الناس هم الغاية لا الوسيلة

الفلسفة السياسية ليوكيو هاتوياما

مقدمة المترجم
لم يطل مقام رئيس الوزراء الياباني يوكيو هاتوياما كثيرا، فقد اضطر للاستفالة بعد عام واحد بسبب عدم قدرته على الوفاء بوعده الانتخابي و اغلاق القواعد الامريكية في اوكيناوا. و كان وصوله الى المنصب عام 2009 حدثا سياسيا مهما بعد انتخابات شهدت تغييراً جذرياً و هزيمة كبيرة للحزب الديموقراطي الليبرالي الذي سيطر على الساحة السياسية اليابانية لأكثر من نصف قرن. و كان من المتوقع أن يعني ذلك تغييرات جوهرية في اليابان تنعكس على العالم بأسره، مما بعث اهتماماً كبيراً في الأوساط السياسية العالمية بالاتجاهات المقبلة لحكومة الحزب الديمقراطي الياباني.
و قد نشر هاتوياما مقالة في عدد أيلول 2009 من مجلة فويس اليابانية أثارت ضجة في الصحف العالمية لما تبديه من نزعة مضادة للعولمة. و هي تضع خطة عمل لليابان داخلياً و خارجياً في المرحلة المقبلة استعداداً لعصر تعددية الأقطاب. المقالة تتحدث عن مفهوم "الإخاء" عنواناً للمرحلة و عن جذوره عند الكونت ريتشارد كودينهوف كاليرجي Coudenhove-Kalergi رائد فكرة الاتحاد الأوروبي، ثم تناقش الاصلاحات الاقتصادية المزمعة و السياسة الخارجية من خلال هذا المفهوم متطرقة لتأثيرات العولمة و الاصلاحات الليبرالية السابقة على المجتمعات المحلية، و واضعة أجندة طموحة على الصعيد الإقليمي.

Researchers use magnetic pulses to brain to reduce overly optimistic tendencies

Scientists have known for many years that human beings, as a general rule, are an overly optimistic bunch. We close our eyes to statistics suggesting our eating habits may be killing us, ignore warnings about texting while driving and almost always believe things will come out all right in the end if we'll just hang in there, despite sometimes obvious indications to the contrary. Research has suggested that two specific symmetrically opposite parts of the brain influence our optimism or pessimism, but until now haven't been able to offer direct proof. Now however, new research by a group of neuroscientists has found, as they describe in their paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that turning off one of these areas via magnetic pulses dramatically reduces overly optimistic tendencies.

(A) In each trial participants were presented with a short description of one of 40 adverse life events and asked to estimate how likely this event was to occur to them. They were then presented with the average probability of that event occurring to a person living in the same sociocultural environment. The second session was the same as the first session, except that the average probability of the event to occur was not presented again. (B and C) Examples of trials for which the participant’s estimate was (B) higher or (C) lower than the average probability. Here, for illustration purposes only, the blue and red frames denote the participant’s response (either an overestimation or underestimation, respectively) and the blue and red filled boxes denote information that calls for an adjustment in a (B) favorable (good news) or (C) unfavorable (bad news) direction.

Source: Medical Express

Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

Nobody who engages in political argument, and who isn't a moron, hasn't had to recognize the fact that decent, honest, intelligent people can come to opposite conclusions on public issues. Jonathan Haidt, in an eye-opening and deceptively ambitious best seller, tells us why. The reason is evolution. Political attitudes are an extension of our moral reasoning; however much we like to tell ourselves otherwise, our moral responses are basically instinctual, despite attempts to gussy them up with ex-post rationalizations. Our constellation of moral instincts arose because it helped us to cooperate. It helped us, in unprecedented speed and fashion, to dominate our planet. Yet the same moral reaction also means we exist in a state of perpetual, nasty political disagreement, talking past each other, calling each other names. So Mr. Haidt explains in "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion," undoubtedly one of the most talked-about books of the year. "The Righteous Mind" spent weeks on the hardcover best-seller list. Mr. Haidt considers himself mostly a liberal, but his book has been especially popular in the conservative blogosphere. Some right-leaning intellectuals are even calling it the most important book of the year.

