BENTINCK AND THE PARADOX OF CHANGE

I0 Perhaps the final paradox of Bentinck's career was that as Governor- General The one real change that came over Bentinck in this matter was that, where as .
Table of contents

These sorts of problems throw up questions about the validity of language, maths, logic, communication and so on. We have to go a bit Matrix on this one. We must ask ourselves not what is wrong with the sentence, but what is wrong with our understanding of the rules used to make it. But of course we know what false means. Most importantly, the liar paradox is a substantial barrier to the construction of a formal theory of truth.

When I say formal I mean similar to the kind of thing mathematicians look for in their theories: The liar paradox denies them that. This essentially means that any formal theory containing the concept of truth is inherently inconsistent. In philosophy, the opposite of descriptive is normative. Normative analyses talk about how it should be. So normative ethics looks at how we ought to behave, normative studies of democracy look at when and why democracy is morally desirable, as well as what sort of principles should guide democratic institutions. Whereas descriptive studies of democracy simply describe democracy as it is.

I am also not interested in describing democracy.

While present cutting-edge political science is compelling and global democracy and political engagement are fascinating and important subjects, I think the more interesting aspect to include in this short talk is a normative discussion of democracy. How can we justify a democratic approach? How do we address the problems of democratic citizenship? What kinds of legislative institution are best for a democratic society? What authority does a democratic system have over its members? And, considering that probably the most famous quote in philosophy is that the whole of Western philosophy is merely footnotes to Plato, we should listen when he disagrees.

He says that the very nature of electing representatives intrinsically favours those who are good at getting elected. It favours those who are experts in mass appeal, when the masses are made up predominantly of people who do not have the talents to think well about difficult political issues. So we end up with poorly worked-out ideas. Does this sound familiar to you? He was a clever bloke, that Plato. The modern, more inclusive view of humanity is that we are not predominantly made up of people unfit for office. But it is interesting to note that recent Western politics has had a glimmer of Platonic personality contest about it.

Hobbes, in , also argues against democracy. He argues that, because everyone has equal contribution to decision-making, no one can make a significant difference to it. The continuation of this theory into present-day political theory is fascinating, but would take up another half an hour, if not more. So, those are the arguments based on the consequences of democracy. There are also arguments based on the intrinsic properties of the democratic process. Some of you may be thinking, this has now just become a talk about politics.

The last guy talked about politics. This guy said he was going to talk about sand or something. But this is philosophical thinking in action. Justifying, rather than simply accepting as true. Looking for justification in the outcomes as well as inherent in the actual process. Being clever enough to look at what Plato said and try to pass it off as your own work.

The Paradoxical Theory of Change, by Dr. Arnold Beisser | Present Living & Learning

And now, for my last trick, I will prove that God does not exist. Well actually, I will give what I believe to be a persuasive argument that shows that the classical monotheistic conception of God as omnipresent, omniscient and benevolent is as ridiculous as conceiving of Him as all-knowing, all-doing and supremely evil; which could be considered a proof of the non-existence of God, but not as the non-existence of any god.

Your home may be repossessed if you do not keep up repayments on your mortgage. If we say for the moment that God is all-knowing, all-doing and supremely good did you notice how I could be setting up a reductio ad absurdum here? This is formulated in many ways, most commonly the logical problem of evil says that there being so much evil in the world is logically incompatible with God being supremely good; and the evidential problem of evil says the slightly weaker claim that all the evil in the world gives good evidence against God being supremely good.

Paradoxical theory of change

In fact, the sheer quantity of evil in the world leads some to claim that the God of classical monotheism is straightforwardly falsified by evidence. So how can we defend what we might call the good-god hypothesis? There is such a thing as a theodicy, which you theology students will know is a justification of the goodness of God, or an attempt to explain why God permits evil. I will run through three of them, but there are loads:. Some think that, while not individually, the collection of theodicies together makes for a good stand against the problem of evil.

So, now comes the clever bit. Consider that there is only one god, one omniscient and omnipresent god, the creator of all things, including humanity and all the baggage that comes with. Now this god we are imagining is not supremely good and forgiving and delightful, but is supremely evil and depraved and cruel. There is no bound to his infinite wickedness. But the supremely evil Gordon cannot exist. There is so much good and love in the world. The joy of holding your child for the first time, your first kiss, great charity and most of all love, not just romantic but of your family and friends too.

