interesting and fundamental questions that she (?) is bringing up.
It's indeed fundamental if we should say exactly what comes to our mind during a philosophical dialogue, without attempting to polish it in our mind before we phrase it for the group - so that it might sound crude, rude and perhaps at times ignorant even. Or should we perhaps always take care of what we intend to say, and think about our moral principles before we comment?
This is very interesting, but I have a class in 7 minutes - need to drive to work - and it wouldn't be very caring of me to be late for work. Just wanted to let you know that I'm very interested in the question, but TIME is difficult to handle these last days of the running semester - as last weekend went into designing exams and the few moments you find in peace just get whisked away in that lonely wind called winding thoughts....
Hope to read some answers when I get home from work... at night.
Best wishes
Hrannar
Hello
Since I brought the whole concept up, it would be better that I responded shortly to the thoughts of Beate. I haven't been able to find good time to write or think about these very interesting and fundamental questions that she (?) is bringing up.
It's indeed fundamental if we should say exactly what comes to our mind during a philosophical dialogue, without attempting to polish it in our mind before we phrase it for the group - so that it might sound crude, rude and perhaps at times ignorant even. Or should we perhaps always take care of what we intend to say, and think about our moral principles before we comment?
This is very interesting, but I have a class in 7 minutes - need to drive to work - and it wouldn't be very caring of me to be late for work. Just wanted to let you know that I'm very interested in the question, but TIME is difficult to handle these last days of the running semester - as last weekend went into designing exams and the few moments you find in peace just get whisked away in that lonely wind called winding thoughts....
Hope to read some answers when I get home from work... at night.
Best wishes
Hrannar
Ann Sharp svaraði pælingum mínum um Levinas og reyndi að útskýra þær, og að sjálfsögðu svaraði ég.
Hrannar,
Levinas like Buber believes in something transcendent
or supernatural.....and he thinks that when I look
into the face of the other , really look, I can sense
that image of God or the transcendent or Being or
whatever you want to call it.
Thus when I care for the other, I care for the Divine
in myself and in the other....and in us all.
does that help? Ann
Ann, I'm happy that you are participating with us! Every discussion we've had together have been excellent stepping stones for exploring further into what we are, becoming more sensitive about children, and our own ways of being, thinking and feeling. You have the great talent of showing us how each person is capable of sharing different perspectives, perspectives that we possibly don't expect. When a scientist looks at the cloud he may start thinking about how it will soon start to rain, while a child might be watching a great adventure that takes place between dragons and serpents, in those very same clouds, at that same moment. Each of us has those different perspectives at different moments in our lives. Well, you have taught me to bring those moments to life, by helping me to realise that we are so different, yet still, so... same.
About your explanation on Levina: This does help, but I'm still not certain about how this relates. At least it's already generating lots of ideas in my little transcendental mind, and the thoughts that are being developed in here might be a little country-road, whereas Felix was pointing at a Highway, which I missed. Isn't that part of what makes philsophy so interesting - we never know what we will get out of lack of understanding or misunderstanding, nothing seems to generate more lively ideas. But when we all seem to be on the level, we seem to kind of shut down for a while.
Let's see, how we can look at another person in a community: (by identifying I use the understanding that Ann just introduced as the center of Levina's thought on caring [and by the way - isn't there a great difference between caring on one hand and caring thinking on the other? I've always assumed that, but never explored it])
1) We identify with that person and care for what s/he thinks
2) We identify with that person but don't care for what s/he thinks
3) We don't identify with the person but care for what s/he thinks
4) We don't identify with the person and don't care for what s/he thinks
Levinas would probably choose option number 1, since we find a sameness in different people, and for that reason we might care more for what that person thinks - since with that identification, something mysterious happens - we discover that we aren't alone. Perhaps?
On the other hand, there are people that is more difficult to identify with, - but of course, if we step into the christian faith and standards, love can always find a way. However, we are not on the level of any single religious agenda, we believe that anyone can practice and participate in a community of inquiry, no matter what their religion is, and even if the person doesn't partake in any religous belief systems.
Perhaps I'm looking for a pragmatic way to think about these concepts that are basically metaphysical, and thus, not really useful per se, but possibly helpful for us to find some clear answers, and new questions.
My problem here is perhaps the way religious terms and mystical or metaphysical thought are being used in order to shed light on something that isn't really dark in the first place.
As an educator and a philosopher, it's simply my duty, in my opinion, to look for the best in my students and companions, attempting to give them the possibility to think for themselves and even by themselves. I don't find it relevant weather I can identify transcendental characteristics in each person, rather I find it important to transcend who I am through my thoughts and words, while giving others the option to do the same.
Being a transcendental thinker means to me at the moment, more of being a person who thinks in dialogue with others, with no specific utility in mind, and with utility I'm thinking more along the lines of: "How can this idea benefit me and my program?" "How can I get the others in the group to belive what I believe?" and "How can I satisfy myself with this discussion?"
A transcendental thinker would think more along the following lines: "How can we develop these ideas?" "How can we take care that everyone participates with interest?" "How can we find a way for each person to express themselves, with confidence, without fearing insulting others for his or her beliefs?"
A transcendental thinker would think more along the lines of what s/he finds helpful for the whole community without sacrificing anyone within it.
I might be rambling, I hope I'm not. I'm still not certain why Levinas is vital to our discussion, but would be happy to hear more about why s/he is.
I'm enjoying our communication, but have to get going. Life is calling. That is, I have to go attend to a student.
Best wishes
Hrannar
Hrannar,
Levinas like Buber believes in something transcendent
or supernatural.....and he thinks that when I look
into the face of the other , really look, I can sense
that image of God or the transcendent or Being or
whatever you want to call it.
Thus when I care for the other, I care for the Divine
in myself and in the other....and in us all.
does that help? Ann
Ann, I'm happy that you are participating with us! Every discussion we've had together have been excellent stepping stones for exploring further into what we are, becoming more sensitive about children, and our own ways of being, thinking and feeling. You have the great talent of showing us how each person is capable of sharing different perspectives, perspectives that we possibly don't expect. When a scientist looks at the cloud he may start thinking about how it will soon start to rain, while a child might be watching a great adventure that takes place between dragons and serpents, in those very same clouds, at that same moment. Each of us has those different perspectives at different moments in our lives. Well, you have taught me to bring those moments to life, by helping me to realise that we are so different, yet still, so... same.
About your explanation on Levina: This does help, but I'm still not certain about how this relates. At least it's already generating lots of ideas in my little transcendental mind, and the thoughts that are being developed in here might be a little country-road, whereas Felix was pointing at a Highway, which I missed. Isn't that part of what makes philsophy so interesting - we never know what we will get out of lack of understanding or misunderstanding, nothing seems to generate more lively ideas. But when we all seem to be on the level, we seem to kind of shut down for a while.
Let's see, how we can look at another person in a community: (by identifying I use the understanding that Ann just introduced as the center of Levina's thought on caring [and by the way - isn't there a great difference between caring on one hand and caring thinking on the other? I've always assumed that, but never explored it])
1) We identify with that person and care for what s/he thinks
2) We identify with that person but don't care for what s/he thinks
3) We don't identify with the person but care for what s/he thinks
4) We don't identify with the person and don't care for what s/he thinks
Levinas would probably choose option number 1, since we find a sameness in different people, and for that reason we might care more for what that person thinks - since with that identification, something mysterious happens - we discover that we aren't alone. Perhaps?
