How did Sartre and Beauvoir explain the philosophy of existentialism?

Did Simone de Beauvoir improve on Sartre’s views?

Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) was the leading light in the philosophy of existence known as existentialism and an award-winning author. Together with Simone de Beauvoir (1908—1986) – herself a  preeminent French existentialist philosopher and writer – he would hang out in Parisian Cafes in the 1940s with other intellectuals discussing existentialist ideas.

In assessing Simone de Beauvoir’s philosophical departures from Jean-Paul Sartre’s version of existentialism it will be necessary to briefly set out the central tenets of existentialism on which they both concur, before highlighting the points where Beauvoir departs from Sartre’s views. These departures can then be considered as either additions, oppositions, or enhancements (by way of further explanation or simplification). It will then be possible to argue whether these differences are improvements in philosophical terms.

The major precepts of existentialism, in so far as areas on which both philosophers agreed, can be summarised as the construct that for human beings existence precedes essence, humans have complete freedom which comes with the burden of responsibility, human existence is essentially absurd without pre-defined meaning, one should live a life of authenticity (to not do so leads to “bad faith”), and people who are not us are “other”.

The first postulate that existence precedes essence is not entirely novel in philosophical terms, as English philosopher John Locke (1632 – 1704) had stated that humans were born with a “tabula rasa” (blank slate) to be written on by ourselves. Sartre proposed that everyday objects, such as pens, had an essence before they existed, so far as they were designed before they were made. In Sartre’s godless world, there is no human creator of humanity and he asserts “Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism.”

Sartre came down firmly on the side of nurture in the well-established “nature versus nurture” argument, insisting we are completely self-made and we always have choices. Sartre believed that we have unbridled freedom of choice in all decisions affecting our lives, and we must accept complete responsibility for our actions. Furthermore, he dismissed the importance of the background tapestry of our environmental, cultural, and even familial circumstances on to which we weave our life story, proposing we are inherently at liberty to choose who (or what) we want to be. The price of this freedom, however, is that there can be no excuses for the outcomes of our actions.

Sartre used the term “authenticity” to give practicality, or real-life meaning, to the act of truly living free, as freedom for existentialists might be considered as a solely cerebral activity, whereas freedom of thought leads to freedom of action hence invoking the burden of individual responsibility. So to be our true authentic selves is a duty, but it may lead to ‘existential angst’ upon the realisation that unfavourable outcomes of chosen actions make us culpable for those decisions. Against an atheist backdrop, we are alone in our own reality, which is unique to, and created by, ourselves. There is no succor from the cosmos, as each other person is also an individual with their own constructed version of reality. Thus living authentically means accepting that freedom is inseparable from the responsibility of thought, action, and consequence.

When Sartre talked about “bad faith”, he extended his argument on authenticity surmising that not following the rules of self-governance and personal responsibility would be living a false life. To deny one’s ownership of decisions and responsibility, or to blame external circumstances is to live a life of bad faith, as is knowingly allowing others to decide for us, in other words accepting complicity to the norm.

Of the topics of existentialism on which Sartre and Beauvoir agree, perhaps the greatest area of divergence is around the concept of “other”. Sartre believed that with the obligation of personal freedom comes the consequence of affecting other individuals’ freedom in that those individuals become objects or “other”. This deduction is supported by envisaging how the other would necessarily see themselves as an object, this reality causes a paradox as they too are free. Therefore, the freedom of others limits our own freedom condemning us not to be free. This is a two-way street – whilst one may seek to limit the freedom of others by making them into objects, others deny our freedom by objectifying us.

Moving on to areas of philosophical departure, Beauvoir departed marginally from Sartre’s first principle of existentialism that “man” has no pre-existing essence of a human being and thus has a void in terms of fixed nature. Whilst Beauvoir agreed women do not have a fixed nature, there cannot exist an “essence of woman”, she questioned if there was an equal magnitude of environmental pressures of nurture between the genders. She argues famously ‘One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman’. This is important because, unlike Sartre, Beauvoir centered on gender, whereas when Sartre used the term “man” one is left to conclude that the noun is used in an asexual sense and implies the noun “human”. So in Beauvoir’s view “becoming a woman” is an irresistible imposition, which is inescapable.

