You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Tim Smartt’ tag.
“Justice in the life and conduct of the State is possible only as first it resides in the hearts and souls of the citizens”
-Plato
Part of the reason I picked this quote is because my good mate Tim Smartt is heading over to the States to present and defend a paper at a conference at a little out-of-the-way place called PRINCETON, and then hang around to be a visiting student for 7 weeks. Tim is a philosopher in life and practice and loves Plato.
So Tim, this one is for you! I hope you get a chance to meditate on this quote as you jump through the immigration hoops of the Department of Homeland Security!
It is generally said of me that I am a lilly-livered liberal -> most often while in discussions with this guy! I believe in universal health care, the abolition of mandatory detention, increase in the foreign aid budget to 0.7% of GNI by 2015, I am pro public education and social welfare, I try to only have fair trade coffee, tea and chocolate, I have a shirt with a picture of Kevin Rudd on it, I read SMH, I regularly hang out with this guy and I think as a nation we would have grounds to invade the United States if Sarah Palin became the next US president…
Anyway I thoroughly enjoyed Malcolm Turnbull’s speech about the ETS and why he will be crossing thr floor and so I thought that I would share some of it with you (courtesy of SMH of course)
“It is our job, as MPs, to legislate with an eye to the long-term future, beyond the next election, and ensure what we do today will make Australia a better, safer place. Climate change is the ultimate long-term problem. We have to make decisions today so adverse consequences are avoided many decades in the future. It is easy to argue we should do nothing, or little, or postpone action, yet we are already experiencing the symptoms of climate change, especially with a hotter and drier climate in southern Australia.
The planet is warming because of growing greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. If this trend continues, truly catastrophic consequences are likely, from rising sea levels, to reduced water availability, to more heatwaves and fires.
In December, we had confirmation from three leading scientific organisations – Britain’s Met Office, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – that the past decade to 2009 was the hottest since recordkeeping began, hotter than the decade before (the second hottest) and the decade before that (the third hottest).
From the Copenhagen Summit. The snowman says: I'm Melting! Source: http://www.peopletree.co.uk/safia/
Both sides of politics are agreed that Australia should, regardless of whether any international agreement is reached, reduce our emissions by 2020 so they equal a 5 per cent cut from 2000 levels.
It is not enough to say you support these cuts. You must deliver a strong framework to deliver them. Australia should take action now in advance of and to promote a global agreement. While our emissions are only a small share of the global total, we are, per capita, one of the highest emitters.
How can we credibly expect China, with per capita emissions less than a quarter of ours, or India, with less than one-tenth of ours, to take our call for global action seriously if we, a wealthy, developed, nation are not prepared to take action ourselves?
The transition from a high emission economy to a low one cannot be achieved without major changes to the way we generate and use energy and use our landscape. Is an emissions trading scheme the best policy to reduce emissions? Believing that market forces deliver the most cost-effective solution to economic challenges, the answer must be yes.
At their core, these bills are as much the work of John Howard as of Kevin Rudd. We, as Liberals, believed in the superior efficiency of the free market to set a price on carbon. The Rudd government’s approach has broadly embodied the same principles, although there were problems with its initial design. But extensive modifications made in May and November made it a scheme that appropriately balances environmental effectiveness and economic responsibility.
Alternatives such as direct regulation or subsidies will be far more costly. Under a market-based mechanism, like an ETS, there is a clear, transparent and immediate incentive encouraging investment in lower emission technology.
Source: http://pavanvan.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/co2-black-not-green/
Industries and businesses, attended by an army of lobbyists, are particularly persuasive and all too effective at getting their sticky fingers into the taxpayer’s pocket. Having the government pick projects for subsidy is a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale. Having the government pay for emissions abatement, as opposed to the polluting industries themselves, is a slippery slope to higher taxes and more costly and less effective abatement of emissions.
Most large emitters have committed to substantial reductions over the next decade. Many have already acted. The EU has had an ETS since 2005. China has committed to a 45 per cent reduction in emissions per unit of output by 2020. Japan has pursued lower emissions and higher energy efficiency for three decades. Our commitment is equivalent to a 21 per cent reduction.
The notion that this ETS would put Australia in front of the world is, sadly, completely wrong. We start way behind because our per capita emissions are so large, because our sources of energy are so overwhelmingly dependent on burning coal. This legislation is the only policy on offer which can credibly enable us to meet our commitment and the flexibility to move to higher cuts when warranted.
The ETS is far more in the great traditions of modern liberalism than any other available policy response.
