The contemporary coverage of the Global Yoga Wheels Market in this study takes a holistic approach to examine some of the most prominent trends that are speculated to have a substantial influence on the progress of the industry in the forecast duration. Market Expertz defines an emergent industry trend as a prominent factor with the potential to impact the market, contributing to either its growth or decline.

The report evaluates the contemporary market trends and inclinations observed in the market, and growth prospects for the Yoga Wheels Market in different industry verticals. It also sheds light on the extent of applications of Yoga Wheels in various regional markets and estimates the future growth potential by examining the rigid government regulations and policies, among other relevant aspects like consumer demands and regional market scenario.

Fill in your details to get your hands on an Exclusive Sample of this Report @ https://www.marketexpertz.com/sample-enquiry-form/56075

The industry is subject to consumer acceptance for various applications at both the local and regional level. Moreover, by employing a bottom-up and top-down approach, alongside the pricing volatility, the market size and volumes were deduced.

The major manufacturers covered in this report:

Shenzhen Haifuxing Technology Unisoul Yangzhou Chenhong Plastic and Rubber Products Fuzhou Bohanson Trading CHOOYOU

A thorough analysis of the micro markets with regards to the growth trends in each category makes the overall study interesting. When studying the micro markets, the researchers also dig deep into their future prospect and contribution to the Yoga Wheels industry.

Scope of the Report:

To help gain the business owner further gain business intelligence the study on the Yoga Wheels market for the forecast period 2019 2026 brings to light data on production capability, consumption capacity, spending power, investment feasibility, and technology innovation. A thorough assessment of market performance across different regions is presented through self-explanatory graphic images, charts, and tables that add weight to corporate presentations and marketing materials. The study offers regional profiles of major vendors and extensive country-level break down to empower companies to make a wise investment decision when exploring new regions.

Avail this report at Attractive Discount rates! Click here to know more @ https://www.marketexpertz.com/discount-enquiry-form/56075

Segmentation by product type: breakdown data from 2014 to 2019, in Section 2.3; and forecast to 2026 in section 11.7. Wood PU Other Segmentation by application: breakdown data from 2014 to 2019, in Section 2.4; and forecast to 2026 in section 11.8. Man Woman

The topmost contenders in the global Yoga Wheels market have implemented different strategic approaches and methodologies, encompassing product launches, mergers & acquisitions, collaborations & partnerships, and agreements, to get a competitive edge in the global sector. Prominent players that have been profiled in this report include consumer goods manufacturers, having extended their reach into several end-user industries.

This assessment relating to the companies operating in the industry and the corporate tactics adopted by them have been accumulated by referring to their published annual reports and press releases made by these companies, information available on their website or other online portals that are listed on the companys homepages, and by way of information gathered during interviews of industry experts.

Go through our meticulously drafted TOC, Tables, Statistics, Charts, and Company [emailprotected] https://www.marketexpertz.com/industry-overview/global-yoga-wheels-market

Key Market Benefits:

The different strategic approaches adopted by the leading industry players have been scrutinized to deliver a holistic view of the global competitive landscape.

Why Choose Market Expertz?

Connect with an expert for customization of Report @ https://www.marketexpertz.com/customization-form/56075

Originally posted here:
Yoga Wheels Market | Global Industry Analysis by Trends, Size, Share, Company Overview, Growth and Forecast by 2027 - The Bay State Herald

Yoga is a Sanskrit word that means uniting the individual spirit with the universal spirit. In layman terms, it means to hit the reboot button for the soul, so it starts fresh.

Yoga not only helps in bringing mental peace, but it also helps increase ones energy, reduces stress, and promotes the overall mental and physical well-being of an individual. Like any other trip aimed at hitting the hard reset button, one needs to fly away to a far off land that exudes peaceful auras once in a while.

What better way than to recharge with a proper yoga retreat?

If you are looking for secluded natural landscapes, then Costa Rica should be the first place you jot down in your travel journal. The Anamaya Resort is located on the edge of the coastal rainforest, where you will find numerous bespoke yoga retreats that offer the perfect place, setup and environment to relax and rejuvenate both mentally and physically.

Take in natural beauty as you wake up to the sound of birds chirping and sunlight entering through the windows. The naturally golden hour, the fresh breeze, and the smell of nature will help you compose yourself and star off your day with a whole new summer vibe. This property sits in the jungle surrounded by lush green trees and pristine beaches. You can sit by the sea and practice concentrating on your breathing or lay down under the open sky at night and enjoy the stars.

Take a break from the outside world as you gather your thoughts and feeling while enjoying the exotic 3-day yoga retreat at Ubud, Bali. This place is surrounded by beautiful natural rainforest and the river valley of Ubud. The area is a popular destination for yogis, so book ahead.

Located in Thailand, this place offers an excellent hideout for all the yogis who travel miles in search of a site that allows them to reconnect with their inner selves. You can meet a lot of like-minded yogis out here. The yogi community Koh Phanganngan is particularly hospitable and welcoming.

Situated in Sri Lanka, this fantastic retreat offers scenic beauty, best massages, and to top it all off an enormous number of Ayurvedic practitioners, who will walk you through health and wellness by introducing you to their historical methods of yoga along with an organic diet.

Make 2020 your year to recharge while you consider these places to reboot your system. Nothing beats coming back to the urban life entirely composed and revived.

Read more:
Top 5 Yoga Retreats to Visit In 2020 - YouBeauty

If theres one part of your body that youre kind of a bully to without even realizing it, its your spine. All that slouching eventually causes pain and increases your risk for injury. Perhaps more so than other parts of your body, taking the time to stretch your spine makes a big difference in how you feel now and in the future. In short, the best back stretches help get your back back on track.

Regularly stretching your spine can decrease your risk of injuries, improve range of motion, and enable your muscles to work more effectively, says Katherine Parker, yoga instructor and co-founder of Yomassage. It can also help prevent joint stiffness.

To make sure youre stretching your spine as safely and effectively as possible, Parker and yoga teacher Stacy Dockins recommend sticking to a few easy back stretches.

How it helps: Locust pose is a backward bend that requires an active range of motion. It will strengthen the backside of the body while encouraging the release of the anterior shoulders, chest, and hip flexors, says Dockins.

How it helps: Supported Childs Pose provides a gentle stretch to the lower back, hips, thighs and ankles, and lengthens the lower back and improves circulation to the spinal joints, says Parker.

