Inequality, income, and democracy

I've always been committed to the idea that economic growth is important, that the interests of companies and employers had to be taken into account and given due weight in considering policies and in politics in general. Still, what we are witnessing at the moment is similar to what people have witnessed in the second half of the 19th century, and the first decades of the 20th. We are witnessing an enormous inequality between people who own companies, shares in companies, land, and estates. And we see that instead of more fair and and egalitarian re-investment of significant portions of these gigantic amounts of wealth, a few individuals are sitting on them. This is so in the US, West and East Europe, just as much as in Japan, Australia, or in Russia, India and China.

Governments are more and more reluctant to intervene and do their job in running societies well by creating legal and financial environments that are conducive to good societies. And they are more and more inclined to make their members extremely wealthy in exchange of giving the richest even more freedom. These governments are failing the societies which elected them, and know that they do. So they spend large sums on expert marketing and communication, and highlight issues and direct common talk in ways so that people are occupied with questions of nationalism, immigration, belonging and being a member of the community, personal and community identities. Such issues are important, but they should be issues where tolerance reigns, and communities take care of their own identities. People are not imbeciles in need of constant guidance. Especially not from politicians.

However, politicians and their advisory teams know very well that such questions sell, that it is easy to create stifle and tension between people, and they can be distracted from their further exploitation by such topics. What we need to start focusing on is a fight. It is a fight in which we need to engage in. We need to push back on the governments, the political and the business elite, the large owners, and the estate moguls. We need to force them to create the kind of societies we want to live in. We need to do this peacefully, but firmly. No votes for people who don't represent our interest. In fact, no money for them. We need much stronger checks and balances, and much higher levels of civilian engagement. We need to be there, call these people back, and sack them if they are not representing the interests which they should be representing. And we need politicians who are willing and able to stand up against the private players lurking in the backgrounds.

People like Trump, Xun, Putin, May and others won't do this job. They are part of the wealthy class and are very much willing to run their countries so that while stability is ensured, as much money as possible is diverted to their supporting clubs and circles. This is not a global issue, independent or race, nation, colour. It is a moral, political, and a class issue. People who have wealth and influence out of proportion are running the game. And they don't run it fairly.

What we need is to stand up and organize our representation. We desperately need a union that represents all workers in the EU. Not based on nation, not based on cultural background, but on the fact that capitalism does not ensure that workers and employers are in the same position when bargaining for wages. When people are selling their time and energy they are vulnerable, while a class of huge owners could live comfortable lives even if they would never again work. We need to change this. Security, safety, wellbeing are things we all need. And the current system does not ensure that hard work gets you any of this.

A website for volunteering and charity work in Hungary

Why isn't there a website in Hungarian that collects all useful social activities which are done without the government? That could be the basis for Hungarians who are looking for a strong, non-political identity, that emphasizes a commitment to community spirit.

Such a non-political view could be the foundation of strong citizenship. Instead of giving away rights to the government and accepting a more authoritarian leadership, it could foster independence.

That would surely be more beneficial for all of us then the current lukewarm soup of not doing anything and complaining. Or the imbecile staring into the past for role models that the current government is engaged in.

Vigotsky on animal learning

In his Mind in Society Lev Vigotsky wrote on animal intelligence that "primates cannot be taught (in the human sense of the word) through imitation, nor can their intellect be developed, because they have no zone of proximal development. A primate can learn a great deal through training using its mechanical and mental skills, but it cannot be made more intelligent, that is, it cannot be taught to solve a variety of more advanced problems independently. For this reason animals are incapable of learning in the human sense of the term; human learning presupposes a specific social nature and a process by which children grow into the intellectual life of those around them."


Vigotsky, Mind in Society (1978), p. 88.


Vigotsky's point raises an interesting question: are primates really unable to develop intelligence, or is the issue rather that since they don't have the kind of social life humans have, they have no motivation to engage in the activities humans try to teach them to engage. A chimpanzee does not apply the basic counting skill it learns from humans more generally. But not because it cannot or could not, but rather because it has no situations in its life where it would need to. As Vigotsky stresses with regards to the development and learning of humans, abilities learned can be very task or domain specific. Why expect them then to generalize better in the case of animals? It would seem to me to be an equally good general and abstract speculative explanation of why animals don't go on using their intellectual skills further, that they lack independent motivation to engage in the tasks that humans usually try to engage them in (e.g. communicating with humans, counting, social cooperation tasks, etc.). This means, that the lack of human-like development is the result of the lack of human-like motivation. This is nothing surprising in species with different life forms from ours.

Of course I know that Vigotsky's point was quite speculative, and mine even more so. I'm more than happy to receive pointers to good data, ideas, and reading suggestions to this.

It is actually not interesting whether or not there are gods

I think whether or not there is a god (or gods) doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter anything, and we should not care.Why so?

Here is the reasoning:
1. If there is a god who created (and/or manages the world) that god (or those gods) allow for a lot of suffering, pain, and meaningless horror (pedophilia, torture, sadists, abuse in family, depression, wars, bombs, and so on). As humans we have clear interests: safety, relative wellbeing for ourselves and our families, freedom from too much stress. That's pretty much it. Gods that create the kind of world we live in are not concerned with out needs, hence, we shouldn't care whether or not they exist. Their concerns are different from ours. They are perfectly alien to our world, having no deep concern with anything that makes our lives worth living. Such gods do not merit any attention. We should keep working on better societies, better charities, better and less corrupt social institutions including politics, and on getting along better.

2. If there is a god who created the world that is of no concern to our creating better societies, better charities, better and less corrupt social institutions including politics, and on getting along better. There is no sign at all that any god has any concern with our endeavours to create better societies. People live excellent lives in atheist societies, mixed religion societies, non-religious societies, and also, people live horrible lives in both religious and non-religious societies. At the same time, people live much better lives in societies with strong and stable political institutions, with social justice, with effective charities and social services, with solidarity and good psychological services. People without these things live consistently worse lives.

3. Our abilities to build better societies don't depend on any gods. They depend on human capacities and abilities to feel, think, and talk. We can cooperate, plan, agree on things, and act together. That's all that is basically required to start any social cooperation. Gods are hence irrelevant. The values we create don't depend on gods, they depend on our abilities and activities, and our efforts. The values that matter to humans are values that stem from our human nature and build, and our ways of living.

4. Gods could seem to be relevant to the sciences. But it seems that whatever role any creating god or interfering god might have played at any time, the world does run consistently along the rules natural science, and our spheres of human interest are shaped by the activities and dynamics of the cultural conceptual spheres that humans shape. Hence gods are irrelevant to them. We need to understand the kind of social world we build, and the kind of natural world around us better, as well as their interconnections. We are parts of nature, so our capacities to invent cultural norms, habits, to sustain practices and invoke values, and so on, are all natural. They don't need to be reduced, or explained away, nor do they need to be explained by invoking the interference of gods. They are simply complex and interesting parts of our world.