It allows businesses to make their own decisions as to how to reduce emissions. Schemes where bureaucrats and politicians pick technologies and winners, doling out billions of taxpayer dollars, is neither economically efficient nor environmentally effective.”
This is an edited extract from Malcolm Turnbull’s speech in Parliament yesterday in support of the emissions trading scheme legislation.
It all started with what can only be described as a 14 year old girl phenomenon: ‘Twilight: New Moon’
Liz and I went to go see it with Tim and Beth, and I’m not going to lie, it was quite disappointing. It would be more accurate to describe it as a 2 hour D and M than a movie. The regularity of Jacob taking off his shirt may have blinded the average 12 year old girl to the numerous plot holes, but it didn’t blind me! Anyway, call me crazy, but I am not hanging out for it to come out on DVD.
Secondly Liz and I went to go see ‘Where the Wild Things Are’ at the movies last week. This was a movie that we were both very much looking forward to. But sitting in the movie I was just bored by the story, it was simply strange, and slow, and obscure. Liz decided that it must be presenting a psychological view on child abuse and ‘escapism’ techniques. I didn’t think it was nearly that clever. Now I was wondering how they were going to flesh out the original story into a movie length film, and quite frankly you have to give the creators kudos for being able to make what is a very short book into a very long movie… but then again, if what you’re doing is boring than it will always at least seem long!
Finally Liz and I borrowed ‘My Sisters Keeper’ from the video store. This of course is based on Jodi Picoult’s classic novel by the same name. I read the novel a few years ago and just drank it in! Picoult really engages you into the story and sucks you into the world she creates, unfortunately however, the movie did neither these things. It failed to make the viewer understand the Campbell character – a very quirky, funny and important character in the book. It is almost like they secured Alec Baldwin and gave his characters just enough lines to put his name on the cover of the DVD! That was a disappointment. Plus, the movie dramatically changed the ending, which was sad because the ending in the book is really clever and a good twist. I won’t ruin it, but go read the book.
Anyway, I haven’t blogged in a while, and this blog is a bit of a ‘downer’ so sorry about those things! In other news you should check out these blogs, they are m sister and her friend who are backpacking around France!
Ashfield Presbyterian Church
I am a Presbyterian.
If you didn’t know that then you should hang out with me more often.
Anyway this Sunday evening following the evening service at Ashfield Presbyterian Church we will be having a question time on ‘what is Presbyterianism?’. It’s a fair question, and it raises a whole bunch of other questions with it! Why do we even have denominations? Are denominations good, bad or neither? Does it really matter what denomination I go to anyway? I go to a Presbyterian church but that doesn’t necessarily make me a Presbyterian… does it?
Well if any of this interests you and you are free tomorrow night then you should definitely come along. Tim Smartt will be facilitating the question time and Dr Ian Smith from the Presbyterian Theological Centre will be answering the questions.
There will also be a delicious supper served with baked goods and far trade tea and coffee!
Hopefully I will see some of you there!
Welcome to a new weekly segment here at Micaiah Sells Out called:
“4 quick questions and 1 strange one with…”
Our first “4 quick questions and 1 strange one with…” is with Tim Smartt who is currently studying for a Masters of Philosophy at the University of Sydney. Tim loves books, a good TV series (especially the West Wing), “good” music and a quality cup of coffee. He is also the obscure guy who gives a clap and a “Yeah!” whenever philosophy is mentioned in a talk. Tim is the author of Insane Angels a very insightful blog that is devoted to thinking through the relationship between philosophy and Christianity.
Tim Smartt
1) Tim, you are currently studying for a Masters of Philosophy at Sydney Uni, could you briefly tell us what philosophy actually is and what you specifically are philosophising about in your Masters?
I like to think of philosophy as essentially a human activity. It is something you do, and it is by no means something you have go to university to do. It is the activity of realizing that you are a complicated person, who lives with other complicated people in a complicated world; and then thinking about the best way to describe all this complication, and perhaps even the way we ought to improve all this. At university, this activity is done through reading and conversation – not for the sake of learning doctrines and truths, but for having others prompt you into the activity of thinking about how best to describe and improve yourself and the world. At university, this is done through reading some time-tested books, and applying yourself to some typical ‘philosophical questions’ – what does it mean to describe something as true? What exists? What is the best form of political organization? What does it mean to describe something as good? How does soceity work? etc. All of this can happen outside university, and of course, it does.
I’m researching what two brilliant philosophers had to say on the purpose of Philosophy – Plato and Richard Rorty. They are seperated by over 2,000 years, but I hope to show that they are closer than people might think.
2) Who is your favourite philosopher and why?