Bridge pose is a backward bend that will counter modern postural tendencies. It will encourage the release of the chest, anterior shoulders, and hip flexors while strengthening the backside of the body, says Dockins.

Practicing supported twist might help keep the spinal muscles mobile and provide relief from back pain, says Parker.

New to yoga? Weve got you:

This exercise opens your hip flexors and massages your spine at the same time. Then check out the T-spine stretches that are key to the perfect posture.

Read more from the original source:
Im a yoga teacher, and these are the best back stretches for your spine - Well+Good

Today in Toronto, you have the perfect opportunity to sip and stretch.

Because AM Coffee Studio is celebrating its grand opening at 2233 Dundas West, which means free yoga and free coffee for you, all day long.

The new spot at Dundas and Roncesvalles is a combination of a coffee shop and an open yoga studio, and on November 28, you can enjoy free cups of joe while gettin your stretch on.

Activity-wise, you can partake in the spots run club, starting in High Park at 5:45 pm, free of charge. And at 6:30 pm, you can enjoy a Yoga and Stretch class again, for free.

All the while, the coffee keeps on pourin.

Ensure you stop by this spot for a post-work wind down and to offer them a warm welcome to the neighbourhood.

Address: 2233 Dundas Street West

Instagram

Read more:
You can treat yourself to FREE coffee and yoga in Toronto today | Dished - Daily Hive

Your complimentary articles

Youve read one of your four complimentary articles for this month.

You can read four articles free per month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please

I sought great human beings. I never found anything but the apes of their ideal. Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

Everything began to spin and I found myself sitting on the ground: I laughed so hard I cried. Sartre, The Wall

I walk up to the bar and I order a beer. The bartender recognizes me and brings the usual. Then he quietly says, We have some unusual guests. Slowly turn to look at the table behind you. Im impatient and turn my head immediately. One of them has a huge mustache and dark, focused eyes. The other is smoking a pipe and has a lazy eye that seems to be looking at me rather than his drinking partner. The pub is relatively quiet this afternoon, so I can also overhear snippets of their exchange. Its highlighted with terms like nothingness, eternal recurrence, bad faith, useless passion, and bermensch.

I cant believe my eyes or ears. It looks like them. It sounds like what they might talk about. But theyre supposed to be dead. I ask the bartender whats going on. Suddenly, the bartender lights up a cigarette, leans over the bar, and quietly mutters, You just walked into a bar whose happy hour is now called The Twilight Zone.

The original Twilight Zone was an American television show that lasted only five years. Despite its brief span, from 1959 to 1964, many critics rank it among the ten most important and influential TV shows of all time.

A creation of Rod Serling, The Twilight Zone was indeed both revolutionary and prophetic. Television audiences entertained by bland game shows and suburban sitcoms had never seen anything like it. In their living rooms they were introduced to erotic robots, aliens feasting on humans, lost souls in another time or space, machines dictating the actions of people, obsolete individuals sentenced to death, insidious tricks devised by the grim reaper or by Satan. The audiences were dared to think and let their imaginations wonder.

Controversies introduced by The Twilight Zone with wit and surprise remain with us. Writers still use the phrase twilight zone when alluding to odd machinations of institutions or political forums or unexplained happenings. Its legacy has lasted generations and continually inspires further creative work, such as Black Mirror. And although Lester Hunt, Noel Coward, and Mark Dawidziak have presented illuminating philosophical approaches to Rod Serlings visions, they neglected some core existentialist themes illuminated as well as mocked in Twilight Zone episodes. I want to make up for that deficit a little here.

Friedrich Nietzsche and Jean-Paul Sartre, two stalwarts of the existentialist tradition, often developed their ideas without recourse to other mainstream philosophers, instead addressing the insights of novelists, poets, artists and musicians. Sartre clearly believed that Flaubert and de Sade have as much to teach us about human ideals and depravity as do Hegel or Plato. For Nietzsche, the early Christian Fathers, classic playwrights, or contemporary Darwinists, provoked important questions about human destiny and the improvement or corruption of a species. Perhaps we can deploy Serlings speculations, and imagine Nietzsche and Sartre in a 2020 pub addressing the twists and turns of The Twilight Zone.

Nietzsche is often associated with calling for a superman or overman each an awkward translation of his term bermensch. As the term appears in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1885), it evokes the sense that humanity is a work in progress or regress and great people are needed to overcome our present failings. Zarathustras translator Walter Kaufmann himself emphasized that ber is less an adjective then a sense of overcoming: the idea is of humans creating new ways of being, individually and socially. In his widely reprinted public lecture, Existentialism is a Humanism (1946), Sartre focuses on freedom. Humans choose their projects and purposes rather than have them defined for them by God, genetics, or social circumstances. Humans are, in Sartres words, self-surpassing man is the heart and center of his [own] transcendence.

The bartender inexplicably switches the big screen to a Twilight Zone episode, Obsolete Man. The penetrating eyes of both Nietzsche and Sartre are captivated by Meredith Burgess, the wonderful actor who plays Mr Wordsworth, the obsolete man. Why is he obsolete? He reads everything he can get his hands on, be it novels, magazines, or the Bible. In this character we see a joyful freedom and a liberated soul. But in the story it is precisely these qualities that render him obsolete and destined for immediate execution. His freedom is antithetical to the State, which plans on a more conforming and controlled form of man. You can imagine Nietzsche and Sartre watching this and saying to one another: in this episode, you and I would undoubtedly be rendered obsolete. We would have had our heads chopped off, as we would have been condemned by the State. This is the oppositive of freedom, transcendence, overcoming. (Thought experiment: Would Nietzsche and Sartre find humor in this absurd possibility, or bemoan it?)

It must be a Twilight Zone binge at the pub, as the episode To Serve Man appears on the screen immediately afterwards. The patrons suddenly see aliens descend upon the Earth. The radio stations put listeners at high alert, the military readies its forces, and everyone is fearful. The alien Kanamits resemble human beings, except they are nine feet tall, have large heads, and communicate telepathically. One Kanamit peacefully approaches the earthlings to assure them he means no harm. The aliens are here to provide peace, food, and an end to human conflict. All they ask of earthlings is trust. Sure enough, humans soon have all the pleasures of life and the comforts of leisure. The Kanamits casually invite people to visit their planet for an even better life. Scores of humans eagerly line up to depart, while two language experts arduously translate a Kanamit book. One uncovers the books title, To Serve Man; but soon learns that the book (spoiler alert!) is a cook book. The humans are being fattened up so they can embellish the diets of their alien hosts. This is one interpretation of the idea of overcoming human beings.