The U.S. working class and its role in electing Trump

Joan C. Williams wrote a very informative and cool-headed piece in The Harvard Business Review on what the Democratic Party's strategy got wrong about working class U.S. citizens, and how much this influenced the votes of masses of people.

Williams summarizes several ways in which working class people are misrepresented by Democrats and mainstream media. She emphasizes, that working class people in the U.S. are usually solid middle class, nevertheless are usually presented as poor. Also, often when Democrats focused on policies benefiting the poor, they didn't take into account that these policies would not affect in any beneficial way the middle classes, including working class people. These are surely important and significant points to make, and Williams makes them with admirable clarity.

In this entry I want to discuss two issues she mentions:
- The fact that some working class voters turned away from the Democrats because they detest professionals, teachers, and researchers, and the rhetoric of Democrats was too intellectual.
- That 'manly dignity', male pride, is important to several working class voters.

Williams doesn't say that either of these two things is good. She just highlights them as something that a party that wants to win the elections cannot forget. This is very sound pragmatic advice.

My main issue is the following: while there certainly are many neglected aspects of working class existence these days in the U.S. which should have been addressed by the Democrats, the two attitudes highlighted by Williams and mentioned before are very hard to accept for someone leaning towards enlightenment ideals. Endorsing that people can improve themselves and their society underlies the drive for continuous social improvement. And hence it is very hard to campaign in a way that caters to voters who oppose academics, intellectuals, and white collar workers. Of course this doesn't mean that such voters are bad people. But it does mean that their views of how the world works are very one-sided: while recognizing the importance of skills, experience and expertise in some fields, they play down the importance and legitimacy of these aspects in other fields.

This is what the Republican party, the Christian church, and Trump have both relied on in making many perfectly obvious questions seem controversial:
There is no serious debate regarding whether evolution is the process through which humans came to be what they are.
There is no serious evidence showing that allowing equal pay and equal rights regardless of gender and race has any bad implications for society.
There is no serious debate regarding climate change. It is happening and it will be devastating.
Still, Trump and others have managed to present these issues as if they would still be open questions in the sense, that they haven't been substantially argued for and supported by evidence. They have.
What Trump and others relied on in undermining such perfectly legitimate expert consensus was in part the fact that a number of voters don't have basic science and cultural literacy, they don't understand what researchers, scientists, managers, etc. are doing, and they are suspicious or even antagonistic towards them.

These attitudes surely need to be changed. What to do? Since it seems that simple explanation, fun talks, public intellectuals, politicians who campaign to get the word out are not enough, Williams might actually be right: maybe we should rely on the man-pride of those voters who couldn't get on board with the Democrats because they felt neglected. It might be that if they think they are being cared for, they matter, and they are on the winning team, they would be more open to think in progressive ways.
Still, their resistance is worrying, and it is sad that this is what we would need to rely on. In the long run one can only hope that most people come to understand that in itself neither their social position, nor their gender, or how important they themselves feel that their problems are, can justify ignorance. This in turn will hopefully lead to a more informed and critical acceptance to science and society related issues. Such a stance would enable to endorse the views of proper experts and to neglect fakes. The general idea that the world is too complex now for us to look to one politicians who thinks he himself is the source of authority on every question needs to seep through.

Of course such a change would be much better facilitated by conversations than by talking down. On the other hand it is hard to have the patience to do this all the time, just to save the egos of people who are unwilling to adapt, but whom we do want the best for, and also need them on our team.

If interested in more depth in the connection between work, traditional gender roles, and working class life in affluent Western countries, Williams also has a number of publications, and her recent books (2012 and 2014) discuss these issues. I'm sure many readers would find them interesting, and they can provide plenty of insight.

On Handke's 'The Goalie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick'

Handke's book, The Golie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick, (in original German Die Angst des Tormanns beim Elfmeter) was not a relaxing (entspannend) one for me to read. The book is depressing, very realistic, and follows the prolonged mental agony of its protagonist. The main character whom we follow, called Bloch, is a former goalkeeper. He has lost his job and can't find his place in the world. The novel documents how he loses his connecting with community, and how he can't find his place in the world, leading him to perceive his surroundings more and more absurdly.

We learn from the novel that Bloch's career as goalkeeper had its ups and downs, although he played for a big club, and he loses the job that he is doing after his retirement from football. He is divorced, not talking with his child, and has no money. As we could say, he is in a very bad position.

He commits a crime, but that's not what triggers the process of his losing his ground. Rather, it is a result. As Bloch realizes that he lost most of the important things that constituted the main frame of his life, he tries to cling on to smaller joys and habits: going to the cinema, getting drunk, picking up girls, going to his favourite bars. But nothing helps. Without a proper life within which these activities would have their place, within which they would give him pleasure or pain, they would be bad or good, would make him jump or feel guilty, they don't offer anything, just more of the same bleak grayness.

Bloch eventually ends up in a small village near the border. Initially the reader is tempted to think that he wants to flee across the border to escape punishment for his crime. However, Bloch is too passive and confused. When exploring the countryside around the little village in the direction of the border he starts thinking about the geometrical properties of the location, perspective, unexpected encounters, and space. Seemingly all could be related to planning an escape, but Bloch's thoughts drift far from making practical arrangements. The only time he appears to find some peace is after he gets extremely drunk, provokes a fight in a pub, gets beaten up, and then just sits at a table in the tavern with a beer, half awake and half asleep.

Bloch is not obsessed with his crime as Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment. He is much more like the narrator of Camus' The Stranger/The Outsider. Someone who hasn't found any attachment in life, and is unwilling to invest the needed energy, emotion, and commitment to care. Without the needed emotional connections, without valuing things, he drifts, and gets into situations which could have been easily avoided. Bloch is somewhat more active, more of an agent. But an agent without much direction. It is obvious that he is a middle aged, energetic man, who is used to action. A normal, confident grown up. But without aims he just steps into situations, but then fails to see why they would matter, what would be their significance.

Peter Handke

In the novel's closing scene Bloch tells the story of a goalkeeper who thinks so much about where the striker is going to shot the penalty that he is eventually rendered motionless, stands still in the middle, and the striker - expecting the goalkeeper to jump to one side - shoots the ball in his hands. Bloch is similarly unable to move. His thoughts throughout the novel run in all directions, usually into usually abstract, depressed and disattached directions. He persistently fails to find significance in anything. Whether he ends up with the ball in his hands? Unlikely that this would work the same way in the real life. One cannot be always lucky.

In many ways this is a sad tale of a middle aged person, who finds that he doesn't have the imagination, the will, and/or the energy to start life anew. He doesn't know how to build up again a network of caring relations, how to relate to people he has lost and should forge new types of relations with - his ex-wife and child - and what he should do with his life. The drifting highlights that since what he was good at he cannot do anymore - he is too old to go back to professional football - and he doesn't have any other genuine interests or connections, he falls apart, inflicting tragedy and confusion on others, as well as himself. We could understand the novel both to highlight how sad life is for many, and also to underline the importance of cultivating a genuine personality, capable of existing alone, with genuine interests, valuing things and people for their own sake. That is what enable most of us to survive continuous change in our life, and even very difficult times.