This is a toughie. Philosophy teaches you to question and to disagree, and so sometimes that makes it hard to have a favourite philosopher, because you end up disagreeing with everyone! Two philosophers who have been extremelly influencial on the way I think philosophically though, have been Plato and Ludwig Wittgenstein. I dig both for their inability to accept simple answers, and to reveal that the confidence that their opponents had in their simple answers was ill-founded. This seems like something the philosopher should be doing. They both also have a place for the spiritual in their worldviews – being unable to reduce everything to neat material causes and explanations. Special mentions also go out to John Rawls, Richard Rorty and Soren Kierkegaard.
3) I know as a philosopher you will have a natural bias, but is Philosophy important?
It seems that the majority of philosophising is reading the works of men who lived thousands of years ago or 100 ago who were discussing issues that were relevant to their time but inconsequential for us in our post modern world! Although their thoughts can be interesting, is it really important? Is it worth the ordinary person/Christian putting in the time and energy required to do/read philosophy?
Ignoring the irony that you use a philosophical idea to argue that philosophy is not relevant, I disagree! It is certainly important. Like I said, philosophy is an activity, and this activity does not necessarily involve reading millions of books. In universities, this is the shape it takes, but a philosopher can just be someone who wonders, and who has a certain set of questions about themselves and the world which they are convinced are important, and through dialogue with others moves forward to answering these for themselves. So, no it is not crucial to read books by dead people (men and women, by the way, though mostly men unfortunatley) to be a philosopher.
Having said that – it is important that someone is reading these books! Philosophy in Australia today has a tendency to alienate itself from the philosophical tradition, and to undervalue what the tradition could contribute to our present concerns and problems. This is precisely because of the reason you mentioned – you can’t escape your context, and philosophers will always be bound by their historical contingencies. But good philosophers have a way of being prophetic – like Nietzsche or de Tocqueville. They anticipate the way culture is going. Also, the giants of philosophy will just always be important I suspect: Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Hegel etc. These guys wrote the questions, and we are still speaking their language, so it is important for some people to be familiar with them and be able to import their lessons into todays conversation and culture. But this is not for everyone.
4) If the answer is ‘yes’ that reading/doing philosophy is important, than as a 20-30ish Christian, who/what should I be reading (in philosophy) that would be both accessible and helpful to me in my daily life?
I do think thinking Christians should have a go at reading some philosophy, thought it is not for everyone, and need not be construed of as a mark of spiritual maturity. It will help you in your ability to think abstractlly which then helps with theology, it will help you be more culturally conversant, it may give you greater confidence and ability in articulating the Good News of the Gospel, and may (I say, may) even enrich your faith as you learn more about God’s world and the condition of humanity.
I also just think it is a rewarding and beneifical human activity – just like taking an interest in politics, art, sport, literature, food, world cultures, craft etc helps you express your humanity in different ways, reading philosophy can be another rewarding activity in itself. I think, if you have the time and ability, you should have a go at reading Plato’s Republic. It deals with the biggest questions of philosophy – ethics, politics, truth, metaphysics, art, religion, mind and knowledge; it is written in a dialogue format which makes it a bit easier to read then a tract/book/essay; it is funny (once you get the hang of it); it is one of the classics of philosophy; and it is not too long. If you read it, you will have an understanding of ‘Platonism’ which never-ever goes away in philosophy, and will have been promted by one of the greatest minds to think about all these interesting philosophical concepts. It also contains the allegory of the cave which, despite the cliche’s, is pretty amazing, and the original magical invisible ring that Tolkein appropriated!
If you want a more overview type book, I wholeheartedly recommned Think by Simon Blackburn, and What Does it All Mean? By Thomas Nagel – two of the best living philosophers. Think really got me excited about philosophy as few years ago.
5) A boy is about to go on his first date, and is nervous about what to talk about. He asks his father for advice. The father replies: “My son, there are three subjects that always work. These are food, family, and philosophy.”
The boy picks up his date and they go to a soda fountain. Ice cream sodas in front of them, they stare at each other for a long time, as the boy’s nervousness builds. He remembers his father’s advice, and chooses the first topic. He asks the girl: “Do you like potato pancakes?” She says “No,” and the silence returns.
After a few more uncomfortable minutes, the boy thinks of his father’s suggestion and turns to the second item on the list. He asks, “Do you have a brother?” Again, the girl says “No” and there is silence once again.
The boy then plays his last card. He thinks of his father’s advice and asks the girl the following question: “If you had a brother, would he like potato pancakes?”
As a philosopher, please comment.
Ha! Good joke 
As a philosopher I say, ‘How did you get a girl to go out with you? Cudos!’