Wrapping up his best-known play, No Exit (1944), Sartre concludes with one of the most memorable lines in existentialist literature. The play involves three characters who are dead but unsure where they are, other than being in the same room. They see no angels and hear no harps, nor do they feel the heat of raging fires or smell brimstone. Eventually, however, the gaze or look they cast upon one another becomes unbearable. The alternate to heaven is not Satans nefarious den, Sartre concludes: Hell is other people.

Nietzsche, who is quite familiar with Protestant ministers and the Church Fathers treatises on heaven and hell his father had been a Lutheran pastor reminds Sartre that the early Christian writer Tertullians essay On Spectacles highlights how early Christians were mocked for their heresy against the pagan gods, but says Christians would get the last laugh. As Nietzsche explains it in On the Genealogy of Morals (1887), Tertullian envisions a heaven where Christians delight in watching the persecuting pagans now suffering eternal damnation (Tertullian was possibly making a satirical point about those who get pleasure out of watching others suffer).

Numerous episodes of The Twilight Zone reflect the theme of hell in the gaze of others. Considered to be among the best episodes, In The Eye of the Beholder eerily portrays shadows and voices in a hospital room. The patients face is wrapped in bandages while we hear her frightful anticipation of the results of the surgery. She was born with a disfigured face, and after ten unsuccessful operations, she has one more chance before she is exiled to an island of misfits. The doctors and nurses offer solace and hope. After twenty minutes into a thirty minute show, the bandages are unwrapped and viewers finally see a face the patient looking into a mirror. She shrieks. The surgery is again unsuccessful! Wait, we say to ourselves, the patient is undeniably beautiful. Then we catch a glimpse of the nurses and doctors. They all have distorted, pig-like faces (my apologies to pigs). In this remarkable twist, the patients hell has been the look of others whose standard of physical appeal is drastically different from ours.

The episode People Are Alike All Over relies on the notion that humanity is universally recognizable. An astronaut lands on Mars and finds natives who look just like him, and us. But this visitor, Serlings voice notes, has a very tiny undeveloped brain; comes from a primitive planet named Earth. The Martians calm his fears and welcome him, inviting him to a suburban-like house that resembles his own on Earth. The earthling is charmed by the natives thoughtful attention. Then he tries to walk out, but finds there are bars surrounding his house. It is a cage. He looks out and the natives are staring at him, as if hes an exotic creature belonging in a zoo.

A side note. When presenting these episodes to my students, I was surprised they were intrigued by how prophetic Rod Serling was. Since much of their lives are on social media, they claim that the looks of others can be just as condemning and perverse as those in No Exit or Eye of the Beholder.

Many philosophers have given thought to the nature(s) of time and space. Sartre addresses time as an aspect of human finitude, and sees consciousness as something that reaches into the past while anticipating an uncertain future. Nietzsches eternal recurrence was a brief but provocative thought experiment. He asks, what if a demon says you might have to live this life each pain and joy, each hope and despair innumerable more times, forever and ever? (The Gay Science, 341: The Greatest Weight)

The episode Escape Clause indulges this sort of existential test. A hypochondriac and self-absorbed man named Bedeker makes a deal with the Devil. He exchanges his soul for the promise that he will never die. Bedeker does all sorts of crazy things jumps in front of a train, drinks poison, and even murders his wife. Soon bored of the continual recurrence of things, Bedeker hopes that his next crime warrants an execution. Instead, he gets life imprisonment. This sense of eternal recurrence in jail horrifies him, and he seeks the grace of the Devil to help him to escape their original agreement (no spoiler alert here).

Judgment Night features a German passenger on a British ship during WW II. Carl Lanser, however, has no memory of who he is or why he is on the ship. Nevertheless, he warns the other passengers and the captain that in the early morning they will be attacked by an enemy submarine. No one heeds his warnings. Indeed, they believe he is a kook. Lanser then takes his binoculars and spots a German U-boat, catching sight of its commander Kapitan Carl Lanser, who is about to give the order to sink this ship full of innocent civilians. Lanser is both innocent passenger and U-boat commander; and the curse resulting from his decision is that this man will ride the ghost of that ship every night for eternity.

One of the most endearing episodes is Time Enough At Last. Henry Bemis is a bookish individual. He will read anything and everything, from plays and history to fiction and poetry, even the ingredients listed on food containers. He has little joy among other people the bank manager keeps threatening him, his wife mocks him while destroying his reading materials so he seeks momentary refuge by hiding in the banks vault to read without being disturbed. Suddenly, a huge shake occurs. When Bemis leaves the bank he sees that a nuclear exchange has eliminated humanity. He frets over endless loneliness and a solitary death; then he chances upon a destroyed library with thousands of books lying about. He experiences a childlike and joyous discovery that illuminates Nietzsches idea of the love of fate : Bemis is prepared to live this day like every other day, as he arranges his reading for the next year or more. Alas, not for long. He breaks his reading glasses. As the episode closes, we realize eternal recurrence also evokes another fundamental theme in existentialist thought: life is absurd, and not fair.

How much is still possible! So learn to laugh beyond yourselves, Nietzsche proclaims in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

Introducing his anthology The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor (1987), John Morreall proposes three general theories for why we laugh. They are superiority, relief, and incongruity. First, we laugh at those who are beneath us or who have had a moral collapse as seen in jokes about people being stupid, or jokes about prominent persons or groups experiencing sudden misfortune due to their own vices. Or we laugh out of nervousness and excess energy, due to the transgression of social taboos. Or third, we are amused by an event or deed which clashes with our practical expectations or conventional outlooks and habits. The Twilight Zone seems closest to this third category (though it flirts with the other two categories as well). The stories play on our familiar beliefs and the rational approaches we take to surprising situations and ordinary routines. Not just invasions by Kanamits or nuclear bombs wiping out humanity, but walking to work, playing a saxophone, or shooting a game of pool, can be the quotidian occasion for a Twilight Zone story. Yet this account still overlooks a key existentialist concern: what is it that confronts our experiences and expectations to provoke such laughter?