On the other hand, there are people that is more difficult to identify with, - but of course, if we step into the christian faith and standards, love can always find a way. However, we are not on the level of any single religious agenda, we believe that anyone can practice and participate in a community of inquiry, no matter what their religion is, and even if the person doesn't partake in any religous belief systems.
Perhaps I'm looking for a pragmatic way to think about these concepts that are basically metaphysical, and thus, not really useful per se, but possibly helpful for us to find some clear answers, and new questions.
My problem here is perhaps the way religious terms and mystical or metaphysical thought are being used in order to shed light on something that isn't really dark in the first place.
As an educator and a philosopher, it's simply my duty, in my opinion, to look for the best in my students and companions, attempting to give them the possibility to think for themselves and even by themselves. I don't find it relevant weather I can identify transcendental characteristics in each person, rather I find it important to transcend who I am through my thoughts and words, while giving others the option to do the same.
Being a transcendental thinker means to me at the moment, more of being a person who thinks in dialogue with others, with no specific utility in mind, and with utility I'm thinking more along the lines of: "How can this idea benefit me and my program?" "How can I get the others in the group to belive what I believe?" and "How can I satisfy myself with this discussion?"
A transcendental thinker would think more along the following lines: "How can we develop these ideas?" "How can we take care that everyone participates with interest?" "How can we find a way for each person to express themselves, with confidence, without fearing insulting others for his or her beliefs?"
A transcendental thinker would think more along the lines of what s/he finds helpful for the whole community without sacrificing anyone within it.
I might be rambling, I hope I'm not. I'm still not certain why Levinas is vital to our discussion, but would be happy to hear more about why s/he is.
I'm enjoying our communication, but have to get going. Life is calling. That is, I have to go attend to a student.
Best wishes
Hrannar
Hérna hafði ég verið kynntur fyrir heimspekingi sem ég kannaðist ekkert við, Levinas, en hann er víst frekar mistískur heimspekingur og vill líta á aðrar manneskjur sem nokkurs konar samkennd hins guðlega og eilífa í veröldinni. Hér er ég einfaldlega að velta fyrir mér hvað pælingar hans þýða.
Felix García Moriyón sent us the following quotation from a philosopher called Levina, whose work I'm ignorant of. Perhaps my comprehension is just limited, but I don't see clearly how this relates to our previous thoughts about Caring Thinking.
This text, if I were to name it, would be called something like "The Metaphysics of Ethics: The One and the Other, an Identity Problem." There are many concepts in this paragraph that need clarification to the context. In what sense does Levina think about being, and what does it mean for something to be beyond being, or "what lies outside the totality of Being as transcendent, exterior, infinite, alterior, the Other."
This is complex, but wouldn't it be a bit more caring to guide us, show us some light in the dark, so that we can appreciate the link that we are apparently supposed to be grasping, but which I don't. To put it simply, I don't get it.
From Felix: "Levinas' work, particularly beginning with his Totality and Infinity (1969), is a critique of Heidegger and Husserl, not to mention all of Western philsophy, in the service of ethics. Levinas is concerned that Western philosophy has been preoccupied with Being, the totality, at the expense of what is otherwise than Being, what lies outside the totality of Being as transcendent, exterior, infinite, alterior, the Other. Levinas wants to distinguish ethics from ontology. Levinas' ethics is situated in an "encounter" with the Other which cannot be reduced to a symmetrical "relationship." That is, it cannot be localized historically or temporally. "Ethics," in Levinas' sense, does not mean what is typically referred to as "morality," or a code of conduct about how one should act. For Levinas (1969), "ethics" is a calling into question of the "Same": "A calling into question of the Same--which cannot occur within the egoistic spontaneity of the Same--is brought about by the Other. We name this calling into question of my spontaneity by the presence of the Other ethics. The strangeness of the Other, his irreducibility to the I, to my thoughts and my possessions, is precisely accomplishmed as a calling into question of my spontaneity as ethics. Metaphysics, transcendence, the welcoming of the Other by the Same, of the Other by Me, is concretely produced as the calling into question of the Same by the Other, that is, as the ethics that accomplishes the critical essence of knowledge." (Totality and Infinity, p. 33)
Best wishes
Hrannar Baldursson
Felix García Moriyón sent us the following quotation from a philosopher called Levina, whose work I'm ignorant of. Perhaps my comprehension is just limited, but I don't see clearly how this relates to our previous thoughts about Caring Thinking.
This text, if I were to name it, would be called something like "The Metaphysics of Ethics: The One and the Other, an Identity Problem." There are many concepts in this paragraph that need clarification to the context. In what sense does Levina think about being, and what does it mean for something to be beyond being, or "what lies outside the totality of Being as transcendent, exterior, infinite, alterior, the Other."
This is complex, but wouldn't it be a bit more caring to guide us, show us some light in the dark, so that we can appreciate the link that we are apparently supposed to be grasping, but which I don't. To put it simply, I don't get it.
From Felix: "Levinas' work, particularly beginning with his Totality and Infinity (1969), is a critique of Heidegger and Husserl, not to mention all of Western philsophy, in the service of ethics. Levinas is concerned that Western philosophy has been preoccupied with Being, the totality, at the expense of what is otherwise than Being, what lies outside the totality of Being as transcendent, exterior, infinite, alterior, the Other. Levinas wants to distinguish ethics from ontology. Levinas' ethics is situated in an "encounter" with the Other which cannot be reduced to a symmetrical "relationship." That is, it cannot be localized historically or temporally. "Ethics," in Levinas' sense, does not mean what is typically referred to as "morality," or a code of conduct about how one should act. For Levinas (1969), "ethics" is a calling into question of the "Same": "A calling into question of the Same--which cannot occur within the egoistic spontaneity of the Same--is brought about by the Other. We name this calling into question of my spontaneity by the presence of the Other ethics. The strangeness of the Other, his irreducibility to the I, to my thoughts and my possessions, is precisely accomplishmed as a calling into question of my spontaneity as ethics. Metaphysics, transcendence, the welcoming of the Other by the Same, of the Other by Me, is concretely produced as the calling into question of the Same by the Other, that is, as the ethics that accomplishes the critical essence of knowledge." (Totality and Infinity, p. 33)
Best wishes
Hrannar Baldursson
Þrátt fyrir mikið annríki, hef ég lagt mig fram í að skrifa vandlega um "caring thinking" sem spurning er hvernig best er að þýða, spurning hvort að betra sé að nota orðin "kærhug," "umhyggju" eða "samhug", í augnablikinu tel ég umhyggju ekki vera slæmt orð.
I've been too busy working lately. There is no time to stop and smell the roses, or to reflect carefully about what we've been discussing. Not until, perhaps, next weekend, in my case.
I've been surprised to see, if I read correctly, that the concept "caring thinking" is under attack and seems to need defending. Of course, as Mat Lipman has pointed out in his literature, "caring thinking" as a concept is originated in feminism, where it was first known as "complex thinking", correct me if I'm wrong.
This would be the kind of thinking that has been lacking by the dominating males in the world of thought since we don't even remember. Women seem to have that special quality of being able to take care of their home, children, work, all at the same time, while a male would go nuts right away if attempting such multitasking. It seems to be something that comes more natural (or social) to women than males.
However, it may be argued that such caring thinking is healthy for each individual to practice in order to become what we might call, an integral human being. The skills that philosophy for children fosters, in theory and in my opinion as well, based on good experiences with the program, if the facilitator allows; critical, creative and caring thinking skills.
I will not be explaining this in detail, as I don't have time to write a thesis, however I would be more than happy to if I had the time.
