One of the perks of being 31 in an era where everything happens faster and faster each year is that I get to be a bitter old man long before my ancestors had to. I’m not gonna turn this into self-promotion and tell you my story of why exactly I have grown up so fast.
Every year, at some point, I start hearing people say “___ sucks”. The positive among the bunch will joke and say that they will just go to sleep now and next year will be better. Well, there’s even a German song about 2020 called “WTF”. …
Puede parecer una pregunta trivial. La mayoría de la gente simplemente nace con la ciudadanía de un país en particular (o con suerte, de varios). Pero algunas personas, probablemente académicos, verían esta pregunta como compleja ya que puede tener connotaciones legales, políticas, socio-psicológicas e históricas.
Nosotros estamos aquí para hablar sobre la ciudadanía legal y lo que implica.
… No es residencia permanente
Tal vez esta sea la distinción más fácil de establecer. Cuando alguien tiene residencia permanente en un país, eso no significa en absoluto que tengan ciudadanía legal. Quienes gozan de residencia permanente no tienen, sin embargo, todos los derechos políticos y por eso no pueden votar o ser candidatos a cargos electos. Tampoco pueden trabajar en varios puestos de seguridad nacional ni diplomacia. …
It might seem like a trivial question. Most people are simply born with the citizenship of a particular country (or if they are lucky, with several). But some people, likely academics, might see this as an inherently complex question because it can have legal, political, socio-psychological and historical connotations.
The focus of this article is not socio-psychological or even necessarily political.
We’re here to talk about legal citizenship and what it entails.
… Not Permanent Residence
This is perhaps the easiest distinction that can be drawn. When someone has permanent residence in a country, this does not at all mean that they have legal citizenship. They lack full political rights and therefore they can’t vote or run for public office. They also can’t work in national security or diplomacy. …
Some variation of this phrase is written into the very beginning of several founding documents. It is in the Preambles of the US Constitution, the UN Charter, and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, thus highlighting both the international character and the very European nature of this statement. Yet at the very core of this statement lies the question of citizenship. Who is “we”? How are we “a people”? What makes someone a citizen?
The Most Important Right of All
Without sounding controversial or hierarchical, there is arguably one right that matters above all others. …
Somewhere along the line, humanity seems to have forgotten that “the pen is mightier than the sword”.
Maybe it was with the invention of the bow and arrow some 1700 years ago, which allowed us to take down our enemies from a distance. Or maybe it was with the invention of pistons and machine guns, and their usage in WWI which allowed us not only to kill from a distance but also to kill without even aiming properly.
But arguably, it was the invention of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) that played a role in ending WWII.
In 2020, we are painfully aware that one wrong move in the international stage could lead to a catastrophic chain of events. And as people joke, we can now blow the world to smithereens with the accidental push of a button. …
As I stated from the outset, the core purpose of these essays is to propose a new philosophy founded on will. However, every article after the first one seemed to be focused on black vs white and the concept of grey/grayness. The reason for that is because this whole conception of “will” relies on the fact that to overcome binary thinking, we need a willful/conscious effort to decide/create a middle path rather than accept a given set of binary choices (which are most easily represented as black-vs-white).
When I first introduced grey, some would argue that it was hypocritical.
After all, I introduced grey as a non-binary solution but paradoxically only allowed for “two binary options” to define grey. …
If you’ve read the other articles about the world, black vs white mentality, and grey neutrality, you have probably seen the amateur diagrams used to explain some complex ideas. However I must admit that the diagram for this one is a lot harder to grasp conceptually. This is especially because regardless of the diagram, there can be so many ways to elaborate on the distinction between being, non-being, and not being. So before throwing out any diagrams, let me try to explain things linguistically.
The core of the issue here is: how many people are we talking about?
When you read that, you probably intuitively interpreted it as 3 people. …
Before going further, please familiarize yourself with the issue of Black vs. White Mentality. As the conclusion of that article states: 2=1 (black/white = grey). To put it differently, you could say that black and white are two sides of the same grey coin, but what exactly is this grey coin?
The previous article provided the diagram to the left. In essence, it argues that there are two ways to look at “grey”:
You can see from this very Venn diagram that “zooming in” to the grey area could lead to the perspective that grey is simply a bunch of white and black dots put closely together (option 1 above), or it is an accumulation of dots that are inherently grey (option 2 above). Both of these options have their respective perks and…
Let’s begin with the simplest of all representations.
What do you see when you observe the two images below?
This is not a trick question.
The answer is easy: there’s a white circle and a black circle.
You wouldn’t think that a simple image like this would be one of those that end up setting the Twitter world on fire.
Unfortunately, the implications of this simple distinction do seem to set our real world on fire. Let me explain.
Already with this one tiny representation I am making an indirect reference to a classic philosophical example about two spheres. It’s called the Identity of Indiscernibles and it essentially questions whether two things that are indistinguishable must be identical. Rather than diving into an extremely nerdy debate about the actual philosophical problem, let me explain that this representation also makes reference to a theory in social science: Moral Foundations Theory. …
Ok, so here is the biggest social problem of them all: humans are, almost by definition, willful creatures. I would argue that it is not our intelligence or our emotionality that makes us unique and special. It is our will.
Few philosophers have properly and directly focused on will. Most notably is “Nietzsche’s Will to Power”. But I place that all in quotes because it is likely that he borrowed/learned from another philosopher whose main work was “The World as Will and Representation/Idea”: Arthur Schopenhauer. …