It is ourselves. Rod Serling insisted that his renowned TV show was not about science fiction or futuristic scenes: it was, in his words, about human beings involved in extraordinary circumstance, in strange problems of their own or fates making. These problems of their own making can be seen in the range of human artifacts, from masks and computers to talking toys and slot machines, that befuddle and torment their creators. The role of fate is found in unexpected moments that seem to appear from nowhere. We laugh at them because we are the laughable animal. Watching a prisoner fall in love with a female-like robot, a computer becoming jealous of its operators affection for an office mate, a righteous husband succumbing to the forces of a one-armed bandit, sparks laughter not at the non-human elements or at those who supposedly are inferior to us: we laugh or despair because watching The Twilight Zone is like staring into a mirror.

As I thank the bartender and depart, I take one more glimpse at the unusual visitors and wonder about their existential response to these Twilight Zone tales: despair, or laughter, or both?

Alexander Hooke 2019

Alexander E. Hooke teaches philosophy at Stevenson University, USA. He is author of Philosophy Sketches: 700 Words at a Time (Apprentice House), Alphonso Lingis and Existential Genealogy (Zero Books) and co-editor of The Twilight Zone and Philosophy (Open Court).

Philosophy Now 2019. All rights reserved.

More:
The Twilight Zone | Issue 135 - Philosophy Now

Your complimentary articles

Youve read one of your four complimentary articles for this month.

You can read four articles free per month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please

This is a difficult question as the worst philosopher is liable to be considered not a true philosopher at all!

It may be best to make clear the qualities of great philosophy, in order to shed light on the worst kind of philosophy, and consequently apply these weaknesses of thought to a specific individual, who then would seem the worst philosopher.

Firstly, they should lack the high standard of critical thinking marking great philosophy. The work of a poor philosopher is liable to consist of unclear and indistinct ideas, and obscure, confused, overly-abstracted arguments, making it difficult or impossible to understand and evaluate. This contrasts with great philosophy, which, although it may deal with complex ideas and themes, is always based upon distinct, clear ideas which are subsequently built upon. Philosophy should never be overly rhetorical, or full of unnecessary arguments, hyperbole and oversights. Furthermore, a great philosopher always recognises their influences, paying close attention to and acknowledging the ideas of their predecessors and contemporaries, even if contrary to their own viewpoint. The philosopher who thinks their philosophy wholly original is usually being dishonest and is almost certainly wrong. However, a great philosophers ideas must be highly original nevertheless; developing and expanding on existing ideas in a decidedly innovative and momentous way. Most philosophers will never be as original as, say, Ren Descartes; but the philosopher whose ideas consist wholly of a hotchpotch of other peoples or, worse, are derived from just one thinker is a bad one.

To summarise: the worst philosophers ideas would constitute the worst of philosophy: lacking in analysis, disordered, prone to exaggeration, unimaginative, unoriginal, hardly philosophy at all.

So, who is the worst philosopher? It is difficult to say, as there are so many poor ones from whom to choose, and the decision will reflect your own personal interests and perspectives. But I would suggest Ayn Rand (1905-1982), whose endorsements of ethical egotism and laissez-faire capitalism are formulated in the overused, hubristic and indolent arguments characteristic of the worst of what can, at a stretch, be called philosophy.

Jonathan Tipton, Preston, Lancashire

My first impulse is to stab a sacred cow: Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). He tended to work from a position of fancy and romanticism, thinking that he was more ready for action than he really was. The accusation of fantasy stands to reason, given how sickly he was: think his Will to Power and his ironically quoted-to-death epithet, What doesnt kill me makes me stronger. However, my adverse sentiment towards him has more to do with his many fans whom I have encountered on message boards: those basement bermenschen. Every time I encounter someone who tags their belief system with the prefix anarcho-, I think of Nietzsche, cringe, and start digging my trenches. It always feels like someone embracing the radical strictly for the sake of the radical. But perhaps this has more to do with the fact that, as easy as he is to read, Nietzsche is equally easy to misinterpret. The next logical choice, being a source of Nietzsches fancy, would be Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), for his Social Darwinism. But Spencer is too discredited to be worth wasting this opportunity to internationally air my contempt. Therefore I would turn towards a more recent expression of Spencers Social Darwinism: Ayn Rand . I do so because she has been a major influence on our social, economic, and political life; and she did so by appealing to the same fancy as Spencer and Nietzsche. Even worse, she attempted to drape that fancy in an erroneous appeal to the scientific method. As far as I can tell, her Objectivism consisted of talking about facts (something we can all agree exist), then translating this into questionable causal connections about general matters of the human condition. Her argument boiled down to: 1+1=2: so laissez faire Capitalism is the only means by which humans can achieve their full potential. Its as if were supposed to be so impressed by her getting the 1+1 part right that we should accept the latter claim as having the same status. We can achieve our true potential only by using our talents to make things better for everyone, not through the corporate servitude she promoted.

D.E. Tarkington, Bellevue, Nebraska

If by worst philosopher you mean the one whose ideas are furthest from the truth, a strong candidate must be Bishop George Berkeley (1685-1753). His key notion was that nothing exists except insofar as it exists as an idea in some mind. I have never been able to make any sense of this. Some of his modern disciples (like Bob Berman and Robert Lanza in their book Biocentrism, 2010) do seem to hold that the Moons existence literally depends on people looking at it. Meantime, Berkeley posited that ultimately its in the mind of God that everything exists. Yet the mind of God does not exist.

If, however, by worst philosopher, you mean the most pernicious, thats surely Friedrich Nietzsche . Of course that does not refer to everything he wrote and others may have spouted worse vileness. In Nietzsches case, though, his perniciousness is leveraged by his outsized influence. Nothing so atrocious has been so widely read. My own humanist philosophy centers on the utilitarian concept of the greatest good for the greatest number. Its not a moral absolute, but a guideline: striving for more happiness and less suffering in the world. By this reckoning, every human life counts. Nietzsches thought is directly contrary: the greatest good for the greatest individuals, all others be damned, subservient to the ego of the heroic bermensch or Superman. Nietzsche had contempt for the mass of humanity. It is one thing to vaunt virtuous human qualities such as courage and strength; quite another to claim that only certain lives have value. How does one make that portentous differentiation? Nietzsches particular criteria are highly dubious. Indeed, one can argue that his bermensch is actually a criminal deserving punishment. Nobody should be allowed to condemn as worthless a whole class of human beings. Thats exactly what the Nazis did in their campaign of slaughter. Nietzsche, fittingly, was their pet philosopher.