There are moments in my experience that have challenged my weaknesses in "caring thinking" and I believe overcoming those weaknesses has helped me to become a better person, which is actually the core of my reasons for studying philosophy in the first place.
First, a moment at a session with Masters students at Montclair State University. We were discussing the theme of "games" and "fairness" but for some reason I got really irritated when one of my companions constantly seemed to misunderstand what I was trying to express. With my pretty poor English skills at the time, I said something like: "That's stupid!" and the community was in awe. I of course meant to express that his arguments were not well founded and I wanted to explain why, but I just couldn't. Perhaps that's when we turn to some kind of violence, at moments when we feel our own inabilities. However, learning to take more "care" in such discussions, of both language and attitude, has been rewarding for me.
Second, once in Mendham, a community of people turned against one person for some reason I never understood quite well. While I sensed that the majority of the community was hawking at this person like hungry vultures, for her opinions - a hero, in my humble opinion, took a stand and defended this person against the fierce attacks. This kind of heroism is somehow what caring thinking is about.
Third, I was giving a class in Ecuador, in one of my favorite sessions, barely speaking Spanish, but still managing to facilitate the community into a strong group, with of course the help and willingness to communicate of all the members. There was a moment in one of the discussions where we just seemed to be skipping stones on a still water, and not getting deep at all. After the session, during the evaluation, a man from Peru mentioned one problem we had been having, and that was listening. We seemed all to be trying to get our words out, and not listening truly to the other person. So, from that moment, I truly concentrated on giving everyone the chance to speak their mind, and we took the time to make sure we had really listened to and heard what the other had to say. When there is a big community of people discussing, the greatest trick is to appreciate the subjective nature of the dialogue, based in each individual, their culture, their society, the excentricities.
Fourth, I had a discussion with my Icelandic teenage students about death. The dialogue was truly interesting and I found the thoughts and ideas of the students fascinating. We talked about the meaning of life, what would possibly happen to the person after death, and about many of the uncertainties relating to the subject. Then someone stated that people who commit suicide go straight to hell. I asked why, and the answers were full of feeling and convictions from different community members. Some talked about how evil it was to be so egocentric as to take ones life, and thus, God would get angry and punish those people. Of course there were some atheists in the group, and they let their opinions be heard. Cool stuff. However, after the discussion, two girls from the group came to talk with me. They told me that I should take more care when discussing such sensitive issues as death. I was surprised, but listened. They told me that one girl in the group had lost her father a few months earlier, that he had commited suicide. I was perplexed. My conscience reacted, and I realised that this conscience is the key to what caring thinking is all about, and that caring thinking was not about being re-active to problems, but being also pro-active to them, to take care in advance.
I learned from this experience, and I believe that the quality and value of my classes increased. Being careless harms. Being careful builds. Isn't that good enough reason for fostering caring thinking skills?
This has become too long.
I hope to find more time to communicate with you, dialogues like these, philosophical, heartfelt, opinionated, wise and sometimes not, is what I live for. I feel like saying that I love you folks, but that would sound to corny. You know what I mean.
Hrannar Baldursson
P.S. on a side note - about Israelis and Palestinians. We can not say that the Israelis are doing a Holocaust, since The Holocaust is something unique in world history, and when expressing that they are conducting themselves by Nazi methods, there is need for some clarification. Pushing people out of their homes, ruining their lives and herding them into gettos, certainly sounds Nazi-like. It sounds similar to what the Nazi's did to the jews in Warshaw, Poland, and probably most other places during the Second World War. It's good to remember that such things have happened before, and there is no reason why they could not happen again. In my opinion it's shameful to see what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians, taking over a land that they claim is theirs, closing their immigration to anyone that is not of a specific religion, and at the same time expanding their borders, but while expanding them, OTHERS are being sacrificed.
The problem here seems to be that Israelis don't see Palestineans as their equals, and that because they are of a different religion, the piece of land they stay on is not theirs. This is a problem of discrimination, of segrigation. As long as these two groups of people see themselves as either Palestinians or Israelis, and not simply human beings that have different backgrounds but capacity to live together, the situation will not be solved.
I simply want to ask: is it ever justifiable to identify a country by its religion? I think this is categorical error. Each civilizations may have many religions or even only one, but not only one by force. If a civilization has only one religion and doesn't allow anyone from another religion to become a member of that society, we are not talking about a society, but about a religious group. What has happened to the importance of the human right for each person in any society to choose their faith, that the government can not and should not force religion upon its subjects? Being rejected from living on a piece of land based on your opinion about what God is like, is simply not a good argument.
I've written way too much.
Have a good night.
HB.
I've been too busy working lately. There is no time to stop and smell the roses, or to reflect carefully about what we've been discussing. Not until, perhaps, next weekend, in my case.
I've been surprised to see, if I read correctly, that the concept "caring thinking" is under attack and seems to need defending. Of course, as Mat Lipman has pointed out in his literature, "caring thinking" as a concept is originated in feminism, where it was first known as "complex thinking", correct me if I'm wrong.
This would be the kind of thinking that has been lacking by the dominating males in the world of thought since we don't even remember. Women seem to have that special quality of being able to take care of their home, children, work, all at the same time, while a male would go nuts right away if attempting such multitasking. It seems to be something that comes more natural (or social) to women than males.
However, it may be argued that such caring thinking is healthy for each individual to practice in order to become what we might call, an integral human being. The skills that philosophy for children fosters, in theory and in my opinion as well, based on good experiences with the program, if the facilitator allows; critical, creative and caring thinking skills.
I will not be explaining this in detail, as I don't have time to write a thesis, however I would be more than happy to if I had the time.
There are moments in my experience that have challenged my weaknesses in "caring thinking" and I believe overcoming those weaknesses has helped me to become a better person, which is actually the core of my reasons for studying philosophy in the first place.
First, a moment at a session with Masters students at Montclair State University. We were discussing the theme of "games" and "fairness" but for some reason I got really irritated when one of my companions constantly seemed to misunderstand what I was trying to express. With my pretty poor English skills at the time, I said something like: "That's stupid!" and the community was in awe. I of course meant to express that his arguments were not well founded and I wanted to explain why, but I just couldn't. Perhaps that's when we turn to some kind of violence, at moments when we feel our own inabilities. However, learning to take more "care" in such discussions, of both language and attitude, has been rewarding for me.
Second, once in Mendham, a community of people turned against one person for some reason I never understood quite well. While I sensed that the majority of the community was hawking at this person like hungry vultures, for her opinions - a hero, in my humble opinion, took a stand and defended this person against the fierce attacks. This kind of heroism is somehow what caring thinking is about.
Third, I was giving a class in Ecuador, in one of my favorite sessions, barely speaking Spanish, but still managing to facilitate the community into a strong group, with of course the help and willingness to communicate of all the members. There was a moment in one of the discussions where we just seemed to be skipping stones on a still water, and not getting deep at all. After the session, during the evaluation, a man from Peru mentioned one problem we had been having, and that was listening. We seemed all to be trying to get our words out, and not listening truly to the other person. So, from that moment, I truly concentrated on giving everyone the chance to speak their mind, and we took the time to make sure we had really listened to and heard what the other had to say. When there is a big community of people discussing, the greatest trick is to appreciate the subjective nature of the dialogue, based in each individual, their culture, their society, the excentricities.