For Beauvoir, the concept of women’s freedom can be distinguished from Sartre’s on gender lines also. Although Beauvoir accepted that the idea of freedom presents a metaphysical risk, in that in the absence of freedom we can blame our circumstances for outcomes, Beauvoir believed that many women are blind to their true liberty because they are oppressed by their gender’s social standing.

Furthermore, Beauvoir’s views on authenticity were those of expansion rather than philosophical counterflow, as she again explored the effect of the female gender on an individual’s ability to embrace freedom of thought and action. Over the notion that freedom was implicit and equal for both sexes, she superimposed the social constraints of a mid-twentieth century western female in terms of inferior opportunities and standing, in such areas as employment, politics, wealth and influence, and the ability to act independently from men. Her belief was that a life of authenticity for the female gender did not allow true freedom to escape from the female stereotypes they persistently portray because the theatre in which they act is designed by, and perpetuated by, men – the analogy is that it is against the theatre owner’s subconscious interest to redesign a theatre which is consistently bringing him success.

When it comes to Sartre’s view of bad faith, Beauvoir critiqued this by saying ‘Clearly no woman can claim without bad faith to be situated beyond her sex’ and by that she challenged the simplicity of Sartre’s universality approach that all humans are equal, but rather bought into focus the hierarchical standing in the two genders, stating that a woman lives as a woman first and a human being second.

As discussed the concept of other was where we see the most striking departure of Beauvoir from Sartre’s philosophy. Again it relates to gender and Sartre’s assumption of the neutrality of man as a representation of human, Beauvoir considered that if this view were true then women would be seen as other. Beauvoir thought the status quo of elevated male hierarchy was perpetuated by the conflict that women would need to seemingly sacrifice their position as “other” by way of gender and break from their reliance on men. Conversely, Beauvoir did not see that men (being the archetype gender) become other through gender difference in reverse symmetry.

When considering the question as to whether Beauvoir’s version of existentialism was an improvement it is necessary to define the term “improve” in this context. In philosophical terms, “improve” could be to extend an argument and to address its relevance; or to make it more lucid in terms of its logic, ethics, or mortality. One could question if the departure acknowledges any problems with Sartre’s views.

On the point of the “nature of man,” Beauvoir can be seen to improve Sartre’s argument by highlighting the gender element in the development of nurture and therefore the creation of self. In a parallel to Mary Wollstonecraft’s critique of Jean-Paul Rousseau’s “Nature of Man” treatise, where the former had countered the latter’s premise that man (the male) had no pre-defined state whereas the female had pre-existing traits, so too Beauvoir accentuated the disproportionate role of nurture in gender development.

Beauvoir’s views on essence and freedom can be viewed as an amplification of Sartre’s views, in that as well as supporting the central tenet, they also challenge the term “man” as being inclusive of both genders. In supporting Sartre’s view that there is no essence of man, she clarifies this argument by stating there is no female essence, thus encompassing gender. However, she re-positions “man’s” freedom in terms of nurture along gender lines. She improves Sartre’s argument by making it more relevant and accessible to half the world’s population by highlighting women’s contemporaneous impaired societal freedoms. The obvious advantage of this doctrine of freedom is that we are free to become the best possible version of ourselves through totalitarian self-government and personal responsibility, whilst having no accountability.

However, when considering freedoms in terms of equality it would be fair to put forward the counter question – freedom from, and equal to what? And here context does become important. Beauvoir can be seen to fall into the same trap as Sartre in that when considering equality, they both did so from the perspective of being white, western, French intellectuals (following a line of other French philosophers such as Descartes, Voltaire, and Rousseau), famous, financially independent, and able-bodied. Here Beauvoir’s possible improvement on the doctrine of equality falters as it does not address the fact that everyone (including every female) is not born with the same opportunities. Furthermore, it can be questioned as to whether all women (as a separate gender) are equal when family units are diverse, and motherhood and being childless is not always a choice – the ability to conceive is not a decision.