I prefer the humanistic thinking of T.H. Huxley (1825-1895), who said our aim should be not to play out Darwinian survival of the fittest, but to fit more of us for survival.

Frank S. Robinson, Albany, New York

Judging philosophical ideas and thinkers as good and bad is an abyss even Nietzsche wouldnt be keen to stare into. The yardstick for separating good philosophical thinkers from bad isnt just sitting there waiting to be discovered. It certainly cant be based on right or wrong theories: how are Kantian ethics any truer than utilitarianism? Controversy cant be an indicator of quality, any more than cordiality. Judging philosophers seems like a lost cause until you discover those who threatened the very foundation of the discipline, and eventually, of knowledge, and Moritz Schlick (1882-1936), leader of the Vienna Circle, is a prime example. Responsible for the Logical Positivist movement, the group of philosophers he led attempted to curtail the criteria of what was considered meaningful, and hence worthy of pursuit. Surely an offense like this shouldnt be pardoned.

At the base of logical positivism was the Principle of Verification, which says that only ideas capable of empirical verification are worth contemplating, or indeed, meaningful. Although a seemingly noble attempt to make better use of human time and effort, such stern conditions of meaning not only invalidate centuries of quality work contributed by exceptional thinkers such as Socrates, Plato, or Kant, but also throw out entire branches of philosophy, such as theology, ethics, and metaphysics, as speculative trash. For any naturalists feeling smug here, however, the implications go far beyond philosophy, into science, where for instance, theories relating to quantum entanglement, dark matter, and M-theory would have to be thrown out if they cannot be shown to be empirically verifiable. Social sciences such as psychology and sociology would soon follow suit leaving a void in the very foundation of knowledge, to the point where observation and experimentation of any kind would become impossible. Fortunately, the theory proved to be self-contradictory, with the Principle of Verification itself being not quite empirically verifiable. This crucial drawback not only establishes the idea as a complete failure, but also establishes Moritz Schlick and his dour band of companions as narrow-minded and unimaginative thinkers.

Shail Thakker, Edgware, London

There he sat night after night, Enrobed in rustic country clothes, Dreaming by a German fire, In wooden hut, one man alone: A king upon an Alpine throne The greatest thinker ever known. Or was he? For though he wrote in gilded rose-tipped prose And probed the heart of Being, It was the cold, aloof, unfeeling being, himself Heidegger he chose. This man as the Nazi rector is more revealing: He did not deny, denounce, nor denigrate Historys most anti-life: And there his grand undoing lies Like an existential hunting knife. For its all too dark, and all too true As the voice from out the forest cries: Philosophy ends and thinking fails When the human in us dies.

Bianca Laleh, Totnes, Devon

Since philosophy is the love of wisdom, the worst philosopher would be the one whose philosophy resulted in the greatest folly, which may be measured by human hurt. There are, unfortunately, numerous candidates for this dubious distinction, but my vote is for Karl Marx (1818-1883). Marxs philosophy led to the totalitarian communist regimes of Russia, China, and other countries, and so to the mass killings of more people than even fascism. Then Russia and its satellite countries had to abandon it, and China has had to greatly modify it. Further, Marx claimed that his theories were scientific and thus capable of predictions, but his mistaken predictions were so numerous that there is not space in this little essay to list them.

The foundation of Marxs thought was his philosophy of history, and it was here he made his fatal error. Briefly, his theory was that the means of production of goods and services determined human history. History moves by an inexorable process that divides societies into classes that must struggle against one another. Marxs good news is that the process must end with no social classes, and peace and justice for all. This theory is a materialistic determinism: according to this view, our ideas do not influence the process. And by our ideas, I include all of our art, customs and manners, moral principles, religion, laws, political organization, and philosophy. In other words, according to Marx, our lives are a macabre dance where human agency is a delusion.

I believe the opposite is the case. Humans are born curious. The evolutionary advantage of curiosity is that it enables learning to adapt to the world; and in our case, to greatly change it for our benefit including our political and economic systems. In fact, after Marx, weve greatly changed capitalism, and accommodated within it some socialism. This is why Marxs predictions were wrong: he denied the efficacy of human agency in history. There was no place for it in his inexorable historical process. And there is no worse philosopher than one who believes that wisdom is impotent.

John Talley, Rutherfordton, North Carolina

I nominate John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) as the worst philosopher. One of his rare critics was the American economist Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993), who noted that while a small public library could be filled with books lavishly praising Keynes ideas, the number of critical works could be counted on one hand. Keynes magnum opus, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936), is a convoluted thicket of supercilious jabs and straw-man arguments; I further nominate it for Worst Book Ever Written. I read it all though, and have no reason to doubt Hazlitts assertion, made in The Failure of the New Economics: An Analysis of the Keynesian Fallacies (1959), that he was unable to find in [that book] a single important doctrine that is both true and original.

Keynes insight was that in the fable of The Ant and the Grasshopper, Aesop had got things backward. It was the ant who was impoverishing the world by saving some of his earnings! The grasshopper, singing all summer and living from hand to mouth, was the more economically responsible citizen. Saving bad: spending good. This idea has now been accepted as gospel by almost all the economists and governments of the world.

Keyness popularity is based not on originality or on truth, but on his telling everyone what they want to hear: workers should spend everything they earn and never suffer a pay cut; governments should borrow money and print it too, in order to keep everyone at full employment. Keynes is less a philosopher than a guy who shows up with a bag of cocaine and says Lets party!

Paul Vitols, North Vancouver, British Columbia

If this question Who is the worst philosopher? had not been prefaced with out of the famous thinkers of history, the logical answer might have been, whoever came up with this question, because, lacking a definition of terms, it is fundamentally meaningless. Does it mean, which philosopher do you or I most disagree with? That doesnt define who is the worst philosopher; merely which philosophers ideas you find most unconvincing. So followers of Ayn Rand will automatically nominate Karl Marx; and Marxists are likely to nominate Ayn Rand (or possibly Karl Popper). Or does it mean, which philosopher do you find most morally objectionable (never mind what you think about their ideas)? In that case the Nazi Martin Heidegger is likely to show up high on the list.