Fourth, I had a discussion with my Icelandic teenage students about death. The dialogue was truly interesting and I found the thoughts and ideas of the students fascinating. We talked about the meaning of life, what would possibly happen to the person after death, and about many of the uncertainties relating to the subject. Then someone stated that people who commit suicide go straight to hell. I asked why, and the answers were full of feeling and convictions from different community members. Some talked about how evil it was to be so egocentric as to take ones life, and thus, God would get angry and punish those people. Of course there were some atheists in the group, and they let their opinions be heard. Cool stuff. However, after the discussion, two girls from the group came to talk with me. They told me that I should take more care when discussing such sensitive issues as death. I was surprised, but listened. They told me that one girl in the group had lost her father a few months earlier, that he had commited suicide. I was perplexed. My conscience reacted, and I realised that this conscience is the key to what caring thinking is all about, and that caring thinking was not about being re-active to problems, but being also pro-active to them, to take care in advance.
I learned from this experience, and I believe that the quality and value of my classes increased. Being careless harms. Being careful builds. Isn't that good enough reason for fostering caring thinking skills?
This has become too long.
I hope to find more time to communicate with you, dialogues like these, philosophical, heartfelt, opinionated, wise and sometimes not, is what I live for. I feel like saying that I love you folks, but that would sound to corny. You know what I mean.
Hrannar Baldursson
P.S. on a side note - about Israelis and Palestinians. We can not say that the Israelis are doing a Holocaust, since The Holocaust is something unique in world history, and when expressing that they are conducting themselves by Nazi methods, there is need for some clarification. Pushing people out of their homes, ruining their lives and herding them into gettos, certainly sounds Nazi-like. It sounds similar to what the Nazi's did to the jews in Warshaw, Poland, and probably most other places during the Second World War. It's good to remember that such things have happened before, and there is no reason why they could not happen again. In my opinion it's shameful to see what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians, taking over a land that they claim is theirs, closing their immigration to anyone that is not of a specific religion, and at the same time expanding their borders, but while expanding them, OTHERS are being sacrificed.
The problem here seems to be that Israelis don't see Palestineans as their equals, and that because they are of a different religion, the piece of land they stay on is not theirs. This is a problem of discrimination, of segrigation. As long as these two groups of people see themselves as either Palestinians or Israelis, and not simply human beings that have different backgrounds but capacity to live together, the situation will not be solved.
I simply want to ask: is it ever justifiable to identify a country by its religion? I think this is categorical error. Each civilizations may have many religions or even only one, but not only one by force. If a civilization has only one religion and doesn't allow anyone from another religion to become a member of that society, we are not talking about a society, but about a religious group. What has happened to the importance of the human right for each person in any society to choose their faith, that the government can not and should not force religion upon its subjects? Being rejected from living on a piece of land based on your opinion about what God is like, is simply not a good argument.
I've written way too much.
Have a good night.
HB.
Hér svara ég gagnrýni Oscar nokkurs Brenifier, sem hefur farið hörðum orðum um heimspeki fyrir börn, en virðist ekki skilja almennilega um hvað hreyfingin snýst.
My purpose of writing this is first of all to respond to the rightful doubts of Oscar Brenifier about the value of Philosophy for Children. If there would be no room for doubt, how could we be convinced about its excellence?
First of all, I want to express my lack of time for reading over the material presented in the previous days, as I?m in the process of evaluating exams and being covered in work, everydaystuff you know. Alas, none in philosophy for children though. I think I understand somewhat the stand of Oscar, and of David, but it seems to me that Oscar criticizes harshly the whole movement of philosophy for children, based on an experience he had at an international conference. I would dare to say that?s not enough basis to form a valid judgment, and I belief that intense sessions in philosophy for children are the best ways to learn about its potentials. Not all such experiences are guaranteed for success though, since people with different interests, from different cultures and with different sensibilities are very capable of either creating something fantastic, or developing furious conflicts that taint the whole session.
David seems to judge Oscar as an authoritorian philosopher and educator, someone who represents the old school. I?m not certain if that judgment is valid, since I don?t know Oscar in person, and haven?t seen anything in the paper that can categorize him as such. From his previous postings on the p4c-list, he appears to me to be pretty unsensitive to other people though, ironic and even cynical. Irony and cynicism are not healthy ways, even though they may sound funny and clever, to keep ideas clear and communicating over the multicultural environment we flourish in. However, Oscar seems to lack a certain sensitivity, what Philosophers for Children call Caring Thinking, and should never be excluded from a discussion about the phenomenon called Philosophy for Children. I?m not writing this with any hostile intent towards Oscar, this is only my perception, and it may be inaccurate.
One important thing can be said about each participant in a community of inquiry, is that you receive only in the extent that you give. It?s like a person who looks on and wonders about a great piece of art, The Birth of Adam, for example. A Christian person is more likely to get something marvelous out of the viewing, than a Buddhist or a Hindu. If you arrive as a sceptic in a community of inquiry, apply critical and creative thinking, but none of caring thinking, your efforts are in vain. Or a child who wants big presents for Christmas without caring about giving anything, the disappointment of that child seems rightous to the child, but to others it seems colored with egocentrism and narrow mindedness. The child simply doesn?t get it. I have a feeling Oscar just doesn?t get it, in a similar way.
Since I have little time and want each answer to be short, here is my first one, and perhaps the last, unless time turns its cruel eyes away from me for a moment...
ON RELATIVISM
Oscar: ?Then, I asked them what they liked about this activity, and they told me that what was great was that in philosophy there was no right and wrong, and that each person could say what they wanted. Now, as friendly and visibly enthusiastic as where these students, their response somewhat surprised me. I had always heard exactly this kind of statement, and I try to take it on quickly in the first sessions of philosophy classes.?
I often hear the same thing when I evaluate my students in philosophy for children, after a few discussions. It seems that letting lose, and touching some fiber of freedom gives them a cause to generalize. I have inquired more deeply about what the students mean by such statements, and then the answers are commonly in the following manner, with some poetic license: ?We are able to see one idea, concept or thing, from many different perspectives, due to the flowing dialogue of our companions. We accept that some things don?t necessarily change, however they might and probably will, but our views are everchanging, whether the object remains or moves, and those views of ours often become the object of the discourse.?
So, in that sense, there is no right or wrong, but the reason is simple: it?s not the context of right or wrong, it?s like saying that beautiful things are right and ugly are wrong, or that the truth is right and the false is wrong. The problem here is that students may have problem stating exactly what they mean, briefly.
Wasn?t it Wittgenstein who mentioned that all philosophical problems are just grammatical errors or our shortcomings in the application of language? I think it applies right here, at least.
ON THE ART OF PHILOSOPHIZING
Every artist goes through something that?s called an artistic process. So does each philosopher. You don?t just become a philosopher at the moment you learn to speak and ask questions. You become a philosopher when you start to recognize that these inquiries have true value, and perhaps not only for yourself, but possibly for others as well. A philosopher is someone who doesn?t give up on his or her questions, but wades through the mud, until it eather becomes hard enough to walk on, or soft enough to swim through. No artist is an artist at the first stroke any more than a child can become a surgeon by putting on a mask and cutting up a patient. The process requires constant studies and inquiries. A person who has studied philosophy for one year isn?t necessarily a philosopher, but could be a potential one, or even a good one. There are probably various criterias we can use to debate about that. Is there a single correct one that everyone can agree on, anymore than everyone can agree on the same religion or philosophy of living?
THE PROCESS OF COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY
Oscar: ?The community of inquiry is a very lengthy process, time elongating, which can only make sense by being observed over a very long period of time.?