Beauvoir does improve on Sartre’s view of “other” through the promotion of gender issues because she discounts the idea that there is no “female essence” as Rousseau had eluded, whilst recognising that the female form does exist. Furthermore, she stated that for a woman to be authentic she must be a woman foremost. This promotes, rather than demotes, the female in existentialist thinking. Nevertheless, although Beauvoir’s views were outlined in her book “The Second Sex” in 1949, it was not until two decades later that she became an active campaigner in the women’s movement, championing such causes as abortion and equal rights. This is important because like so many other philosophers before her, theories do not necessarily stand the test of real-world circumstances.

Sartre’s view of bad faith echoes very much Karl Marx’s thoughts on false consciousness; Lenin had his practical interpretation and application of Marx’s philosophy, just as Robespierre had his own style of the prosecution of the manifesto of Rousseau. Accordingly, for Beauvoir to move her own philosophy forward, it could be argued that she needed to position it in the real world, and as her existentialism expounded total self-autocratic agency at its core, Beauvoir needed to cast herself as the lead actor, as she had freely chosen to be the playwright. In doing so, perhaps, she made the philosophy of existentialism more “real”, and though her name outside philosophical circles is not as well known as that of Sartre’s, her impact on modern life may be seen as more profound.

In summary, Beauvoir’s philosophy was very much more in alignment with, rather than divergent from, the existentialism of Sartre. However, her commentary on the topics of freedom, equality, and ‘other’ stands as improvements in philosophical terms by providing increased clarity and highlighting the asymmetry of gender issues.

Thank you for reading my writings. If you’d like to, you can buy me a coffee for just £1 and I will think of you while writing my next post! Just hit the link below…. (thanks in advance)

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/assuredeffC

What was Marx’s problem with capitalism?

Is greater state control of the economy the solutuon to a post Covid recession?

Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) is best know as the father of Marxism. He was a philosopher, author, and economist and is renowned for his manifestos on capitalism and communism. In describing Marx’s objections to capitalism it is necessary to define “capitalism” in terms of how Marx viewed it. Marx saw capitalism as more of an economic system rather than a purely political ideology. He believed capitalism took hold in Europe in the 16th Century with the emergence of legal freedoms concerning a free market economy, this being the private ownership and accumulation of materials, property and wealth (the means of production) and the freedom to buy and sell labour. The defining feature of a capitalist system as Marx saw it, is the division of society into two classes and the differences in function between them – the “bourgeoisie” (those that own the means of production) and the “proletariat” (those that have to sell their labour to the bourgeoisie in order to survive).

Marx’s main objections to capitalism can be grouped into three main topics: lack of freedom for the proletariat, alienation of the proletariat from the product, and exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. Marx’s viewpoint of “freedom” was that of the worker who he believed had no real choice other than to sell his labour to the bourgeoisie. In order to survive, man needs the means of subsistence (food, clothing and shelter), and if he owns the means of production (land, farming tools, building materials, or raw materials) he can meet these primary needs. However, if he has the means of subsistence without the means of production then he can’t produce anything, and he has to sell his labour to someone that does – or perish. Marx further defined freedom into two categories – formal (or legal) freedom and substantial freedom. The former is concerned with the legal rights an individual has from the state or sovereign and will include employment law and the right of an individual to withdraw his labour, own capital and employ others. The latter is what could be thought of as real freedom of choice. Marx considered whether the freedom to withdraw one’s labour was a real choice if by doing so an individual can no longer provide the means of sustenance. So Marx made a distinction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, in that the former had no substantial freedom while the latter enjoyed both types of freedom, Marx thus surmising that freedom could only enjoyed by all if society was classless and the means of production was mutually (or communally) owned.

Marx argued that alienation of the workers from the product had a negative impact on their psychological health and well-being as he believed that workers had an inherent need to see their worth and creativity in the objects they produced. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution nearly a century earlier in Britain, mechanised production lines meant that employees were involved in piece work, and seldom, if ever, saw or worked on the whole completed product. Specialised jobs make the economy highly efficient but each person working on the production line could only gauge their individual input in that part of the product, but this was dissociated from the value and benefit of the completed product – put simply if you only made chair legs, and never saw the completed dining room suite, your sense of individual worth is divorced from the true value of finished articles. Marx considered that at the core of an individual’s psychological health was the ability to feel productive, and that meant having more than a financial “buy-in” to the product, but also being creative in the process. As with the chair leg production-line analogy, the worker did not own the chair, let alone the whole dining room suite, so any value he added to the chair leg felt alien to the finished product, and furthermore any monetary value he added was not reflected in his individual financial return because the profit went to the owner of the furniture factory. Making a non-standard, superior chair leg ran counter to a worker’s psychological and financial best interests.