Defending climate scientists from ridiculous lawsuits

The climate change deniers are in full swing in many places, but most strongly in the U.S.

If you have a few spare bucks ($5, $10, or more) you can support efficient legal defense for scientists who are attacked for political reasons. The goal of many republicans and industry moguls is to slow down or make the work of climate researchers impossible. What we need is to join up and show them that they can't simply shut up the researchers standing up for our needs and goals as a society.

Let's show these greedy jerks. If the state is unwilling to stand up to them and shoot down their stupid actions, we have to get together and push back.

Masuji Ibuse's 'Black Rain'

I've just finished Masuji Ibuse's 1969 novel Black Rain. It is an excellent novel. It presents the story of a small family from a village near to Hiroshima a few years after the atomic bomb was dropped on the city. The tone is - as in several the works of many Japanese writers - very matter of fact, and giving a good feel of the character of the storyteller, Shigematsu Shizuma. Despite the sometimes dry tone in which what was seen is recounted, Shigematsu's genuine concern for friends and family shines true at the important points. Ibuse's book offers some very dramatic turns which can be felt in full force. It is emotionally moving, and tragic.

It mainly deals with how radiation effect crept up years after the bombing on many of those who thought they would be fine, they would survive. It was interesting to read the book in the same year as Svetlana Alexievich's Chernobyl Prayer. Both books tell stories of loss, of patriotic or nationalistic feeling that motivated people to help and work among the debris of nuclear catastrophes, and the tragedy of not knowing what they were dealing with. At the time the nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima the Japanese - including doctors - had no idea about the effects of radiation, and at the time of the Chernobyl catastrophe the masses of people living in the regions affected, as well as those who were sent there for relief work were kept in the dark about those effects. Both books tell about much suffering, but also about remarkable cases of community spirit and a feeling of belonging to the places, even after they have been affected by catastrophes. Of course the Japanese - with the help of the U.S. - dealt with Hiroshima and Nagasaki following the war was very different from the way in which Moscov - and Belarus and the Ukraine - handled the consequences of Chernobyl.

Ibuse's book mentions criticisms of the Japanese Imperial government, army, and navy only in a very subdued way. It is hard to guess today whether this is a literary tool employed by the writer to express that people were genuinely afraid to criticise the leadership and the army, even at the end of the war, or simply a reluctance to engage in such criticism when he wrote the book. What makes the former interpretation more likely is that in some places in the novel there is a marked contrast of descriptions of malpractice, mistreatment of civilians and soldiers by the military, still people who are obviously aware of the ridiculousness of what was going on are silent. The horrible plans of the army to arm all civilians to defend Japan against the invasion of the U.S. forces is mentioned in several places - in no way favourably -, also showing that there were people who genuinely believed - or at least talked as if they would believe - in such policies.

The book is another great argument for never again wanting a war and strictly keeping away from using nuclear weapons ever, in any situation. This makes it an especially relevant book to debates today, when the Russian military publicized in the last years that it carried out practices for scenarios of nuclear strikes against European targets, and where the false rumour was spread that the U.S. was threatening Russia with a nuclear war (this is supposed to have been averted by the election of Trump).

Russia is obviously at a point where it is under huge international pressure, and it Putin, his government, and his generals are willing to go to great lengths. Novels like Ibuse's and Alexievich's can help people understand in Russia, the U.S. and everywhere else, that threatening with nuclear strikes is a horrible thing to do, and any use of atomic bombs that affects civilians is a terrible crime. Tension and Russian propaganda need to be defused. Merkel and Obama have gone to great lengths to achieve this. However, Putin is willing to risk much, and Trump is fool enough - so it seems at the moment - to go along with his games.

You can read a review of Black Rain from The Japan Times here.

On voting and basic knowledge and understanding

"[J]ust having the right to vote is meaningless if a citizen is disenfranchised by illiteracy or semi-literacy. Illiterate and semi-literate Americans are condemned not only to poverty, but also to the powerlessness of incomprehension. Knowing that the do not understand the issues, and feeling prey to manipulative oversimplifications, they do not trust the system of which they are supposed to be the masters. They do not feel themselves to be active participants in our republic, and they often do not turn out to vote. the civic importance of cultural literacy lies in the fact that true enfranchisement depends upon knowledge, knowledge upon literacy, and literacy upon cultural literary. To be truly literate, citizens must be able to grasp the meaning of any piece of writing addressed to the general."

E. D. Hirsch What Every American Needs to Know: Cultural Literacy, p. 12.

The U.S. is a huge country, with a great population, lots of different school providers and standards, and myriads of beliefs and views. However one thing that became obvious lately - as it does during every election campaign - was that there are plenty of voters who are not really able to engage with complex information. Since they cannot do that they cannot form a realistic idea of what the U.S.'s position is like in the world, nor of what is going on in their own country. This led to many fruitless and silly debates. (This isn't just an issue for Trump supporters, although it is a pronounced one for many Trump supporters.)

What Hirsch proposed and argued for in part of his work, was that education should equip people both with the skills and some particular basics of how to handle and deal with knowledge about their nation. That this would be quite useful is now obvious. There is a danger of course that such proposals can be hijacked by the state to push its own agenda and teach students an ideology or a nationalist vision which fosters loyalty even if the governments is doing evil. However, Hirsch's recommendations are fairly particular and interesting, and an updated core knowledge elements might be a welcome and useful tool against technocracy and cultural illiteracy.

Here you can have a look at Hirsch's bio at the site of the Core Knowledge Foundation he set up.

 And you can go on reading a bit about cultural literacy and some connected debates in The Atlantic and The Guardian.

On the Trump presidency

Some articles (like this one in The Independent and this one in The Washington Post) mention two possibilities:

1. That Trump might not be as hot-headed and aggressive as he acted in his campaign, and that
2. a Trump presidency might be better for international military politics, because Trump said that he would be reluctant to wage wars if they are costly, or to defend allies if they don't pay towards their defense.

Both of these ideas are mistaken and there is no reason for hope and optimism.

With concern to 1.: The question is not whether Trump might be more sensible than the way he made himself look in his campaign. The question is if there is any good reason to think that is more sensible. There isn't. He was consistently haphazard, offensive, chaotic, unprepared, and unprofessional.

With concern to 2.: I've read in many places that Trump wants to talk to Putin and that is a good thing. Saying this makes it obvious that many - even intelligent - people believe that the U.S. administration and military is not maintaining constant close discussions on many topics with Russia. This is of course a false idea. Russia and the U.S. don't collide on many issues because they don't communicate.
Also, people who think that when Trump said he would talk with Russia that was a considered, serious thing haven't listened to his other ideas. He is just sputtering populist phrases. Whatever works at the moment. He knows as much about strategy, military issues, and economic competition with Russia as about other topics: next to nothing. As soon as he is seriously briefed and informed, if he even understands what he is being told, which is not sure, he might change his mind.