This is true. The community of inquiry has in an article by Ann Sharp been compared to the raft that Jim and Huck sail on down the Mississippi river. They have great discussions on that raft, but later on it is crushed by a steamboat. The steamboat is a threatening presence that can easily been seen as a person present in a community of inquiry, and rather than to support it, works on, either by intend or by ignorance, to destroy the very thing that s/he?s participating in. Later on in the story, Huck?s and Jim?s life on their travel down the river is completely destroyed by The Duke and The King, two alcoholic scoundrels that only want to use the two for their own wicked purposes. When a person enters a community of inquiry armed with the weapons of utilitarianism, the foundations of the dialogue are sure to start shaking, and even crumble and fall, until that person is out of the way, either by silence or better, by absence. So, philosophy doesn?t work for everyone, anymore than it did when the Democratic People of Athens sentenced Socrates to death for doing philosophy. Another example that springs to mind is from quantum physics. When you attempt to measure in an experiment the ways light moves, you can?t avoid affecting the process by your presence. The same happens in a community of inquiry. Every single person is a source of light, and every word uttered is a beam of light. If there is one around who wants to turn off the lights, it can easily be done, by simple manipulation and verbal violence. That?s where the teacher needs to come in, to attempt conquering the swallower of light, by getting him or her to start shining his or her own light.
I hope this helps.
Hrannar Baldursson
Puebla, Mexico
My purpose of writing this is first of all to respond to the rightful doubts of Oscar Brenifier about the value of Philosophy for Children. If there would be no room for doubt, how could we be convinced about its excellence?
First of all, I want to express my lack of time for reading over the material presented in the previous days, as I?m in the process of evaluating exams and being covered in work, everydaystuff you know. Alas, none in philosophy for children though. I think I understand somewhat the stand of Oscar, and of David, but it seems to me that Oscar criticizes harshly the whole movement of philosophy for children, based on an experience he had at an international conference. I would dare to say that?s not enough basis to form a valid judgment, and I belief that intense sessions in philosophy for children are the best ways to learn about its potentials. Not all such experiences are guaranteed for success though, since people with different interests, from different cultures and with different sensibilities are very capable of either creating something fantastic, or developing furious conflicts that taint the whole session.
David seems to judge Oscar as an authoritorian philosopher and educator, someone who represents the old school. I?m not certain if that judgment is valid, since I don?t know Oscar in person, and haven?t seen anything in the paper that can categorize him as such. From his previous postings on the p4c-list, he appears to me to be pretty unsensitive to other people though, ironic and even cynical. Irony and cynicism are not healthy ways, even though they may sound funny and clever, to keep ideas clear and communicating over the multicultural environment we flourish in. However, Oscar seems to lack a certain sensitivity, what Philosophers for Children call Caring Thinking, and should never be excluded from a discussion about the phenomenon called Philosophy for Children. I?m not writing this with any hostile intent towards Oscar, this is only my perception, and it may be inaccurate.
One important thing can be said about each participant in a community of inquiry, is that you receive only in the extent that you give. It?s like a person who looks on and wonders about a great piece of art, The Birth of Adam, for example. A Christian person is more likely to get something marvelous out of the viewing, than a Buddhist or a Hindu. If you arrive as a sceptic in a community of inquiry, apply critical and creative thinking, but none of caring thinking, your efforts are in vain. Or a child who wants big presents for Christmas without caring about giving anything, the disappointment of that child seems rightous to the child, but to others it seems colored with egocentrism and narrow mindedness. The child simply doesn?t get it. I have a feeling Oscar just doesn?t get it, in a similar way.
Since I have little time and want each answer to be short, here is my first one, and perhaps the last, unless time turns its cruel eyes away from me for a moment...
ON RELATIVISM
Oscar: ?Then, I asked them what they liked about this activity, and they told me that what was great was that in philosophy there was no right and wrong, and that each person could say what they wanted. Now, as friendly and visibly enthusiastic as where these students, their response somewhat surprised me. I had always heard exactly this kind of statement, and I try to take it on quickly in the first sessions of philosophy classes.?
I often hear the same thing when I evaluate my students in philosophy for children, after a few discussions. It seems that letting lose, and touching some fiber of freedom gives them a cause to generalize. I have inquired more deeply about what the students mean by such statements, and then the answers are commonly in the following manner, with some poetic license: ?We are able to see one idea, concept or thing, from many different perspectives, due to the flowing dialogue of our companions. We accept that some things don?t necessarily change, however they might and probably will, but our views are everchanging, whether the object remains or moves, and those views of ours often become the object of the discourse.?
So, in that sense, there is no right or wrong, but the reason is simple: it?s not the context of right or wrong, it?s like saying that beautiful things are right and ugly are wrong, or that the truth is right and the false is wrong. The problem here is that students may have problem stating exactly what they mean, briefly.
Wasn?t it Wittgenstein who mentioned that all philosophical problems are just grammatical errors or our shortcomings in the application of language? I think it applies right here, at least.
ON THE ART OF PHILOSOPHIZING
Every artist goes through something that?s called an artistic process. So does each philosopher. You don?t just become a philosopher at the moment you learn to speak and ask questions. You become a philosopher when you start to recognize that these inquiries have true value, and perhaps not only for yourself, but possibly for others as well. A philosopher is someone who doesn?t give up on his or her questions, but wades through the mud, until it eather becomes hard enough to walk on, or soft enough to swim through. No artist is an artist at the first stroke any more than a child can become a surgeon by putting on a mask and cutting up a patient. The process requires constant studies and inquiries. A person who has studied philosophy for one year isn?t necessarily a philosopher, but could be a potential one, or even a good one. There are probably various criterias we can use to debate about that. Is there a single correct one that everyone can agree on, anymore than everyone can agree on the same religion or philosophy of living?
THE PROCESS OF COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY
Oscar: ?The community of inquiry is a very lengthy process, time elongating, which can only make sense by being observed over a very long period of time.?
This is true. The community of inquiry has in an article by Ann Sharp been compared to the raft that Jim and Huck sail on down the Mississippi river. They have great discussions on that raft, but later on it is crushed by a steamboat. The steamboat is a threatening presence that can easily been seen as a person present in a community of inquiry, and rather than to support it, works on, either by intend or by ignorance, to destroy the very thing that s/he?s participating in. Later on in the story, Huck?s and Jim?s life on their travel down the river is completely destroyed by The Duke and The King, two alcoholic scoundrels that only want to use the two for their own wicked purposes. When a person enters a community of inquiry armed with the weapons of utilitarianism, the foundations of the dialogue are sure to start shaking, and even crumble and fall, until that person is out of the way, either by silence or better, by absence. So, philosophy doesn?t work for everyone, anymore than it did when the Democratic People of Athens sentenced Socrates to death for doing philosophy. Another example that springs to mind is from quantum physics. When you attempt to measure in an experiment the ways light moves, you can?t avoid affecting the process by your presence. The same happens in a community of inquiry. Every single person is a source of light, and every word uttered is a beam of light. If there is one around who wants to turn off the lights, it can easily be done, by simple manipulation and verbal violence. That?s where the teacher needs to come in, to attempt conquering the swallower of light, by getting him or her to start shining his or her own light.
I hope this helps.
Hrannar Baldursson
Puebla, Mexico
Brynhildur Sigurðardóttir skrifaði á listann um hvernig heimspeki fyrir börn hefur verið gagnrýnd af vísindamönnum á Íslandi sem vilja meiri tækniþekkingu meðal nemenda, en virðast ekki sjá mikilvægi og gildi heimspekilegrar hugsunar fyrir menntun sérhvers einstaklings.