In order to understand Marx’s objection to capitalism in terms of exploitation, it is necessary to establish who is being exploited and by whom, and how this exploitation takes place. Marx considered all products to have a production cost (derived from the depreciation of capital set-up costs, machinery and tools maintenance, wages, and raw materials) and an exchange value (what the product can be sold for). In a capitalist system, exchange value must necessarily be higher than the production costs. Factory owners will re-invest the income of their product sales on production costs, expanding production and their own personal use (profit). Capitalists pay their workers in exchange for the labour expended in producing that product but the pay to the worker is only sufficient for that worker to meet his means of subsistence for that day, compelling that worker to return to work the next day. Marx deduced that the bourgeoisie factory owner in taking the surplus value (profit) and leaving the worker just enough for his daily survival is exploitation. Private ownership and private property make exploitation possible, and through this exploitation private property becomes profitable, ergo without private ownership, there could be no exploitation.

In discussing how convincing Marx’s objections to capitalism are, it is necessary to consider who is to be convinced and under what premise. Each of Marx’s objections has the potential to be emotive depending on an individual’s standpoint and bias, however, it is necessary to consider whether an objection will stand on its philosophical value and supporting premises. Marx’s major objections only seem valid for workers in the manufacturing industries or agriculture but seem to have a more tenuous relevance to service (tertiary) industry workers (hospitality, banking, health, leisure, public service, etc) as no product was being produced. This sector accounted for 24% of the UK workforce in 1850 and stands at 84% today.

Marx objected to capitalism from the perceived perspective of a worker’s freedom within a capitalist society. When discussing freedom it is useful to think of freedom in two distinct ways – “freedom from” (something negative) and “freedom to” (do something beneficial). Contrary to Marx’s views on freedom, one could argue capitalism did, in Marx’s time (and certainly does today) provide freedom from starvation and lack of shelter. Conditions for the worker were at times meagre and pitiful, but a worker could exchange his labour for a means of subsistence. Furthermore, a worker did have the freedom to withdraw his labour and move his labour to another employer, unlike in times of feudalism that pre-dated capitalism. Marx would argue that this freedom was not substantial because in reality, in exercising this freedom the worker has entered into a double bind constructed by the bourgeoisie – work under these poor conditions, or leave and work in poorer conditions or potentially starve. Whilst the worker is free to make his choice, each outcome produces a negative consequence, so the scenario is loaded against him.

Marx’s critique on the alienation of the worker centres on the premise that producing a part item is psychologically unsatisfying, therefore, the following premise that a person producing a whole item of a finished product would not be alienated from his work must also stand. The simplicity of this follow-on premise seems compelling in that someone who produces whole items must be free from alienation, however, if a craftsman works on a whole process in isolation (away from a production line) he may well work in more solitary conditions and feel more socially alienated. Expanding this point further, it follows that if an individual works on a production line, there is a realistic possibility that he will feel part of a team working on a greater goal than he could have ever achieved by himself, that is to say, someone that can make a good chair leg cannot necessarily manufacture a good dining room suite, but he can feel pride and satisfaction in contributing to that suite. With the exception of smallholding farmers, in the vast majority of production and service industries, workers do not consume, use or exchange the end products of their labour; it, therefore, follows that even if the chair leg maker could manufacture complete dining room suites he would only need one complete suite for his own needs, so all subsequent suites he produced would have a degree of alienation to him – their production could only serve the purpose of providing a means of subsistence.