The same is the case concerning his ideas that the U.S. shouldn't offer defense arrangements for Japan, South-Korea and the Philippines. There are three enormous confusions here:
i) the U.S. does not offer defense. Japan had to accept that the U.S. military is stationed there at the end of the occupation following WWII. South-Korea had to accept the troops after the Korean war. The Philippines used to be a de facto U.S. colony. Also, Japan and South-Korea pay huge amounts towards the maintenance of the bases that the U.S. troops are using and towards the costs of the U.S. military.
Third, it is far from obvious that these countries really wanted the U.S. to station their troops there. That the U.S. is there ensures that these countries collide in their diplomacy with their other neighbours, Russia and China. If the U.S. troops would not be there these countries would have much more space for diplomatic manouvering and for looking out for their own interests. It is however part of the U.S. position that there can't be any powerful opponents on its borders. Canada and Mexico are no threats, across the Atlantic is a bloc of NATO countries, and Japan and South-Korea, as well as the Philippines form a big buffer zone between the U.S. and China. If the U.S. does not want to change its major defense policies it won't give up on these alliances.

Hence, there are no good reasons to be optimistic about Trump's presidency if he goes through with anything he has said.

Exposing misinterpretations of experimental results: Tomasello on apes and understanding others

Michael Tomassello conducted with his group another experiment concerning how apes react to others' behaviour. And again, based on sloppy definitions he and his team overestimated and misinterpreted what their results meant. It is more and more common that not only poorly trained and/or click-hunting 'science journalists' misinterpret the findings of studies, but also the researchers workig on them.

See the original paper here.

And the successful bullshit-busting here, by Hanoch Ben-Yami (CEU).

Frans DeWaal is someone who repeatedly did the same thing, when he claimed that apes possess the same as our what we mean by empathy in our current societies. While DeWaal's experiments and many of his observations - just like Tomasello's - are truly fascinating, he over-interprets his findings too.

The reason of such over-interpretations and misunderstandings is usually careless thinking: the researchers involved in the experiments don't think hard and carefully about the concepts and questions they pose and try to answer. It is usually very obvious that they lack any training in conceptual work, and don't have a solid humanities background. Of course there would be funding to solve this issue, but then the results would be much more cautious and less sensational. They wouldn't make for such entertaining TED-talk material. Sadly, the truth loses in these circumstances often.

On the new FBI investigation of Clinton's emails

The last minute opening of a new investigation into Hillary Clinton's handling of her emails shows three things:

- Trump and his team were convinced that if they don't get some serious mud-throwing done in the last minute they will lose.

- The Republican party has its pants full. Trump has hijacked them, and if Trump loses then not only did a madman tarnish their reputation, he will even lose for them, making them very weak.

- The Republican party and Trump have enough leverage with people at the FBI to force the opening of such an investigation before the election. Gives you an idea where the money that Trump saved on not paying taxes is going.

This is such an outrageous case of corruption that if the Russian government wouldn't be so eager to push its propaganda against the US others would nevertheless say the same things this week.

Tokyo view from Roppongi

This summer we visited Roppongi Hills with my partner. It is a wonderful, busy, bustling part of Tokyo, teeming with business, restaurants, cafe, ice cream parlours and impressive architecture.

In the superb Mori Arts Center Gallery - also in the towers, like the Mori Art Museum - we saw an excellent and fun exhibition on

Around Roppongi there were hundreds Doraemons, obviously very popular both with kids and adults. The event was probably similar to this one.

Inside the towers there are several restaurants, ranging from pricy elegant ones serving kobe beef to the more budget friendly but still very nice mid-range sushi restaurants. We had a pleasant sushi lunch. Next to us a small kid and his mom were sitting, and I could witness first hand that kids - as in any other country - can have their difficulties with cutlery, in this case with chopsticks.

And there is a wonderful view from the towers on the downtown Tokyo.

Hungarian architect and blogger bonakovacs also has a nice entry on the area around Christmas, when the Roppongi Hills and the Midtown towers are competing with each other in who can put on the more mesmerizing Christmas-lights show.

What to read next?

When I'm finished with a batch of books I need a few days when I just work and don't commit to a new schedule of books. I usually start reading 1-2 handbooks, research books, nonfictions, and 1-2 novels, collections of poems or short stories roughly at the same time. Depending on how busy I'm it takes me a few weeks or 1-2 months to get through them (or as with the Karamazovs three months, but to be honest I've read 6 other books meanwhile).

Do many of my readers read this way? Or do you try and focus on one book?

The last batch of books I read consisted of the short stories collection War Stories edited by Sebastian Faulks and Jörg Hensgen, Dostoevsky's The Karamazov Brothers, Michael J. Sandel's What Money Can't Buy, Akiko Hashimoto's The Long Defeat, and Ogura Kazuo's Japan's Asian Diplomacy, and Hugh de Sélincourt's Oxford from Within. (The links point to reviews of the books or their publishers' pages.)

Besides doing my regular philosophy re-reading (Rousseau's The Social Contract, Aristotle's Politics, Anscombe's Intention, and Hornsby's Actions), I'm considering some of the following non-philosophy books:
Melville's Moby Dick,
Owen Jones's The Establishment,
Peter Frankopan's The Silk Roads,
G. R. Evans' The University of Oxford: A New History,
Heinrich Böll's Frauen vor Flußlandschaft,

Anne Enright's The Green Road,
David Steeds and Ian Nish's China, Japan and 19th Century Britain,
and
Jeffrey N. Wassertstrom's The Oxford Illustrated History of Modern China.

I don't want to start more than 3-4 books now, and I wonder which ones would go well together...Any advice or tips, as well as recommendations along these lines are welcome!

On Akiko Hashimoto's 'The Long Defeat'

Akiko Hashimoto's book offers a very good overview of Japanese attempts both of politicians and civilians to understand their role in the second world war, and since then.
Hashimoto covers the main political debates between pacifists, nationalists, and reconciliationists, as she divides the calls her groupings of the main approaches. These distinctions are someties oversimplified, but there are plenty of details and careful references, so anyone can strike out and make up their own mind about the issues discussed.

 

The last 30 pages of the book are in many respects the most interesting since Hashimoto reflects briefly on the post 2000 events up to 2014. It is too bad that she doesn't deal on more pages with the effects of Chinese and South-Korean nationalism, and the hatred against Japan stoked by Chinese and Korean (both North and South) governments. This is a phenomenon we have seen more of recently, and is used as a tool by the Chinese and Koreans to direct away attention from internal politics and economic problems, and their own issues with authoritarianism and human rights issues; and of course China uses this as an excuse for its own aggressive military expansion. These factors are becoming more and more important as China and both Koreas grow stronger, and turn many of the earlier fears of nationalist Japanese politicians into actual threats that Japan has to take seriously.

