You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Islam' tag.
The Greeks, as we all know, used to compete in the original Olympic games stark naked and smothered in olive oil. That’s no longer the fashion – because we have different cultural ideas about what parts of the body are suitable for public display – and, in fact, some women have taken the trend for Olympic modesty one stage further. This year, several women, including Egyptian fencer Shaimaa El Gammal and Bahraini sprinter Rakia Al Gassra, will be competing wearing the hijab.
I suppose that as a good liberal feminist I ought to be appalled by this, seeing it as a symbol of patriarchal oppression. In fact, I find I rather admire these women.
I am appalled by the fact that some countries, including Saudi Arabia, have sent male-only teams to the games. But for these women, combining their religious beliefs with their athletic ambitions, I have nothing but respect.
A lot of rubbish is talked about the hijab. Since France banned girls from wearing them in schools in 2004, there has been a steady stream of media stories and comment suggesting that Britain should do the same. Feminist friends tell me that the headscarves are a symbol of female subjugation, a way to deal with male lust by forcing women to cover up, and that as such, they should not be tolerated in a gender-equal society. The women who wear them, they say, have been pressured into it by their communities.
Well, yes and no. We all wear the kind of clothes we wear partly because of social pressure – and our own culture still says, for example, that it is more acceptable, and less sexual, for men to walk down the street topless than it is for women. Many patriarchal religions do indeed hold highly disturbing views about women, which should be challenged, but we should confront those ideas via education and debate, not by forcing young women to reveal parts of their bodies they would rather keep covered. If women say that they want to wear a headscarf, I’m afraid we have to take them at their word. What could be more anti-feminist than telling women that they don’t really know what they think?
Some might say that this is a matter of principle: removing religion from public life. That may well be a laudable aim, but if we want to pursue it we really ought to begin not by forcing schoolgirls to display their hair but by disestablishing the Church of England. In any case, surely the removal of religion from public life means that public bodies should have no religious preference, not that individuals should be banned from quietly practising their own faiths in public spaces.
The Guardian, Thursday August 14 2008
Although Epicurus lived approximately two thousand years ago, I think he hits right on the dot.
“If a little is not enough for you, nothing is.” –Epicurus
Philosophers down the ages have been keen to tell the rest of us how to live and how to be happy. Certainly their advice comes to us with the lustre of intellectual achievement; it is both high-brow and high-powered, but can we understand any of it and how does it fare against modern psychological research?
One philosopher who dispensed clear advice about how to live a happy life was Epicurus, a Greek who lived in the third century B.C.. In a new article in the Journal of Happiness Studies, Bergsma, Poot and Liefbroer (in press) explain Epicurus’ guide to the good life and then compare it with some of the huge body of work in psychology looking at satisfaction with life.
Especially now as we launch ourselves into a New Year it is worth thinking about what both philosophy and psychology have to teach us about how to live the good life.
Epicurean hedonism
Epicurus was a hedonist, but not in the popular modern sense. Now we tend to associate hedonism with excessive pleasure-seeking or with refined sensual pleasure. What Epicurus meant, though, was something more subtle; he certainly didn’t think the road to happiness was paved with luxury or material wealth. What he emphasised was the idea of being ‘untroubled’.
Epicurus thought pleasure and pain were at the centre of human morality. His view was that pleasure and pain are so important to human existence that all our actions are governed by seeking pleasure and trying to avoid pain. Epicurus also saw the absence of pain as a pleasure in itself.
Of course there is both bodily or physical pain and there is psychological pain. Epicurus emphasised the idea of being ‘untroubled’ over the positive experiences of pleasure. He thought the good life could be achieved through satisfaction that both body and mind are at peace.
Self-help, Epicurean style
So far so good for the abstract philosophical concepts, but what about practicalities? How exactly did Epicurus think we could bring peace to both mind and body?
In order to keep the body content and the mind free from fears, he advocated a ‘four-part cure’:
1. Don’t fear the gods (or fate, or blind chance)
Surprisingly, Epicurus’ approach to the gods fits in well even in our godless times. For Epicurus the gods were already in a state of bliss and therefore aren’t bothered with human activities. We therefore have nothing to fear from them and should also expect nothing from them.
If you are not a religious person, then perhaps this edict is better thought of as: don’t fear fate or blind chance, because neither of them care about us.
Practically, then, it is up to each of us to create order in our lives, because the gods (or fate or chance) will not do it for us. We must meet our own needs and manage threats that inevitably arise.
2. Don’t worry about death
Easier said than done maybe but Epicurus had a rational approach to death. He saw it as the end of sense experience, as a point of transition which should not concern us. While we are alive death is not important as it does not yet exist; in other words, we’re still alive! Equally when we’re dead, we can no longer experience anything so it’s still not important (Epicurus didn’t believe in life after death or the soul’s immortality).
3. What is good is easy to get
This is a controversial one but couldn’t be more relevant in today’s consumer culture. Here Epicurus makes an important distinction between what is necessary and what is unnecessary. Necessary and natural things include the basics of life like food and shelter. Unnecessary and unnatural things include fame, excessive wealth or honours.
Even within the necessary things Epicurus made a distinction between the necessary and the unnecessary. For example bread will satisfy hunger just as well as lobster. Unfortunately getting a taste for lobster might well prove a recipe for future unhappiness, say when you can’t afford it any more. Bread, though, will usually remain in most people’s price range.
That said, Epicurus wasn’t totally against the odd indulgence. Indeed he thought that someone who could enjoy the simple pleasures of life would enjoy extravagance even more when it came along. Generally, however, he was very much in favour of moderation.
Epicurus thought the beauty of learning to love the simple life was that it is much more durable. When you don’t get the promotion, can’t repay the mortgage or lose it all in a game of cards, it’s much easier to shrug it off. The more you have (or want), the more you have to lose (or fail to get).
4. What is terrible is easy to endure
Epicurus thought that even physical pain could be endured by using the mind. Focussing on pleasure, both that experienced in the past and that to come in the future, can help distract us from current bodily discomfort.
Apart from this four-part cure there were a number of other important strands to Epicurus’ philosophy.
Philosophy
Unsurprisingly Epicurus thought the study of philosophy was central to happiness. Philosophy can help us deal with both our fear of death and our fear of the gods.
Friendship
Epicurus thought friendship was one of the most important aspects of the good life. Not only does it give us many benefits, it also benefits our friends as well.
In contrast, Epicurus advised against getting married. He wasn’t that impressed with sex either saying we should count ourselves lucky if sex didn’t cause anyone any harm(!).
Prudence
Prudence for Epicurus is an excellent way of making decisions. All decisions can be seen as leading to pleasure or pain. Thinking ahead, planning for the future with these possible outcomes in mind will help lead to a pleasurable life.
Security
Here Epicurus was concerned with how best to secure peace of mind for ourselves when our neighbours provide a threat, at both the individual and societal levels. Epicurus advised that the best solution was to lead a private life without engaging in politics, business or law. Instead, Epicurus advised surrounding oneself with like-minded friends with whom social contracts could ensure a quiet life. Epicurus himself chose to live in a commune.
Found this on Psyblog. Read the complete post there. Regarding not fearing God, I think it should be ‘at peace with God’. At peace would mean refraining from that which may annoy Him. ‘Not fearing God’ has an anarchist connotation to it. And not being afraid of fate, destiny, chance – isn’t that called Tawakal?