Marx argued that for a capitalist economic regime to thrive, there was a necessity for workers to be exploited as the bourgeoisie could only generate profit on goods sold by adding value through the worker’s labour, whilst paying less for that labour than the value added. At face value this would appear to be exploitative, however, this relies on the premise that the worker is either unhappy or unaware of this inequity, or that the deal is so bad that it does not provide the worker with what he requires from the transaction. To collapse this critique it is therefore necessary to challenge the adequacy of the contract from the perspective of the worker. If a chair leg maker had enough raw product to produce an endless supply of chair legs, without those chair legs having an exchange value (ie monetary), it is unlikely that he will ever meet his means of subsistence just by making chair legs. Labour alone does not always produce goods which are tradeable or saleable. For a great proportion of the workforce, even given an endless and free supply of raw materials and tools for manufacture (which in itself seems implausible), their skill level may prohibit them from producing complete chairs, let alone dining room suites. Therefore, there would be the need to work cooperatively to achieve a return on their labour. The capitalist provides the environment for this shared labour to take place. The sum of the total products is greater than the sum of each individual product (through value added by labour) enabling the worker to have recompense for his contribution – an exchange value he could not have realised on his own merit.

Much of Marx’s objection to capitalism is based on ethical or psychological argument, and as such, it falls into the realms of subjectivity rather than objectivity and can be judged from where one stands on their own political or philosophical compass.

Thank you for reading my writings. If you’d like to, you can buy me a coffee for just £1 and I will think of you while writing my next post! Just hit the link below…. (thanks in advance)

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/assuredeffC

What was Rousseau and Hobbes’ view of the ‘state of nature’?

Did Rousseau undermine Hobbes’ views on absolute rule?

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English philosopher who wrote at a time of great civil unrest and turbulence in his own country, his major works were written in exile in France during the English Civil War.

Hobbes described the “state of nature” in his Tetralogy of Books Leviathan in 1651 by undertaking a thought experiment – this was to mentally go back to a time in mankind’s history before there was civilisation, government, organised rule or civic duty. In such times, Hobbes surmised, life would be ‘nasty, brutish, and short’.

Hobbes considered the lack of civil authority would allow individuals complete freedom to follow their base desires, resulting in a perpetual state of conflict at the individual and family levels, where everyone would be forced to try and hold on to (or take from another) whatever meagre possessions they had. Under this regime no community activities such as farming, industry, or education would be possible, thus even rudimentary civilisation could not be founded. Hobbes believed that in nature people are free to take whatever action they want, which he perceived to be a recipe for anarchy. Any liberty an individual had, would be used in negative ways to despoil others until they themselves were despoiled.

This led Hobbes to formulate an idea which was ascribed to (but not used by himself) – the “social contract”, which set out the principles in which individuals would sacrifice or trade their innate liberties in return for safeguarding and protection from a strong ruler – a type of early day insurance or protection payment. This strong ruler would be sovereign (have supreme authority) and hence said to enjoy “absolute rule”. Under this system, Hobbes believed the individual would enjoy more freedom.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778) was a French writer and political theorist in the Enlightenment period and his works were thought to have inspired the philosophy and politics of the French Revolution. Rousseau rejected Hobbes’s idea of the state of nature, preferring the premise that if we were left to our natural uncivilised state, life would be more pleasant, though not advocate a return to this state, He believed that it is the very growth of civilisation that leads to negative consequences with regard to adverse emotions and lack of personal liberties.

Rousseau believed that growth in social development was directly proportional to the growth of negative emotions of envy, greed, pride and revenge. Society, he thought, provides a platform for self-comparison and personal benchmarking, which are the roots of injustice. Hence Rousseau proposed that these negative emotions were a result of nurture, not nature (contrary to what Hobbes had believed). Sovereignty should only be sanctioned if it benefits all citizens uniformly, so having a powerful leader, monarch or government produces a paradox in the equality of liberty, leading him to conclude that direct self-government was the only way to achieve this end.

Rousseau’s argument hinges on the belief that mankind’s natural altruistic state allows a more harmonious existence and that more damage is done by surrendering our sovereignty to an absolute ruler through the necessity of inequity. One of Rousseau’s challenges to Hobbes’s view on absolutism was against his assertion that individuals consented to be ruled by someone with absolute power. He argued that if they were born into subjugation, for example into slavery, then they had no hope or concept of emancipation and freedom, and with this premise, it follows that rulers cannot justify superiority through birthright. Furthermore, strength (whether physical or constitutional) does not infer legitimacy.