Of course these factors also complicate the picture of how Japan should relate to its own WWII role and validate that it should simply move on. Enough apologies have been offered, restitutions have been paid, and since WWII Japan is more peaceful and democratic than the large majority of its vocal critics, including China, the Koreas, and the US. Chinese and South-Korean politicians are utterly reluctant to admit the strenght of the Japanese peace-movements, the fact that their militaries are stronger or as strong as the Japanese, or that they are employing authoritarian, dictatoric means against their own citizens, as well as that they also have a violent history going back millenias. Until they use the conflicts with Japan for domestic political purposes in this way, the apology-politics should stop, the topic should be dropped, and a more forward looking vision crafted for Japan. Of course the horrible war crimes perpetrated by Japanese soldiers, leaders and sometimes even civilians have to be openly remembered. But they do not constitute the whole history of Japan, nor are they the only and main thing about the country around which its identity should be constructed.

This is perhaps my biggest point of disagreement with Hashimoto, who never challenges whether the relationship to Japan to its WWII role should be a central topic these days, and whether it should really be so important to the nation's identity (if there is such a thing at all). Surely there is more to Japan's history the tragic and guilty war years between, say roughly 1929-1945, and there is definitely more to it more than 70 years down the line. Since then Japan has been supporting other countries in their economic build-up, been a peaceful country, and evolved into a major welfare state conscious of the rights, interests, and wellbeing of its citizens. This cannot be said of the US which waged many wars and where the social network - which was always weak - hasn't developed properly, or China where an authoritarian regime is keeping its people cut off from the internet, occupied tibet, the north-eastern territories, and is punishing by torture, prisoning and force any serious organized dissent. The maniac focus on the issue of Japan's WWII role just seems to serve political interests of nationalist politicians in Japan, and the Chinese, Korean, Russian, and US military and political dilpomacy.

Akiko Hashimoto, The Long Defeat. 2015. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hugh de Selincourt's 'Oxford from Within'

I've just finished the a nice old edition of Hugh de Selincourt's Oxford from Within. The book is short and readable, although the style is fairly outdated and at times very circumstantial. It is about an imagined journey the writer takes in Oxford, and an internal conversation between his positive and negative  memories and opinions of Oxford. In the end the good opinions are overwhelming, and much of the more condemning criticism is written down as understandable ideas of the author's younger self.

The book is nice, if one is in a dreamy mood. However if you hope to get some real insight into the workings or student life of Oxford don't choose this book. Besides some nice description of mostly known things and a few additional details you won't find much new information. The freshest and clearest parts of the book are - somewhat surprisingly - the sections praising the changes that women were allowed to study at Oxford, and that science and the classics were achieving a complementary position (something that has changed a great deal since the early 1900's when de Selincourt was writing).

The book - at least the older hardcover edition published by Chatto & Windus in 1910 - features some lovely paintings by Yoshio Markino, who lived and painted in London for a long time. The pictures bring to life how Oxford looked a 100 years ago. They are very atmospheric, complementing the text well. As someone who loves the places depicted - Trinity's gate, the front of All Souls and the Radcliffe Camera, Iffley Church, New College Tower - these pictures are really heartwarming.

Yoshio Markino's rendering of Turl Street and the tower of Exeter

All in all, I would recommend this to someone who hasn't yet read much about Oxford, and who wants an easy reading that can be finished in one or two afternoons.

On the rottenness of the political leaderships

For a long time I thought that most populist politicians just track the interests and preferences of voters and serve them.

In the last years however it seems more and more that some parties and politicians are perfectly capable of forming the wills of the voters in a way that suits their agenda.

Every time one hears a politician talk these days one is faced with a product. There isn't much content usually that has anything to do with the motivations and values of the person talking, or the institution/post she/he represents. It is just a marketing product designed to attract 'buyers'. who are in this case voters.

What we see at the moment in the EU and in Europe at large (including post-Brexit UK, and European Russia) is that right-wing, extreme-nationalist people are parading as political conservatives. But don't be deluded. They don't actually aim at defending any values or ways of life. They aim at grasping power and securing positions for themselves and their collaborators. This in itself wouldn't be a problem. You will have these moves in any competition. The problem starts when this becomes the sole goal of their activities.

Brexit is an excellent case to study. It does not serve the EUs interests, it does not serve the interests of the British people at large, or the English people at large. It does not serve the interests of Britain, or Britain's foreign political partners. What it does is simply this: There was a worry for some more nationalist and mainly middle level administrators and political and business players in the UK that they would lose their positions and weight in a more unified Europe, and in a UK which is becoming richer and richer. These folks came up with the idea that leaving the EU will protect their positions within British politics and business by isolating - at least partially - the decision making structures and markets in which they participate. It might also help them get higher positions and get a slice of the enormous wealth that the UK - much with the help of the EU, EU citizens working there, and other international partners - has amassed in the last decade.

Vitality Oxford Half Marathon

I completed the Oxford Half Marathon last week. It was good fun: there is plenty of beautiful architecture around the route, the weather was pleasant, not too cold, not too warm, and the mood wasn't too bad. To be honest the Hungarian races I participated in last year had much more of a party-vibe, but I'm used by now to Oxford being a bit stiff, whether it is a race, a conference, or a drinks evening.

The route started from Broad Street, in fron of the Sheldonian, and it went up a bit towards Banbury Rd, turned back to Pitt Rivers, did a loop by New College and back to Banbury, up North almost until the roundabout, then back to Marston Ferry Rd, all the way to Old Marston where we did a nice loop along the historical buildings and back to Marston Ferry. After that it was just running all the way back, and the last few miles stretched through University Parks and came back around the Radcliffe Camera, passed by Exeter College and through to Turl Street, and the finish was on Broad Street again.

The organization was alright. There were plenty of drink stations and toilets, lots of friendly volunteers, and the spectators and bands raised the mood. The only issue was - as usual in Oxford - space: the organizers issued small plastic bags with the application and one could only leave as much stuff in the baggage drop area as what fitted into the plastic bag. For anyone travelling from another town, city, this must have been quite inconvenient. Also, there were no showers for after the race. One had to go home to get changed. And since there was a good turnout and 8000 people ran, the narrow streets and the paths of University Park constantly became 'clogged' and one had to adjust the speed to others running in front. Apart from these small things it was a lovely day, and I'm glad I've completed the race. My time was a bit better than what I expected: 1hour 48minutes instead of 2hours. Still, much slower than my PB from last year, which was 1hour 35minutes in November, on a cold and windy day, in Siófok by the lake Balaton.

The page of the Half Marathon offers good running training advice and training plans for everyone wishing to compete at some point. I usually use the training plans of BUPA, but it seems that one could train perfectly well with these ones too. I also raised some money for Macmillan Cancer Support and received some nice compliments and thanks for doing so.

In the mood for music

It rarely happens to me but at the end of this week I was really in the mood for music.

I very much enjoyed listening to Miwako Okuda's Shizuku. Nice voice, not too much drama but dynamic, and nice background tunes.

Afterwards I needed something a bit more complex, and a piece we discovered with my partner at a concert this Spring was just perfect: Dvořzak's Song to the Moon (by Rusalka) in Renée Fleming's wonderful rendering.