Dear Brynhildur and fellow educators in P4C
It's a bit weird to respond in English to a fellow Icelandic philosopher, as our native tounge is of course Icelandic.
On the discussion you are having with the scientists in Iceland, it seems to me that they are seeing the issue through tunnel vision, looking at the students as variables in an objective problem. Of course, it's important that students arrive well prepared at the University level, whatever they will want to study, be it science, humanities, social sciences, or engineering.
The perspective of the scientists as you paint it seems to be utilitarian in nature, while yours may be more concerned with looking at the student as a person, rather than an object that should fulfill certain requirements.
Both views are understandable, but one should not consume or eliminate the other. I believe that a well trained student, in science, or in methodology is a very valuable asset, but if that student is trained without the capacity of philosophical analysis, the method and the means become the centre on his studies, and not the student him/her self, who will apply this training (or not) later in life.
Why should someone interested in Universal Literature or Psychology be trained deeply in calculating quantum physics formulas, while neglecting perhaps his or her reading, comprehension and analysis skills?
Philosophy for Children is fun, but it's also very valuable, as it trains skills for imagining, caring, analysing, and last but not least, for making judgments, while keeping in mind the perspectives of surrounding companions. Philosophy for Children is not just playing around and enjoying, even though it certainly often feels fun, it enhances not only skills for reasoning better, it also gives students a way to appreciate other subjects they've been learning, to appreciate that there are different ways to view life, death, happiness, the universe, infinity, thoughts, dreams, friendship, science, etc.
The students I've worked with in philosophy for children; young children, teenagers, and teachers, most of them (not all) seem to get it, that philosophy is something that is needed to compliment other studies.
We have to be aware that people have different interests, and with those different interests, I believe they develope different intelligences. A person by himself can be very intelligent in one aspect, while the next person, a novice in the expertice of the other, can be brilliant in something else. Having these people dialogue, while fostering good reasoning and listening skills, is without doubt very valuable.
And especially about the case of the scientists arguing that more training will make better scientists. I'm not certain that this argument is valid. I've studied chess very deeply, and am getting more involved with the mysteries of that game. The greatest players have published hundreds of books with advices for players who want to advance. All of them agree that training and practicing is very valuable. But as Kasparov, the greatest player today, has suggested, and Mark Dvoretsky, the most successful chess trainer ever, agree on, that there is a huge gap between students of chess who merely train, and those who tackle serious analysis.
At a young age, what philosophy gives the child, is the ability to analyse and evaluate through dialogue. A child with analitical skills will be more valuable in any field of science or humanities with those skills, rather than simply giving the whole group the same kind of training, whether they want to or not.
Philosophy for Children gives something very special to the child. While in almost every other subject, the child deals on objective grounds with different tasks. There are problems that have concrete solutions, and it doesn't matter who it is who attempts to solve them. Philosophy for Children does that, but goes a few steps further, the individual, the child, becomes both the object and the subject of the study. Suddenly, the ideas, thoughts and reasons, the child brings into the context are extremely valuable, both to his/her companions, and to him/her self.
I have experienced educational institutions that work with Philosophy for Children, and others who don't. My conclusion is simple: I wouldn't want my children to be in school that doesn't give P4C, as it enhances their lives, they start solving problems by thinking and discussing, and not just merely by frustration and violence. I've seen that process in my own children, and am forever thankful for the existence of P4C.
It's often a struggle to show its value, as to many people turn a blind eye and a deaf ear, but it's there, and should be fostered. If not by us, then by whom?
Brynhildur, if you want me to participate in the dialogue in Icelandic, I would be more than happy to.
Best wishes
Hrannar Baldursson
Puebla, Mexico
Dear Brynhildur and fellow educators in P4C
It's a bit weird to respond in English to a fellow Icelandic philosopher, as our native tounge is of course Icelandic.
On the discussion you are having with the scientists in Iceland, it seems to me that they are seeing the issue through tunnel vision, looking at the students as variables in an objective problem. Of course, it's important that students arrive well prepared at the University level, whatever they will want to study, be it science, humanities, social sciences, or engineering.
The perspective of the scientists as you paint it seems to be utilitarian in nature, while yours may be more concerned with looking at the student as a person, rather than an object that should fulfill certain requirements.
Both views are understandable, but one should not consume or eliminate the other. I believe that a well trained student, in science, or in methodology is a very valuable asset, but if that student is trained without the capacity of philosophical analysis, the method and the means become the centre on his studies, and not the student him/her self, who will apply this training (or not) later in life.
Why should someone interested in Universal Literature or Psychology be trained deeply in calculating quantum physics formulas, while neglecting perhaps his or her reading, comprehension and analysis skills?
Philosophy for Children is fun, but it's also very valuable, as it trains skills for imagining, caring, analysing, and last but not least, for making judgments, while keeping in mind the perspectives of surrounding companions. Philosophy for Children is not just playing around and enjoying, even though it certainly often feels fun, it enhances not only skills for reasoning better, it also gives students a way to appreciate other subjects they've been learning, to appreciate that there are different ways to view life, death, happiness, the universe, infinity, thoughts, dreams, friendship, science, etc.
The students I've worked with in philosophy for children; young children, teenagers, and teachers, most of them (not all) seem to get it, that philosophy is something that is needed to compliment other studies.
We have to be aware that people have different interests, and with those different interests, I believe they develope different intelligences. A person by himself can be very intelligent in one aspect, while the next person, a novice in the expertice of the other, can be brilliant in something else. Having these people dialogue, while fostering good reasoning and listening skills, is without doubt very valuable.
And especially about the case of the scientists arguing that more training will make better scientists. I'm not certain that this argument is valid. I've studied chess very deeply, and am getting more involved with the mysteries of that game. The greatest players have published hundreds of books with advices for players who want to advance. All of them agree that training and practicing is very valuable. But as Kasparov, the greatest player today, has suggested, and Mark Dvoretsky, the most successful chess trainer ever, agree on, that there is a huge gap between students of chess who merely train, and those who tackle serious analysis.
At a young age, what philosophy gives the child, is the ability to analyse and evaluate through dialogue. A child with analitical skills will be more valuable in any field of science or humanities with those skills, rather than simply giving the whole group the same kind of training, whether they want to or not.
Philosophy for Children gives something very special to the child. While in almost every other subject, the child deals on objective grounds with different tasks. There are problems that have concrete solutions, and it doesn't matter who it is who attempts to solve them. Philosophy for Children does that, but goes a few steps further, the individual, the child, becomes both the object and the subject of the study. Suddenly, the ideas, thoughts and reasons, the child brings into the context are extremely valuable, both to his/her companions, and to him/her self.
I have experienced educational institutions that work with Philosophy for Children, and others who don't. My conclusion is simple: I wouldn't want my children to be in school that doesn't give P4C, as it enhances their lives, they start solving problems by thinking and discussing, and not just merely by frustration and violence. I've seen that process in my own children, and am forever thankful for the existence of P4C.
It's often a struggle to show its value, as to many people turn a blind eye and a deaf ear, but it's there, and should be fostered. If not by us, then by whom?
Brynhildur, if you want me to participate in the dialogue in Icelandic, I would be more than happy to.
Best wishes
Hrannar Baldursson
Puebla, Mexico
sunnudagur, maí 09, 2004
Meira egóflipp.