Still, in an attempt to answer both questions, I will offer two nominations. For muddled thinking, I would suggest Ren Descartes (1596-1650), simply because his physics the famous vortices is not only nonsense, but based on no scientific evidence. For his sheer hypocrisy, I propose Seneca the Younger (4BC-65AD), who preached stoicism while making a fortune and enjoying the luxury of Neros court and, I would argue, only relapsed into stoicism by committing suicide when he couldnt find any alternative.

Martin Jenkins, London

Those Who Turn Away

Talented thinkers through the ages: Some fail, and some fail to try. We focus on the former,

Yet no one asks the latter why. So who is the Worst Philosopher? My brother John is a candidate strong. And, no, I do not stereotype him, So please dont just say Im wrong.

A double first at Oxford, Laser physics is his thing. Science gives him answers: Philosophys praises he does not sing.

Yes, hes a Doctor of Philosophy, Although on him the irony is lost. He says rationality is his god. Philosophy? No return, theres only cost.

His advice helped win a Nobel, A successful professorial hit: Why sit and wait, When you can get on with it?

But thinking about thinking And taking the measure of measure? All best left to others; Those circles give no pleasure.

Science can help with consciousness And what is meant by life, But philosophy deserves distain: Who needs the angst and strife?

His dot-com career was fortunate, Though he treats this view with scorn. The internet needed fibre optics. Fast transmission, even if for porn

So the Worst Philosophers Are not the ones who try, But the ones who turn away And do nothing but decry.

Glen Reid, Royal Wootton Bassett

The next question is: What & Why Are Our Human Rights? Please give and justify your answer in less than 400 words. The prize is a semi-random book from our book mountain. Email the Editor. Subject lines should be marked Question of the Month, and must be received by 10th February 2020. If you want a chance of getting a book, please include your physical address. Submission is permission to reproduce your answer.

Philosophy Now 2019. All rights reserved.

View original post here:
Who Is The Worst Philosopher? | Issue 135 - Philosophy Now

General election time in Britain invariably means one thing: lots of Labour, Green and Lib Dem posters displayed outside peoples houses and in front windows but hardly any Conservative ones. In my 11 years living and travelling around Kent, I havent seen a single one. The last time I saw one was in the Holland Park area of West London in the early 1990s. If you live in a city centre, they are a rare species indeed. So where are the vote Tory placards?

Their absence has been the norm for decades now, especially since the Thatcherite 1980s. This was when Rik Mayalls character in the comedy The Young Ones popularised the notion that Tories were capitalist scum or fascists (even though the character was an imbecile, and actually a send-up of student radicals). By then it had become the popular consensus that Tories were selfish and money-obsessed and that to vote Labour was an act of supreme virtue and altruism. In the last election, I found myself in the affluent north London area of Crouch End. Nearly every house was festooned with a Labour poster. These were not houses that had any material interest in seeing a Labour; quite the reverse. But I bet it made them feel as one and feel good.

As Twitter has also paradoxically illustrated since, some left-wing people armed with an unshakeable sense of their own moral righteousness, can be quite nasty at times. There has always been that second thought that spiteful people with a grievance and who lack a sense of doubt might put a brick through a window bearing Conservative poster.

A few years ago,James Bartholomew of this magazine coined the term virtue signalling, to indicate people voicing an opinion, usually a left-wing one, and often without sincerity, to ingratiate yourself with your peers.

I like to think I got there first, at least in the context of British society, having written a short book in 2003 which described what I called conspicuous compassion. This phenomenon had shown its roots back in 1985 with Live Aid, where people successfully joined in something bigger than themselves, sung along with Status Quo and Queen.

The real watershed came in 1997. Like many people I found the public outpouring following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales unreal. There were signals that displays of emotion, combined with ostentatious, unconvincing and indeed menacing signs of compassion were becoming the order of the day. Show us you care!, some demanded of the Queen

The 1990s was the decade in which Harry Enfield and Paul Whitehouse, playing the unctuous DJs Smashy n Nicey, would liked to boast: we do a lot of work for charidee but we dont like to talk about it.

In real life, ribbons for all manner of causes began to proliferate. Remembrance Day poppies got bigger and bigger and were sported earlier and earlier. Minutes silence began to be held for tragedies that were diminishing in gravity. Politicians like Tony Blair were apologising for historical sins, an act that cost them zero in emotional investment.

Anti-war marchers seemed less interested in actually stopping conflicts, but keener to brag about their personal distaste for them. Not in my name was their slogan. This was compassion inflation, mourning sickness. It was not the sign of a more caring society. It was the symptom of a cynical, atomised one that would seize any opportunity to bond with strangers.

Of course, neither virtue signalling or conspicuous compassion described something new. The ideas have their origins in Charles Darwins 1871 book, The Descent of Man, which describes how saying or doing the wrong thing is all part of the sexual selection game. Quite simply, you are not going to get a girlfriend at university if you declare yourself a Tory. Conversely, once you get to middle age you dont really care what anyones going to think of your political views.

By the new millennium I was reading a lot of Friedrich Nietzsche. One quote from Human, All Too Human convinced me he had predicted the future and that I had to write a book about the cranky old German: Observe how children weep and cry, so thatso that they will be pitied Thus the thirst for pity is a thirst for self-enjoyment, and at the expense of ones fellow man. Somehow his infamous loathing of compassion no longer seemed so perverse.

Patrick West is a columnist for Spiked and author ofGet Over Yourself: Nietzsche For Our Times(Societas, 2017)

See the rest here:
What happened to all the vote Tory signs? - Spectator.co.uk

(T)he character of exchange is the primary character of justice. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche, Human All Too Human

These reflections are not about this or that judgement, this or that dispute, and this or that historic moment. The day is relevant because a judgement has been made. But the concern is wider, because all judgements make their own mark (as digression, confirmation or violation) in relation to previous judgements, and may have a bearing upon judgements to come. The judge judges a case, or a dispute, within the limits and liberties of law. When we wait for a judge to pronounce judgement, what do we really wait for? To know, to see what he thinks of the case, or the dispute. The figure of the judge takes precedence when the judgement is being delivered. He weighs the facts of the case, and interprets it according to the logic of the law. We expect objectivity, reason, impartiality and clarity in his delivery of judgement. We forget history, we forget pre-judice, and we forget politics.