Enjoy and have a lovely weekend.

On the Nobel Prize in literature and Bob Dylan

It was announced that Bob Dylan won the nobel prize in literature. Immediately much discussion sprung up, and many people were in joy. I'm a bit entauscht, and I have a feeling as if there should be another announcement for the prize for proper literature.
Not that I'm against Dylan: I sometimes enjoy his music, and surely his lyrics are an integral part of his performance. It is rich, interesting, entertaining, emotionally sophisticated, at times political. Still, if read it is not outstanding poetry, compared with many who have not been deemed worthy a Nobel.
My gut feeling tells me that what we have to do with in this case is a PR act to put the Nobel prize in literature on the map for younger folks, as well as less 'high literature' oriented folks, and brand it as a relevant Prize, one which they should pay attention too. I'm always dubious of such motives: I know that we live in an era where we have to compete with all the low and high quality well advertised products churned out by huge companies spending tons of money on getting their stuff to us. Still, the Nobel is what it is: a high mesaure of excellence, be that excellence in enriching cultural memory and understanding, a trailblaizing experimental style, or a masterly literary achievement. Dylan's - written - work is certainly none of these. Giving the prize to him is especially harsh a year after it was awarded to Svetlana Alexievich.
Alexievich is an excellent writer, has focused on events of the 20th century in much of her work which have altered the lives of countless people - Chernobyl, the Afghan war of Russia, etc. - and does that in a way that she makes our memories and understanding of these events much more sophisticated and complex, hence, much more close to the truth.
However, literature surely also has the role to entertain. Anyone denying this would be a fool and with no understanding either of the history or the role of reaidng, books, printing, and literature as such. So, Dylan it is. I'm sure his work will receive much attention for the next months. His fans will be happy about the news, people who weren't fans might give it a try with a new openness and appreciativeness, and even those who never heard of him or never liked him might recognize something valuable in his work after listening to it again (or for the first time).

Rereading 'The Brothers Karamazov'

Last week I finished re-reading Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov. It was a strange experience: As a teenager I could vividly feel with Alyosha, Ivan, and, although I never liked his personality, even with Mitya. Now 15 years later I mostly saw them as very passionate, easily excitable young men who get into trouble because of the greed of their father, and their passionate love affairs.
It is also interesting to see, as in many 19th century books, that the protagonists are all rich and well off. Even though Dmitry works for the army, if he would be careful with the money that his father agrees to pay out to him he could establish himself comfortably.

Dostoevsky is of course a brilliant writer. I've read the book in one of its recent Oxford editions, with footnotes, introductions, and the novel's length in itself was a good 900 pages. Dostoevsky manages to maintain tension and excitement, to keep the reader's interest alive throughout all these pages, and to build up one, coherent story. A masterly achievement. The work touches on psychology, morality, politics, and religion. Of course it doesn't do that at the level in which a psychologist, philosopher, politicla scientist, or someone doing religious studies would do this, but still, the novel showcases that Dostoevsky was a real intellectual, thinking about contemporary issues, following not only the criminal news, but also the intellectual currents of his time.

In one sense the book didn't have the effect on me as more recently published big books. I suspect this is exactly because it had such an enormous influence on literature that its best features have been countlessly interpreted and applied, mimiced and developed further by writers since Dostoevsky. Therefore I have encountered similar - and in one or the other aspect even better - writing from 20th and 21th century writers. Still, that I could enjoy all that good literature as it is, is Dostoevsky's achievement.

The second Clinton-Trump debate...

...reminded me a lot of some of the biggest debates in our elementary schools.

The level at which foreign and military policy were discussed would make any 7 year old proud.

On hating other nations

Politicans talk of  'people' and 'nations' often. They do this to achieve an effect. They are talking rubbish. No nation is unified in the sense in which they say it is. No country, not even a village!, has only people who think in the same way, who live in the same way. No country or nation is 'good' or 'bad'. Governments, leaders, individuals, organizations are eveil, bad, heroic, good, decent, average. But countries?

Talk of nations usually engeders an artifical 'them and us' way of thinking. The army and politicians use it to awaken hate and alienation in people towards others living in different countries. They use this hatred when they are justifying wars and other horrors they inflict on others in the name of their countries.

The truth is that people are the same everywhere. Sure, cultures, habits, efficiency, cleanliness, clothes, etc. differ. What does not differ is that there are good and bad and average people everywhere. That the average Jane, or Cuicui, or Sakura, or Johanna does not want war and does not care about other countries. The average John, or Jose, or Maua, or Xun wants to get on with his job, be safe, and have a healthy family. This is what is universal and what would serve as a perfect platform for peaceful global growth. All war and conflict is about the power-games of leaderships who have interests in gaining more money and power. Be that Russia, China, the US, or the European countries, Japan or African or South-American countries, it is always about the might of the elites. Wars are not for and in the interest of the people.

The section quoted below illustrates eminently well how people find out that other countries have normal folks living in them too.

"Yes, I remember that being at war with the Italians was taken as a licence for Americans to defecate all over them. Even though most of us in the base section at Naples had never closed with an Italian in combat. Our argument was that we should treat the Neapolitans as the Neapolitans would have treated our cities presumably if they'd won the war. I watched old ladies of Naples pushed off the sidewalks by drunken GIs and officers. Every Italian girl was fair pray to propositions we wouldn't have made to a streetwalker back home. Those who spoke Italian used the tu on everyone they met. And I remember seeing American MPs beating the driver of a horse and wagon because they were obstructing traffic on Via Roma. I don't think the Germans could have done any better in their concentration camps. I thought that all humanity had gone from the world, and that this war had smothered decency forever.

- These Eyeties, the mess sergeant said, ain't human beins. They're just Gooks, that's all.
- All I know, the corporal said doggedly and worriedly, is that they ain't Americans...They don't see things the way we do.
- They'd steal anything, the mess sergeant said, stuffing a turkey, his mouth crammed with giblet leavings.

I remember that other arguments against the Neapolitans, besides the cardinal one, that they'd declared war on us, were that they stole and were filthy-dirty. I only know that no Neapolitan ever stole anything from me, for I took pains to see that no temptation was put in their way. Though once my wallet was lifted in a New York subway. And for those Neapolitans to whom I sometimes gave an extra bar of soap, I noticed that they used this soap joyfully on themselves, their children, their clothes. I've buried my face in the hair of Neapolitan girls. It was just as sweet as an American girl's if the Napoletana had the wherewithal to wash it.

I remember that in Naples after my heart broke I decided that a stricly American point of view in itself offered no peace or solution for the world. So I began to make friends with the Neapolitans. And it didn't surprise me to find that, like everyone else in the world, they had their good and their bad and their admixtures of both. To know them, I'd been working on my Italian. That lovely supple language was kind to my tongue. The Neapolitans were gracious in helping me with it.
(...)
This forced me to the not original conclusion that the Neapolitans were like everybody else in the world, and in an infinite variety. Because I was an americano the Neapolitans treated me with a strange pudding of respect, dismay, and bewilderment. A few loathed me. But from most Italians I got a decency and kindness that they'd  have showered on any other American in Naples who'd made up his mind to treat them like human beings. I'm not bragging. I'm not unique."