In a monarchical Christian society, divinity could be used as a counterargument in favour of absolute power, proposing that a King does not need the endorsement of his subjects when he has a divine right; but Rousseau dismissed this argument believing Kings could be fallible as well as good, instead he favoured natural law and a social contract. This social contract was based on preserving personal liberty through each individual giving his will to the general will – or the will of the people. Thus in his hypothesis, sovereignty lies with the general (combined) will, and individual liberty is not relinquished or diminished. In short, decisions are made by the people for the people, thus negating the need for absolute rule. Two caveats may be noted to this statement, firstly Rousseau believed that this idealised form of government could only work for small states such as his own city (Geneva), and secondly, people should be “forced to be free” if they disagreed with the consensus. This appears to run counter to many contemporary views of freedom, where any individual has the right to protest in a democratic society.

In conclusion, Rousseau rejected Hobbes’s description of the ‘state of nature’ with the premise that pre-civilisation life was on the whole good and positive and he went on to undermine Hobbes’s defence of absolute rule by negating the need for a powerful ruler by promoting the idea that true sovereignty lies in the general will of the people.

Thank you for reading my writings. If you’d like to, you can buy me a coffee for just £1 and I will think of you while writing my next post! Just hit the link below…. (thanks in advance)

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/assuredeffC

Joke of the Day: Wednesday’s weather worn windbreaker with worst wellingtons

What goes “booo, booo, booo”?

A cow with a cold.

Why do cows have hooves rather than feet?

Because they lactose.

What goes “oom, oom”?

A cow walking backwards.

How did the farmer find his missing cow?

He tractor down.

Two cows in a field.

One says “Moo”.

The other says, “I was going to say that”.

There were 2 cats who were in a swimming competition.

One was called “une deux trois”.

One was called “One Two Three”.

Which cat won the competition?

One Two Three.

Because Une Deux Trois Quatre Cinq.

To the person who stole my mattress; I won’t rest till I find you…

I was going to post a carpentry pun but I couldn’t find any that woodwork…

I suppose I better get up, get ready, and hit the gym.

Sorry typo, I meant gin.

The wedding invite said: ‘The Sage +1’.

So I turned up an hour late.

Knock knock…

Who’s there?

Grandad.

QUICK, STOP THE CREMATION!

I was confused as to why there were so many stories about vampires in Europe, but not in Africa.

Then I remembered that vampires are killed by holy water.

They bless the rains down in Africa.

Why can pirates never finish the alphabet?

Because they always get lost at C

I spotted Ronnie O’Sullivan at the garden centre today.

I think he was eyeing up a plant…

I once took a stuffed dog to the Antiques Roadshow.

The chap said, “This is very rare, do you know what it would fetch if it was in good condition?”

I replied “Dunno, sticks I suppose?”

I asked my girlfriend how she avoids click-bait…

Her answer may shock you!

Harry Potter can’t tell the difference between his cooking pot and his best mate.

They’re both cauldron.

A man walks into a library and asks for a book on different levels of noise.

The librarian says, “Sure, what Volume would you like?”

I have just watched a documentary on marijuana.

I think all documentaries should be watched this way.

My Czech mate is surprisingly bad at chess.

I don’t believe in sceptics.

My girlfriend said: ‘Did you know butterflies only live for one day?’

I said: ‘That’s a myth.’

She said: ‘No, it’s definitely a butterfly.’

Welcome To The Psychiatric Hotline!

If you are obsessive-compulsive, press 1 repeatedly.
If you are co-dependent, please ask someone to press 2.
If you have multiple personalities, please press 3,4,5 and 6.
If you are paranoid-delusional, we know who you are and what you want. Just stay on the line until we can trace the call.
If you are schizophrenic, listen carefully and a little voice will tell you which number to press.
If you are manic-depressive, it doesn’t matter which number you press. No one will answer.