In other words, we forget the origins of justice, that mysterious and messy place where it comes from. It is not just a place back in time, but something that exists, persists the way the origins of all things exist and persist. For instance, if caste exists, or religious bigotry exists, its origins are also present today. These origins are not to be traced in some undated past. There is nothing ancient about them. Their genealogy can be traced in times much closer to ours. What is necessary to regard and find out is the principle of origins, where the law bares what it hides.

To retain our initiative towards free spirited and independent journalism we require your support |Pay Now

The point is simple: The task of anyone studying the history of judgements, even of this judgement, or any judgement in the future, will learn from tracing its history back in the time suitable or proper to it, from where both external (historical, political) and internal (subjective, pre-judicial) elements that may (or may not) have a bearing on the judgement can be found. These elements are not traces but signs. Traces dont have a strong bearing on something as historic as judgements. Signs carry the marks of history and politics.So where do we look for the signs in a judgement? Simply: in its language. No judgement can be better or worse than the language it uses to pronounce it. Language carries the political and cultural marks of a judgement. It reveals what a judgement openly hides in its language: the historical and political condition of justice where it bares what it hides.

We must acknowledge that there is no conflict between faith and reason in politics. When faith acts upon its political interests, it uses reason to stamp its (illegal) authority. The question is also not history versus faith. It is how faith depends on history. We need to understand what faith is willing to lose of itself, in order to be political. In other words, we must ask what faith is willing to lack as faith in order to become a mask, a weapon, a slogan in history that symbolises the intention of conquest.History is not simply about facts and evidence. Archeological evidence as historical proof is not enough in political matters. The purely rationalist conception of history that divides the idea of history into binaries of religion and secular, faith and reason, does not take the political aspect of history into account. This division is not to the rationalists advantage as well, when the matter is political. Faith and reason are separate as categories, but not so separate in politics.

Modernity has demeaned faith by making instrumental rationality crucial for its public existence. What is understood as faith is the instrumental rationality of modern politics, masquerading as faith. If there is a conflict of interests between two groups, they will put faith and reason in each others service to argue their matter. The point about history is not simply to create conceptual binaries/distinctions and hierarchies, but to argue how to ethically reconstruct it. The point is to question the legitimacy of power. The law must take the law of history into account, where the idea of power rules over rationalist binaries.Nietzsche traces the origins of justice in a trade-off. Justice is exchange value. Of what? Power. Justice creates the myth (the original myth, if you like), that both parties are equal and the judgement matters to them both equally. Nietzsche calls this exchange of justice as proof of what is forgotten of the original purpose of justice. The judgement is supposed to make us forget our inequality. More crucially, all that is political and real peoples sorrows, struggles, sense of pride and humiliation are all made inconsequential. These are the irrationalities which we struggle for, when we struggle for justice.

To struggle for justice is not simply a struggle for the archeology of evidence. There is a truth apart from the evidence of history: the truth of being other, who is struggling for a false equality because s/he lacks power, who is struggling for a false fraternity, because it has been replaced by relations of interests. The other is the real truth of history that even justice falls short of addressing. Truth is always that excess that justice is forever trying (and failing) to impress, and to heal.

Manash Firaq Bhattacharjee is the author ofLooking for the Nation:Towards Another Idea of India(Speaking Tiger, 2018). He frequently writes forThe Wire, and has contributed toThe New York Times, Al-Jazeera, Los Angeles Review of Books, Guernica, The Hindu, Outlook, Economic and Political Weekly,among other publications.

Read more:
Reflecting on the Conditions of Justice - The New Leam

The recent trial balloons about changing the electoral system have been met with derision. But while its reasonable to suspect anything originating with the Likud spin machine, direct election of the prime minister is not a terrible idea.

It should be especially appealing to the center-left, which in the existing system faces a structural problem in leading a government that is truly its own, because that would require working with the Arab parties. Even though many in Israel do yearn for such a thing, theyre probably not in the majority and in any case such a government would struggle.

How would a Blue and White government dependent on the United Arab List (which I have on these pages in fact recommended) respond to provocations from Gaza, Hezbollah or Iran? Its easy to imagine Hamas testing Benny Gantz immediately upon his swearing-in with rockets, hoping his reaction would offend his Arab partners. Bringing down a government is not easy once its sworn in, but it would be hobbled if the Arabs swiftly bolted.

Of course, one might hope such a government would be focused on peace, not war. Even if that happened, any steps toward partition and accommodation with the Palestinians would be hysterically opposed by the right for lacking a Jewish majority. That is racist and undemocratic, but few would be surprised, and Israel does not lack for hooligans who could be incited by the right to violence.

Furthermore, the left in Israel and indeed all over the world does not have the same drive as the right.

It is typical that Benjamin Netanyahu reacted to the corruption charges announced last week with an offensive against the legal system he presides over, accusing it of a coup detat despite having benefitted from an array of legal discounts. He is willing to burn down the house and can dupe many into thinking it patriotic.

This typifies the global right-wing populist movement these days, whose willingness to do anything to gain power is why its leaders are often quite rightly accused of vehiculating lies. They have what Nietzsche called the Will to Power (a term whose meaning is debated but which fits Netanyahu like a glove). The left is simply not as determined.

In Israel, the left cannot even devise a narrative to address the complication of its alliance with the Arabs. Its perfectionists and idealists are incapable of creative compromises and wily marketing.

Anyone needing a reminder received it today from Blue and White Knesset member Zvi Hauser who ruled out a government based on United Arab List support because its Knesset members supposedly do not embrace Israels self-definition as Jewish and democratic. You can call Hauser a right-wing fig leaf but he speaks for a much wider group that has trouble grappling with reality as it is.

To state the obvious, its no disgrace that the center-left has no majority without the Arabs. Get over it.

The right has no majority without the Haredim, currently holding more seats than the United Arab List. The Haredi parties are neither Zionist nor democratic. It also has no majority without religious fascists who are neither democratic nor humanist. The mainstream right (even emptied of the few decent leaders who somehow stuck around until a few years ago) currently has about 35 out of 120 seats worth of support on a good day and depends for any majority on forces that politely can be described as problematic. Can anyone imagine prominent Likudniks ruling them out?

This landscape is why the left is always yearning for a unity government with the Likud (but one that it somehow leads). Blue and White has taken this to new lows, practically insisting on it at the expense of other scenarios. One can understand a gesture an outreach to moderate members across the aisle. But what kind of potentially ruling party runs around begging its rival (and in this case a rival it views correctly as destructive to society) for support and partnership? It is bizarre, offensive and political foolish.