From John Horn Burns's The Gallery, in the section appearing as 'My Heart Finally Broke in Naples' in War Stories (eds. Sebastian Faulks and Jörg Hensgen), 2014, London: Vintage, pp. 274-5. 

Tim O'Brien on true war stories

"A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behaviour, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it. If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted, or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude had been salvaged from the larger waste, then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie. There is no rectitude whatsoever. There is no virtue. As a first rule of thumb, therefore, you can tell a true war story by its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil."


(From Tim O'Brien's 'How to Tell a True War Story', in War Stories (eds. Sebastian Faulks and Jörg Hensgen), 2014., London: Vintage, p. 351.)

On explanation far and close, interesting and uninteresting

When scientists say that explaining the formation of chunks of matter (for example planets, energy, atoms) or the distribution of information is an explanation of everything that is important for us these days, that's exactly as much of an explanation as saying that 'and then people started growing crops, settled down, and that's why we have culture and science today!' Meaning: it is not an interesting explanation. It is an explanation, like it is an explanation of why I eat a pizza now that I am a human and hunger is a powerful motivation that moves me to act. Sure, but this does not explain why I'm eating pizza, why I did go along with this motivation right now, not twenty minutes ago or half an hour later, why I did not rather occupy myself with something else to push the hunger back - as any normal adult human being can do. These further questions are not answered by a hazy allusion to general, species-level motivations.
Of course there would be scientific explanations of why I'm eating a pizza now, or why there science and culture today. But these will be immensely complex, interdisciplinary explanations, where each details will matter a great deal. The world is complex, and hence there are no simple explanations of it. If someone is not willing to get down with the details, then they should not profess that they have explained everything. Such self-serving, ego-boasting phrases don't help anyone.

Putin's nuclear threat to the West

It is a well known fact, publicized by Russian newspapers and confirmed by the Russian military, that Russia is regularly exercising and planning for the offensive use of nuclear weapons in Western Europe, as well against the US.

But then of course there are people who publish this and similar stuff on 9GAG and other social sites:

 

I think what this meme is expresses is perfectly right in one sense: no sane, average civilian wants to nuke any other country. The average Joe, Sara, Teju, or Zoltan wakes up, goes to work, cares and worries for and about her or his family, friends, kids, health, house, hobbies, interests, and job. No normal person wakes up and thinks: 'Oh, gosh, I sure hope today my country's military kills, debilitates, and ruins the lives of tens of thousands of foreigners!'

On the other hand it is not true that no Russian - or for that matter that no Chinese or US - higher ups entertain such ideas. And it is partly our duty as citizens of a given country to oust politicians, administrators, and military leaders who are willing to go down such ways. No other country's civilians can do that instead of us, and if we don't do it we can't blame anyone else. The average, normal people in Russia, China, and the US, and in other countries, have to ensure that their countries work properly. One has to engage with politics, most importantly READ about it serious books and papers not just internet crap, write about it, think about it, talk about it, and if needed go out to the streets, go to the parliament, stage protests, throw eggs at politicians and so on.

Elected people can go berserk, and elections can go wrong. We need to make sure that loonies such as Trump, or tyrants such a Putin, or his pet-wanna-be-dictator Orban don't get into power, and even if they do they don't get the license to do anything their whims drive them to.

UPDATE: This piece on the issue just confirms and supports with more references what I have been saying.

The futility and tragedy of war

Two Vietnamese soldiers talking in 1976 after the war about meeting the dead in their dreams:

" 'Do you speak to them?'
'Yes, but...well, differently. The way you speak in hell. There are no sounds, no words. It's hard to describe. It's like when you're dreaming - you know what I mean.'
'You can't actually do anything to help each other?' asked Kien. 'Do you talk about interesting things?'
'Not very. Just sad and pitiful things, really. Under the ground in the grave human beings aren't the same. You can look at each other, understand each other, but you can't do anything for each other.'
'If we found a way to tell them news of a victory would they be happier?' Kien asked.
'Come on! Even if we could, what would be the point? People in hell don't give a damn about wars. They don't remember killing. Killing is a career for the living, not the dead.'
'Still, wouldn't peacetime be an ideal moment for the resurrection of all the dead?'
'What? Peace? Damn it, peace is a tree that thrives only on the blood and bone of fallen comrades. The ones left behind in the Screaming Soul battlegrounds were the most honoruable peole. Without them there would be no peace,' the driver replied.

'That's a rotten way to look at it. There are so many good people, so many yet to be born, so many survivors now trying to live decent lives. Otherwise it's not been worth it. I mean, what's peace for? Or what's fighting for?' Kien asked.
'Okay, I'll grant you we have to have hope. But we don't even know if the next generation will get a chance to grow up, or if they do, how they'll grow up. We do know that many good people have been killed. Those of us who survived have all been trying to make something of ourselves, but not succeeding.' "

(From Bao Ninh's The Sorrow of War, quoted from the excerpt appearing as 'The Jungle of Screaming Souls' in War Stories (eds. Sebastian Faulks and Jörg Hensgen, pp. 354-55.)

 

Three important things about the Hungarian referendum about refugees

There are three things everyone has to understand about last weekend's Hungarian referendum about the refugees:

1. The referendum is not valid. The number of people who went to vote was too small.

2. Many of the people who did not go to vote did not go because they hate Orban and his regime, government and they did not want to lend their support in any form to their propaganda vote.


3. Still, there are too many Hungarians who bought into the governments propaganda. Roughly 80% of the media is controlled by the government or close allies of the government in Hungary. The message they sent blurred the distinctions between refugees and migrants, and between innocent average people and potential terrorists. It demonized hundreds of thousands of innocents fleeing wars and terrible conditions.

One of the posters of the Ketfarku Kutya Part (The Two-tailed Dog Party), reading: 'Did you know? There is a war in Syria.' These signs were set up to mock the government's state-money sponsored hate campaign against refugees and immigrants. See more posters here.

New month, new books

I've just started reading War Stories, an anthology edited by Sebastian Faulks and Jörg Hengsen. The anthology comprises a long list of excellent short stories and sections of novels that depict different experiences and viewpoints in war, from different nations (US, Germany, Greece, Japan, French, and so on), from writers who have been in the war.

The selection is outstanding: there are pieces focusing on combat, on the strange sides of war - for example the beauty of artillery lights at night -, the horror of rape and killing civilians, of losing one's comrades, of going mad with fear, and so on. The editors obviously knew the literature well and set high standards. The only thing I'm sorry about is that there aren't more Asian perpectives, and Anglo-Saxon writers dominate the list somewhat, but then again I guess if someone is editing a book in English for mostly English speaking audiences that isn't a terrible fault. The authors certainly are aware of other literature than what they have included and provide a helpful bibliography at the end of the book broken down by conflicts with which those writings deal.