As we sit in his new office at New York University, he professes an immodest aim: He wants liberals and conservatives to listen to each other more, hate each other less, and to understand that their differences are largely rooted in psychology, not open-minded consideration of the facts. "My big issue, the one I'm somewhat evangelical about, is civil disagreement," he says. A shorthand he uses is "follow the sacred"—and not in a good way. "Follow the sacred and there you will find a circle of motivated ignorance." Today's political parties are most hysterical, he says, on the issues they "sacralize." For the right, it's taxes. For the left, the sacred issues were race and gender but are becoming global warming and gay marriage. Yet between the lines of his book is an even more dramatic claim: The same moral psychology that makes our politics so nasty also underlies the amazing triumph of the human species. "We shouldn't be here at all," he tells me. "When I think about life on earth, there should not be a species like us. And if there was, we should be out in the jungle killing each other in small groups. That's what you should expect. The fact that we're here [in politics] arguing viciously and nastily with each other, and no guns, that itself is a miracle. And I think we can make [our politics] a little better. That's my favorite theme.

 Jonathan Haidt: He Knows Why We Fight

What happens when the great fantasies collide with reality?

But in several directions at the moment we can see the unfolding of one of the hidden patterns shaping human affairs, which years ago I called “the fantasy cycle”. It is a pattern that recurs in personal lives, in politics, in history – and in storytelling. When we embark on a course of action which is unconsciously driven by wishful thinking, all may seem to go well for a time, in what may be called the “dream stage”. But because this make-believe can never be reconciled with reality, it leads to a “frustration stage” as things start to go wrong, prompting a more determined effort to keep the fantasy in being. As reality presses in, it leads to a “nightmare stage” as everything goes wrong, culminating in an “explosion into reality”, when the fantasy finally falls apart.

What happens when the great fantasies collide with reality?

أصل العدالة

الايكونومست - ١٨ آذار ٢٠١٠

بالنسبة للذين يعتقدون بنظرية التطور، فإن وجود العدالة لغز محير. ما هي الميزة البيولوجية التي ينالها من يتعامل بثقة وتعاون مع أفراد لا علاقة له بهم؟ وعندما تكون هذه اللقاءات مع غرباء، و تحدث لمرة واحدة، فإن شرح لماذا لا يختار البشر التصرف بأنانية يصبح أمراً أصعب. الجواب التقليدي هو أن الناس يولدون و لديهم فطرة نفسية-اجتماعية تتلائم مع حياة أجدادهم في المجتمعات الصغيرة من العصر الحجري القديم. أي أن العدالة، بعبارة أخرى ، هي من بقايا عملية تطور البشر و من تلك اللحظة التي كانت فيها معظم العلاقات الانسانية محصورة مع أقارب الفرد، و بالتالي كان لديهم مصلحة جينية مشتركة، مما يعني عموماً أنه لا يوجد معنى للغش.

دراسة حديثة: 10% هو الرقم السحري لنشر فكرة جديدة في مجتمع ما

في دراسة حديثة وجد العلماء أن سرعة انتشار الأفكار الجديدة (مهما كان مقدار صوابها أو خطأها) يتوقف على وصول نسبة الأقلية التي تقتنع بصحتها بالتزام مطلق إلى 10% من المجتمع، دون هذه النسبة لا يمكن أن تنتشر الفكرة لتصبح ما يعتقده الأغلبية ضمن مجتمع ما، ذلك يحتاج إلى فترة زمنية تفوق عمر الكون بأكمله.

KISSINGER: Three rules to use in looking at the "Arab Spring"

Kissinger:

" From my present posture I look at it as a historian primarily, and so there are a number of rules that I apply to revolutions:

One is you cannot judge the outcome of a revolution by the proclamations of those who make it.

Secondly, those who make it rarely survive the process of the revolution, and so that the second wave of the revolution is tremendously important. 

Third, the greater the upheaval that the revolution causes, the more likely is it that the — in order to restore order and a sense of legitimacy, that — that a lot of force gets used. "

“Conversations On Diplomacy,” Moderated By Charlie Rose