Í dag náði ég 1.- 2. sæti í 3. móti Bikarsyrpu Eddu Bókaútgáfu og Taflfélagsins Helli ásamt Birni Þorfinnssyni með 7 vinninga af 9 hvor. Í 3.- 4. sæti urðu svo Davíð Kjartansson og Bragi þorfinnsson með 6.5 vinninga hvor.
Í gamni ætla ég að taka saman alþjóðleg skákstig 26 (af 44) efstu keppanda mótsins. Svo set ég plús fyrir framan nöfn þeirra sem ég vann í mótinu en mínus fyrir framan þá sem ég tapaði fyrir.
1.-2.
+ Björn Þorfinnsson (2345) * margfaldur skákmeistari Taflfélagsins Hellis *
Hrannar Baldursson (2137) * skákmeistari Puebla 2003 *
7 v. af 9
3.-4.
Bragi Þorfinnsson (2402) * í ólympíuliði Íslands í skák *
Davíð Kjartansson (2273) * fyrrum Íslandsmeistari í Netskák *
6,5 v.
5.-10.
+ Rúnar Sigurpálsson (2214) * margfaldur skákmeistari Akureyrar *
+ Ingvar Ásmundsson (2298) * fyrrum Íslandsmeistari og ólympíuliðsmaður - í fyrra var hann nálægt því að sigra á Heimsmeistaramóti öldunga *
Lenka Ptacnikova (2214) * eiginkona Helga Áss - sigurvegari flestra ef ekki allra kvennaskákmóta á Íslandi *
- Tómas Veigar Sigurðarson (0) - Akureyringur
Ólafur Kristjánsson (2222) - Akureyringur - margfaldur skákmeistari Akureyrar
Snorri G. Bergsson (2285) - sagnfræðingur og skákgúrú
6 v.
11.-13.
- Arnar Þorsteinsson (2263) * heimspekingur, sagnfræðingur, frá Akureyri en býr í Reykjavík *
Jón Kristinsson (2289) * þekki ekki sögur af Jóni *
Heimir Ásgeirsson (2105) * skákmeistari Hafnarfjarðar *
5,5 v.
14.-22.
Jóhann H. Ragnarsson (2122) * margfaldur skákmeistari Garðarbæjar *
+ Sigurður Eiríksson (0) * þekki hann ekki *
Áskell Örn Kárason (2259) * fyrrum forseti Skáksambands Íslands, mikill skákfrömuður og sálfræðingur *
Ágúst Bragi Björnsson (0) * þekki hann ekki *
Pálmi R. Pétursson (0) * þekki hann ekki *
Kristján Halldórsson (0) * knattspyrnumaður og góður félagi *
Jóhann Helgi Sigurðsson (2007) * Garðbæingur, held hann sé líka tölvufræðingur, ekki viss samt *
Gunnar Björnsson (2172) * skákfrömuður, ritstjóri, skákdómari *
Oddgeir Ottesen (0) * þekki hann ekki
5 v.
23.-26.
+ Halldór Brynjar Halldórsson (2174) * Margfaldur skákmeistari Akureyrar *
Gunnar Magnússon (0) * þekki hann ekki *
Sverrir Örn Björnsson (0) * hörku skákmaður úr Hafnarfirðinum
Kristján Örn Elíasson (2084) * Íslandsmeistari í sínum stigaflokki á netmótinu í fyrra minnir mig *
4,5 v.
Nóg komið af egóflippi. Ég er einfaldlega ánægður með árangurinn í þessu móti, og þakka hann fyrst og fremst þeim miklu stúderingum sem ég hef lagst í að undanförnu, og er þetta einfaldlega fín hvatning til að stúdera enn dýpra og skrifa fleiri greinar í Tímaritið Skák.
Í dag náði ég 1.- 2. sæti í 3. móti Bikarsyrpu Eddu Bókaútgáfu og Taflfélagsins Helli ásamt Birni Þorfinnssyni með 7 vinninga af 9 hvor. Í 3.- 4. sæti urðu svo Davíð Kjartansson og Bragi þorfinnsson með 6.5 vinninga hvor.
Í gamni ætla ég að taka saman alþjóðleg skákstig 26 (af 44) efstu keppanda mótsins. Svo set ég plús fyrir framan nöfn þeirra sem ég vann í mótinu en mínus fyrir framan þá sem ég tapaði fyrir.
1.-2.
+ Björn Þorfinnsson (2345) * margfaldur skákmeistari Taflfélagsins Hellis *
Hrannar Baldursson (2137) * skákmeistari Puebla 2003 *
7 v. af 9
3.-4.
Bragi Þorfinnsson (2402) * í ólympíuliði Íslands í skák *
Davíð Kjartansson (2273) * fyrrum Íslandsmeistari í Netskák *
6,5 v.
5.-10.
+ Rúnar Sigurpálsson (2214) * margfaldur skákmeistari Akureyrar *
+ Ingvar Ásmundsson (2298) * fyrrum Íslandsmeistari og ólympíuliðsmaður - í fyrra var hann nálægt því að sigra á Heimsmeistaramóti öldunga *
Lenka Ptacnikova (2214) * eiginkona Helga Áss - sigurvegari flestra ef ekki allra kvennaskákmóta á Íslandi *
- Tómas Veigar Sigurðarson (0) - Akureyringur
Ólafur Kristjánsson (2222) - Akureyringur - margfaldur skákmeistari Akureyrar
Snorri G. Bergsson (2285) - sagnfræðingur og skákgúrú
6 v.
11.-13.
- Arnar Þorsteinsson (2263) * heimspekingur, sagnfræðingur, frá Akureyri en býr í Reykjavík *
Jón Kristinsson (2289) * þekki ekki sögur af Jóni *
Heimir Ásgeirsson (2105) * skákmeistari Hafnarfjarðar *
5,5 v.
14.-22.
Jóhann H. Ragnarsson (2122) * margfaldur skákmeistari Garðarbæjar *
+ Sigurður Eiríksson (0) * þekki hann ekki *
Áskell Örn Kárason (2259) * fyrrum forseti Skáksambands Íslands, mikill skákfrömuður og sálfræðingur *
Ágúst Bragi Björnsson (0) * þekki hann ekki *
Pálmi R. Pétursson (0) * þekki hann ekki *
Kristján Halldórsson (0) * knattspyrnumaður og góður félagi *
Jóhann Helgi Sigurðsson (2007) * Garðbæingur, held hann sé líka tölvufræðingur, ekki viss samt *
Gunnar Björnsson (2172) * skákfrömuður, ritstjóri, skákdómari *
Oddgeir Ottesen (0) * þekki hann ekki
5 v.
23.-26.
+ Halldór Brynjar Halldórsson (2174) * Margfaldur skákmeistari Akureyrar *
Gunnar Magnússon (0) * þekki hann ekki *
Sverrir Örn Björnsson (0) * hörku skákmaður úr Hafnarfirðinum
Kristján Örn Elíasson (2084) * Íslandsmeistari í sínum stigaflokki á netmótinu í fyrra minnir mig *
4,5 v.
Nóg komið af egóflippi. Ég er einfaldlega ánægður með árangurinn í þessu móti, og þakka hann fyrst og fremst þeim miklu stúderingum sem ég hef lagst í að undanförnu, og er þetta einfaldlega fín hvatning til að stúdera enn dýpra og skrifa fleiri greinar í Tímaritið Skák.
sunnudagur, apríl 18, 2004
SMÁ EGÓFLIPP!