It is a great read, and I wish more people - young and old - would read it. In the last few years I have encountered both in TV and on the internet many people who have never experienced war but make big prononouncements about what they would do in a conflict, how other countries should start wars, or how refugees are really lazy or defectors for not picking up arms against well trained armies and militias. The book makes one understandin well that civilians have nothing to do in war, in fact, nobody has anything to do in war. It is a horrible dirty affair, one that always borders on the insane and people wanting to go to war need to be stopped. It is not an affair of nations but of bad leadership.
 

Worrying amount of Russian political misinformation on the internet

Recently I have noticed that several posts in major newspapers (Chinese, German, Japanese, UK, US) have comments written by people with VERY-American or British or German etc. names. At least their accounts look as if they were natives of these countries. Usually these comment-writers pose as man around 40 or 50, who are confident, obviously well informed and in-the-know. They bash what reliable news agencies and independent writers say, and push very forcefully a narrative heavily leaning towards Russia and/or China. In these narratives the US and the EU are always the bad guys, who treat poor Russia and China badly, and are unfair, and start wars everywhere (or finance the wars and make a good buck on them). According to these narratives all these wars started were totally unnecessary and self-serving, and Russia and China are peaceful giants, who would never do the same.

Of course this is total rubbish. It is total rubbish not because the US and the EU are not involved in arms trading or they don't start/finance/participate in wars. But it is total rubbish because the motivations for going to wars are usually a lot more complicated than simply aiming at monetary and territorial gains. And it is also total rubbish because many of these wars are about countering aggressive push by Chinese and Russian armed forces, secret services, or military units.
It is enough to think of the Ukraine: the EU did offer the Ukraine the chance to start the process to become a member state. But it did not attack Russia nor did it threaten it with that. Nor did it occupy the Ukraine. The then-Prime Minister of Ukraine was not forced to agree to this; it was Russia who twisted his arm to back out of the deal. It is easy to see who was the aggressor here, and then Russia aggravated things by pushing into the Ukraine by military force.

Consider also North-Korea, who have pushed the speed of their military missiles development programmes up to maximum. This has taken both South-Korea and Japan by surprise, and both states need to quickly up their defenses. They are at the same time constrained from doing so by contracts enforced on them by the US, and by the aggressive diplomacy of China. China thinks all military development is justified for them, while their neighbours should just sit with their hands crossed in their laps. Whereas any sane country that is the neighbour of a superpower needs a normal, up-to date military. This need is now made even more stringent and urgent by North-Korea's recently upgraded striking capabilities. Now, North-Korea has surely not achieved these striking technological breakthroughs suddenly on its own merit. Either China and/or Russia had to finance and probably support their projects with money, technology and expertise.

Add to this Russia's role in Syria, where it first vetoed all attempts at intervention, letting several millions civilians become displaced, and tens of thousands get killed, only so that its strongman ally leader can stay in power. Then when interventions begone Russia entered into contracts with the US and allies, but refused to stick to those contracts and bombed civilians and those it was supposed to support.

At the same time China is trying to gobble down the whole South-China sea, unilaterally. This incorporates waters well in the economic interests zones and reasonably assigned self-defense zones of several other countries. China is also building up artificial military islands in the region. Surely not the most peaceful move.


In light of all this, it is easy to see that the narratives of the apologists don't add up. It is also well known that there are plenty of government sponsored trolls spreading such news. The funny bit is when one gets into a debate with them and assumes a reasonable, true-to-the-facts-but-open-to-new-evidence approach they take off. They don't stay and engage in substantial debates and conversations. They are only interested in swaying the opinions of people who are dumb enough to think of politics in terms of Good and Bad, and who are willing to force this two dimensional straight-jacket view on current affairs and cast the US or Europe in the role of evil perpetrator.

Ogura Kazuo's 'Japan's Asian Diplomacy

As part of my self-education I'm reading a good deal on Japan, China, and East-Asia in general. The last book that I got in my hand was Ogura Kazuo's Japan's Asian Diplomacy. The author served as Japan's ambassador to Vietnam, France, and Korea.

It quickly becomes obvious from the book that Ogura has plenty of insight into the main ideological and political currents shaping the broader agenda of foreign policy making in Japan, China, and Korea. He offers a historical, ideological, and political overview of Japan's relations with its neighbours going back to the early middle ages, and shows that in most cases the Japanese policies and stances were heavily influenced by internal political interests and leadership contests. In many places in the book he is openly critical about such short sighted diplomacy, and makes an effort to show that in many cases taking a too hard line in domestic politics forced the leadership into a position where to save face it was almost necessary to act aggressively on the international place - to live up to the expectations raised in the public, so to say.

The author was not afraid to point out some harmful and aggressive long standing tendencies of Japanese policies - such as treating the affairs of Korea almost as an internal issue requiring constant intervention - and the lack of long term vision in the building up of relations with China.

The book also offers a very interesting perspective on how the Tokugawa shogunate's closed-door policy served to prepare Japan to see itself ideologically and politically among the Western, colonizing, powers very soon after the Meiji period. This amounted to a significant shift from the earlier Japano- or Sino-centric world views dominating political thinking. It also explains in part why Japan acted quickly and with no sympathy towards other Asian nations.

The book discusses several other issues, and it is a very interesting and thought-provoking reading. I don't have an in depth knowledge of either Japanese history or politics yet, but I'm happy that I took down this volume from the library shelf, and at the moment it seems that it will definitely contribute to my understanding of the Japanese perspectives on diplomacy in Asia.

On relationships and sexual urges

- Instincts! – said he with a satisfied smile, basking in the warm light of the belief that he offered a brilliant one word response, which, not wholly by incident, also happened to justify his behavior towards his wife, and women in general.

- Well, but two questions throw some doubt on this: first, just because something is an instinct, ‘natural’ so to say, is it good, is it something we should act on? I think obviously not. After all we don’t want a society in which people bash in each others’ skull when there is competition for resources, or where man habitually rape woman they want to be with despites that both of these behavior were widespread and prevalent in early humans. Second, we have many different capacities that we can use to live different kinds of lives. Relationships are not only about sex, although sex is an integral part of most grown-up committed partnerships, and there might be very valuable and meaningful relationships that would be seriously harmed and affected by someone following their hedonistic sexual urges. In such cases surely the fact that we – by nature – have some capacities which enable us to have full, enriching experiences shows that i) an urge’s being natural does not count either in favour or against acting on it, and that ii) acting on it might go against a very human type of relationship, the committed relationship. I don’t mean by ii) that only humans have committed relationships. But only humans have the type of committed relationship involving the exercises of long term planning, joint social and ethical values, participation in socially constructed institutions of significance for local communities, and so on. Proper grownup relationships have all these dimensions and are from no perspective – natural or non-natural – second-rate. And they are surely not to be relegated or scrapped in favour of acting on ‘instincts’. Humans have their instincts under control all the time. There is no reason why they shouldn’t be expected to do so in relationships.