How could a supremely evil god, especially one called Gordon, allow all this goodness to exist? So now we have the evidential problem of good. The problem of good is persuasive enough to show us that God cannot be evil. How can we defend the evil-god hypothesis? How about some reverse theodices? But never mind, we can still play the mystery card! So we have symmetrical arguments for and against the likelihood of our omnipotent, omniscient god being either good or evil.

So both are as likely or unlikely as the other. This argument is against a particular part of a particular conception of God; but by undermining one of its fundamental parts, it undermines the whole. This is not an argument against the existence of a god. It is an argument against the existence of the classical monotheistic conception of God with a capital G. The entries below were all accessed in August Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.

Drop me a line Philosophy as an attitude is a rigorous approach to theory, taking little for granted. So, can I please have a suggestion for a definition of pornography? Sexually explicit Primarily designed to produce arousal Bad in some way, difference from erotica? The same question from both groups is now expressed in very different terms: As a justification for democracy, this argument is based on their being incentives for politicians to respond to the needs of the poor.

Democracy is also thought to be the best decision-making process for a large group of people. Democratic decision-making tends to be better informed about the needs of citizens and how to deal with them. There are also moral arguments in favour of democracy. The democratic process tends to make people stand up for themselves more and encourages autonomy. This in turn encourages people to think more carefully about things, because it matters more that they do.

I will run through three of them, but there are loads: God could have made us always be virtuous, every act a good one. But the fact that we have the choice to be evil, but choose to do good things instead makes our actions all the more virtuous and enlightened. Bad things happening to us make us better people. God allowing us to suffer is the only way he can ensure that we grow as people to become the noble souls He wants us to be.

Access Check

There are such things, such great and truly virtuous things that could not exist without evil occurring in the world. Charity could not exist without suffering or neediness. We could not offer ourselves in selfless acts if there were not people who required that generosity. Second-order trumps first-order, so the existence of suffering is justified by the possibility of people being charitable.

Gordon could have made us always be evil, every act a bad one.


  • Stop The Foreclosure Process?
  • Georgia Women: Their Lives and Times, Volume 1 (Southern Women: Their Lives and Times).
  • The Paradoxical Theory of Change.
  • We can only change when we feel accepted as we are now..
  • Vanishing Matter and the Laws of Motion: Descartes and Beyond (Routledge Studies in Seventeenth-Cen!
  • Taxation in a Low-Income Economy: The case of Mozambique (Routledge Studies in Development Economics!
  • Navigate / search.

But the fact that we have the choice to be good, but choose to do bad things instead makes our actions all the more depraved and despicable. Good things happening to other people make us jealous and envious. God allowing others to prosper is the only way he can ensure that we grow as people to become the covetous souls he wants us to be. Oh woe is me! Gordon rubs his hands! Change is an organic process that takes place as a side-effect of organismic growth. Organismic growth is what happens when we make full contact with our experience.

In practice, that means part of what I do as a therapist is accept you for who you are. But it does mean accepting the differences. It also means not restricting you to who you are now but accepting the wide range of potential you have for being different than you are now. Accepting who you are includes accepting your potential for being different. This is one of the aspects of gestalt I love the most because it is fundamentally about freedom; the freedom to be who you are, and to become whoever you need to be.

Gestalt therapy focuses on the here and now. When you and I meet in a therapy room, the experience takes place in the here and now. Every experience takes …. Gestalt draws heavily on an area of philosophy called phenomenology. Essentially, this means the study of experience. My concern as a gestalt therapist is the exploration of how you experience your reality. This is in contrast with psychoanalytical …. Gestalt therapy has a world view that is field theoretical. Field theories are world views that see reality as being essentially holistic and inter-related.

Contact A critical concept in gestalt therapy is contact. This actually refers to a constant process rather than a specific state of being. At every moment of our lives, we are involved in the process of making contact with …. Gestalt therapy is both creative and experimental. The creativity of gestalt is all about identifying support in the current situation. Blue Peter taught a generation of people how much support they could get from toilet roll tubes and double ….