Rétt í þessu var ég að ljúka við taflmennsku á 2. bikarmóti Eddu útgáfu og Hellis fyrir árið 2004. Stóð ég mig betur en ég átti von á, náði 2. sæti með 7 vinninga af 9 mögulegum. Náði ég að leggja nokkra góða meistara, en tapaði aðeins einni skák, gegn Davíði Kjartanssyni (2275) (með svörtu). Tókst að vinna alþjóðlega meistarann Braga Þorfinnsson (2420)
og gerði jafntefli við sigurvegara mótsins, alþjóðlega meistarann Jón Viktor Gunnarsson (2425). Ég gerði líka jafntefli við Jóhann Helga Sigurðsson (1995), sem stóð sig þrælvel, lenti í 4. sæti með 6.5 vinninga. Vann líka Arnar Þorsteinsson (2220), Akureyring, sagnfræðing og heimspeking, svo tókst mér líka að leggja Jón Kristinsson (2290), sem er hörkugóður skákmaður. Í síðustu skákinni vann ég svo sætan sigur gegn Þorsteini Þorsteinssyni (2255), markaðsfulltrúa RÚV, en hann loggaði sig af án þess að þakka fyrir sig, enda fann ég á mér í taflmennsku hans að hann var alls ekki sáttur, leyfði mér að máta.
Ég hef 2040 íslensk skákstig, og þessi mót eru að sannfæra mig um að ég sé sterkari en stig mín gefa til kynna.
Rétt í þessu var ég að ljúka við taflmennsku á 2. bikarmóti Eddu útgáfu og Hellis fyrir árið 2004. Stóð ég mig betur en ég átti von á, náði 2. sæti með 7 vinninga af 9 mögulegum. Náði ég að leggja nokkra góða meistara, en tapaði aðeins einni skák, gegn Davíði Kjartanssyni (2275) (með svörtu). Tókst að vinna alþjóðlega meistarann Braga Þorfinnsson (2420)
og gerði jafntefli við sigurvegara mótsins, alþjóðlega meistarann Jón Viktor Gunnarsson (2425). Ég gerði líka jafntefli við Jóhann Helga Sigurðsson (1995), sem stóð sig þrælvel, lenti í 4. sæti með 6.5 vinninga. Vann líka Arnar Þorsteinsson (2220), Akureyring, sagnfræðing og heimspeking, svo tókst mér líka að leggja Jón Kristinsson (2290), sem er hörkugóður skákmaður. Í síðustu skákinni vann ég svo sætan sigur gegn Þorsteini Þorsteinssyni (2255), markaðsfulltrúa RÚV, en hann loggaði sig af án þess að þakka fyrir sig, enda fann ég á mér í taflmennsku hans að hann var alls ekki sáttur, leyfði mér að máta.
Ég hef 2040 íslensk skákstig, og þessi mót eru að sannfæra mig um að ég sé sterkari en stig mín gefa til kynna.
Kláraði síðustu helgi að tefla á Skákþingi Mexíkó og gekk bara ágætlega, fékk 6 vinninga af 9 mögulegum, en sigurvegarinn, Juan Carlos Gonzalez, frá Kúbu fékk 7.5 vinninga. 173 manns tóku þátt í meistaraflokki!!!
laugardagur, mars 13, 2004
Úti í garði
Rétt í þessu fór ég út í garð
og ætlaði að finna mér ilm af gróðri
en sá að í stað runna og grass
var aðeins malbik og í sprungum
einstaka arfastrá
Í góðri von
andaði ég djúpt að mér
og ég fann
hvernig hárin í nösunum
slógu í rykið
háðu stríð við mengun
Augu mín fylltust af tárum
og ég leit upp í gula veröldina
sem einu sinni var blá með kringlóttri sól
Í fjarska mundi ég fjöllin með krúnuna hvítu
engi og hross, hunda með kringlótta rófu,
og unglinga sem drukku landa
Nú heyri ég dagsins leikþátt í bílflautum
og bölva MacDonalds emminu sem mengar sýn á fjöllin
og ég veit að einu sinni var hérna allt fullt af trjám
og að einu sinni stóð fólk undir berum himni
Hver trúir því
að maður við tölvuskjá
í fjarlægu landi
tæknivæddu samfélagi
með bensín á bílnum
þrái að standa undir fersku íslensku lofti og hlusta á hest hneggja í fjarlægð?
Rétt í þessu fór ég út í garð
og ætlaði að finna mér ilm af gróðri
en sá að í stað runna og grass
var aðeins malbik og í sprungum
einstaka arfastrá
Í góðri von
andaði ég djúpt að mér
og ég fann
hvernig hárin í nösunum
slógu í rykið
háðu stríð við mengun
Augu mín fylltust af tárum
og ég leit upp í gula veröldina
sem einu sinni var blá með kringlóttri sól
Í fjarska mundi ég fjöllin með krúnuna hvítu
engi og hross, hunda með kringlótta rófu,
og unglinga sem drukku landa
Nú heyri ég dagsins leikþátt í bílflautum
og bölva MacDonalds emminu sem mengar sýn á fjöllin
og ég veit að einu sinni var hérna allt fullt af trjám
og að einu sinni stóð fólk undir berum himni
Hver trúir því
að maður við tölvuskjá
í fjarlægu landi
tæknivæddu samfélagi
með bensín á bílnum
þrái að standa undir fersku íslensku lofti og hlusta á hest hneggja í fjarlægð?
fimmtudagur, febrúar 26, 2004
Merkileg mynd, með ævafornri tölvu. Einu sinni var þetta herbergið mitt. :(
Ég er ekki frá því að þarna sé Gerður Hrönn í Þyrnirósarbúningi.
Halla Björk. Það er alltof langt síðan við hittumst síðast. Þá vorum við að stúdera skák saman.
Mjög gaman að sjá ánægjuna skína úr augum pabba míns.
Þessi mynd sýnir alúð eins og hún á að vera.
Greinilegt að Halla Björk er stolt af systur sinni.
Afinn og amman ástfangin á ný!
Falleg mynd og bros.
Systurnar þrjár með afa sínum. Frábær mynd!
Nýfædd Ragnarsdóttir enn og aftur. Maður fær einfaldlega aldrei nóg.
Mæðgurnar saman.
Hamingjan skín úr augum Beggu. Nú vantar bara mynd af pabbanum líka.
HVAR ER RAGGI?
GLATAÐ BROS
Þú birtist bakvið spegil
og brostir til mín
því brosi sem ég gaf þér forðum
með saklausum brennandi orðum
Nú opna ég augun
og horfi á vegg
Þú birtist bakvið spegil
og brostir til mín
því brosi sem ég gaf þér forðum
með saklausum brennandi orðum
Nú opna ég augun
og horfi á vegg
Hér er mynd af litlu frænku Ragnarsdóttur :)
miðvikudagur, febrúar 25, 2004
GLATAÐ BROS
Þú birtist bakvið spegil
og brostir til mín
því brosi sem ég gaf þér forðum
með saklausum brennandi orðum
Nú opna ég augun
og horfi á vegg
Þú birtist bakvið spegil
og brostir til mín
því brosi sem ég gaf þér forðum
með saklausum brennandi orðum
Nú opna ég augun
og horfi á vegg
Bróðir minn eignaðist dóttur í dag og vil ég óska Ragga, Beggu, Höllu Björk og Gerði Hrönn innilega til hamingju með viðbótina, og svo auðvitað pabba og mömmu til hamingju með nýja barnabarnið, Önnu Brynju, sjálfum mér og mínum börnum til hamingju með frænkuna!