The Likud, sensing this pitiable weakness, is not likely to give in, even if it has one seat less by part count, as it does today.

Even in the wider sense, Israel faces an intense problem forming coherent governments, because the population is too fragmented for a majority that cuts across all the issues: the territories with their millions of Palestinians, the economy, the role of religion, and cultural and social matters.

Just as one example, nationalists who want to be on the right have needed to also align themselves with religious fanatics who oppose the study of math and refuse to allow a normal weekend to take place. That is because the right has in fact needed to be the right-religious bloc in order to get a majority. That was never going to be stable, and it led to Avigdor Libermans 2019 abandonment of Netanyahu with the resulting prospect of three elections within 12 months.

Governments are unlikely to enjoy widespread acceptance under such circumstances. This is more dangerous to the left than to the right, because the left these days tends to be less likely to revolt when it does not get its way. But even the left has a devil of a time coming to terms with the type of government that the system has foisted upon it. The whole thing is a crisis of legitimacy, of the sort that has led to revolutions, civil wars and the collapse of empires.

It mirrors whats going on in America. But there, for all the unhappiness and unfairness of the Electoral College, with its imposition of minoritarian governments, at least there is a clear winner. Israel could use one as well and that is what a direct election of the prime minister would offer. A decision by the public that is inarguable, even if it is absurd.

The procedure can be debated. How to define and limit powers? How to enable the prime minister to govern, when the party breakdown is likely to stay much the same (since party voting is more of a census than an election)? That was the problem with the last direct election effort, which foundered when prime ministers struggled to maintain a Knesset majority and gradually lost legitimacy.

One possibility is to not require a majority perhaps allowing a supermajority to remove the prime minister and dissolve the Knesset. Another is to grant the elected prime minister a large bloc of seats automatically, yielding a majority in most cases. Yet another is to introduce mandatory voting (meaning a penalty for not voting); that may have the effect of helping the left, which currently suffers due to the low voting rates among the Arabs (that have no equivalent, of course, on the Haredi side).

Whatever the details of the arrangement, it would avoid the current fiasco of no elected government.

And the left need not fret so much. Let it find a candidate as clever, focused, ruthless and charismatic as Netanyahu. That may be Gantz, and it may be someone else. One day justice will prevail, and Israel will leave most of the West Bank, and shake off the grip of religious fundamentalists. That day could come in March under the current system; but it is far more likely with a direct election.

Israels politics are in a state of intolerable dysfunction. It is time to drain the swamp.

Dan Perry, a media and tech innovator, was the Cairo-based Middle East Editor of the AP, and chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Israel. Previously he led AP in Europe, Africa and the Caribbean. Follow him at: twitter.com/perry_dan http://www.linkedin.com/in/danperry1 http://www.instagram.com/danperry63 https://www.facebook.com/DanPerryWriter/

See the original post here:
Direct PM election is not a bad idea - The Times of Israel

Breastfeeding Support Group

LOCATION: Hoops Family Childrens Hospital MOMS classroom, third floor

INFORMATION: Facilitated by a certified lactation consultant, this informal setting is a great way for new moms to exchange information and experiences about breastfeeding. There is no cost and registration is not required. More information: 304-526-6358.

LOCATION: Wellness Center Aerobics Room, St. Marys Regional Heart Institute, first floor

INFORMATION: This class combines fast and slow rhythms that tone and sculpt the body using principles from aerobics and fitness to achieve cardio and muscle-toning benefits. Cost is $5 per class or a package of eight classes for $35. Free trial classes are available. More information: 304-526-1660.

Gynecologic Cancer Support Group

LOCATION: Edwards Comprehensive Cancer Center Resource Room

INFORMATION: This free support group is for women with ovarian, cervical and other gynecologic cancers and their loved ones. Everyone is welcome and no RSVP is required. Refreshments will be served. More information: 304-526-2443.

LOCATION: St. Marys Medical Center Lobby

INFORMATION: St. Marys will dedicate a special memorial Christmas tree in the medical centers main lobby this holiday season to give the community the opportunity to honor loved ones who have passed away. Community members may purchase a special ornament for the tree in honor of a loved one with a minimum donation of $25 to the St. Marys Foundation. To purchase an ornament, call St. Marys Spiritual Care & Mission at 304.526.1188. More information: 304-526-1188.

LOCATION: Cabell Huntington Hospital

INFORMATION: Future big brothers and sisters can learn to help care for the new baby. There is no cost for this class, but registration is required. More information: 304-526-BABY (2229).

Brain Aneurysm, AVM and Stroke Support Group

LOCATION: St. Marys Conference Center, 2849 5th Ave.

INFORMATION: In conjunction with the Joe Niekro Foundation, this free support group is open to anyone who has suffered from a brain aneurysm, arteriovenous malformation (AVM) or stroke and their family members. Registration is not required. More information: 304-399-7478.

Free Diabetic Foot Screenings

LOCATION: Wound Healing Center, 1600 Medical Center Drive, Suite 2500

INFORMATION: Do you suffer from lack of sensation, a feeling of pins and needles, or pain in your feet? If you have diabetes, regular foot screenings are important. Learn your risks at these free, five-minute screenings. More information: 304-399-3510.

LOCATION: St. Marys Wound and Hyperbaric Center, St. Marys Medical Center, ground floor

INFORMATION: Free screenings include an exam, health education and giveaways for people with foot-related concerns or those having difficulty caring for their own feet. Screenings will be provided by registered nurses. More information: 304-399-7450.

LOCATION: Vascular Lab, St. Marys Regional Heart Institute, first floor

INFORMATION: Screenings are for peripheral vascular disease, carotid artery and abdominal aortic aneurysm. The cost is $45 for each test or $99 for all three tests. Screenings are by appointment. More information: 304-526-1492.

LOCATION: Wellness Center Aerobics Room, St. Marys Regional Heart Institute, first floor

INFORMATION: This class combines fast and slow rhythms that tone and sculpt the body using principles from aerobics and dance to achieve cardio and muscle-toning benefits. The cost is $5 per class or a package of eight classes for $35. Free trial classes are available. More information: 304-526-1660.

See the original post here:

Healthy classes, events and programs - Huntington Herald Dispatch