This Day in History: October 13th

Here are ten interesting historical events that took place on October 13th:

  1. 54 AD – Roman Emperor Claudius I Dies: Claudius I, one of the early Roman emperors, died under mysterious circumstances, and his stepson Nero succeeded him.
  2. 1307 – Knights Templar Arrested: King Philip IV of France ordered the arrest of the Knights Templar, leading to the downfall of the powerful medieval religious and military order.
  3. 1775 – United States Navy Established: The United States Navy was created when the Continental Congress authorized the purchase of two ships to protect American interests.
  4. 1792 – The White House Cornerstone Laid: The cornerstone for the White House, the official residence and workplace of the President of the United States, was laid in Washington, D.C.
  5. 1884 – Greenwich Mean Time Established: The International Meridian Conference established Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) as the world’s prime meridian, a reference point for timekeeping.
  6. 1917 – “Fatima Miracle” in Portugal: Thousands of people claimed to witness a “miracle of the sun” during the Miracle of Fatima in Portugal, an event associated with three shepherd children who reported apparitions of the Virgin Mary.
  7. 1943 – Italy Declares War on Germany: Italy, having changed sides in World War II, declared war on Nazi Germany.
  8. 1972 – Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 Crash: A Uruguayan Air Force plane carrying a rugby team crashed in the Andes. Survivors resorted to cannibalism to stay alive until they were rescued.
  9. 2010 – Chilean Miners Rescued: The dramatic rescue of 33 Chilean miners trapped underground for 69 days was completed, captivating the world’s attention.
  10. 2019 – NASA’s First All-Female Spacewalk: NASA astronauts Christina Koch and Jessica Meir conducted the first all-female spacewalk, replacing a failed power controller on the International Space Station (ISS).

These historical events on October 13th encompass a wide range of subjects, from the establishment of institutions like the United States Navy and GMT to significant cultural phenomena and extraordinary human feats.

Thank you for reading my writings. If you’d like to, you can buy me a coffee for just £1 and I will think of you while writing my next post! Just hit the link below…. (thanks in advance)

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/assuredeffC

Thought of the Day: Sky shape

What shape is the sky?

The sky does not have a specific shape. It is the expanse of space that appears above the Earth’s surface. The appearance of the sky can change depending on various factors, including the time of day, weather conditions, and geographic location.

During the day, the sky often appears to be a dome-like expanse, with the color varying from shades of blue to gray, depending on weather conditions. At night, it can be filled with stars, creating the illusion of a vast, dark expanse.

It’s important to understand that the sky itself is not a tangible object with a defined shape. Instead, it is the visual canvas on which we see celestial objects, clouds, and atmospheric phenomena. The “shape” of the sky is a perceptual experience that changes constantly, making it a dynamic and ever-changing part of our environment.

Thank you for reading my writings. If you’d like to, you can buy me a coffee for just £1 and I will think of you while writing my next post! Just hit the link below…. (thanks in advance)

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/assuredeffC

Joke of the Day: Friday’s fabulous factory of funky funlines

What do you call a guy pouring water into a glass?

Phil.

Midwives deserve a lot of respect.

They really help people out.

I ordered some Avocado Toast at a cafe, but imagine my surprise when I was given 602214076000000000000000 pieces of toast. It was then I realized…

…I’d accidentally ordered Avogadro’s Toast.

They call our language the mother tongue because the father seldom gets to speak.

Avoid cliches like the plague.

(They’re old hat.)

Who needs rhetorical questions?

A double negative forms a positive. In some languages, though, such as Russian, a double negative is still a negative. However, there is no language wherein a double positive can form a negative.

Yeah . . .right

What’s the fastest cake in the world?

Scone.

I know she ate a worm but we are not here to debate de bait Deb ate…

Got one of those memory foam pillows last week…

It’s rubbish, I’ve forgotten where I put it.

Just watched a really interesting documentary about beavers.

Best dam programme I’ve ever seen.

I’ve started a business selling prayer mats which are also trampolines…

Prophets are going through the roof.

The highlight of my trip to the zoo was seeing an antelope.

I’d never seen an insect run off to get married before!

I have an addiction to cheddar cheese, although it’s only mild.

My business making clothes out of cheese has gone bust…

Turns out that fromage frays..

I used to work as a cheesemonger, but I camembert it any longer..

I keep meaning to stop procrastinating.

Age is a high price for maturity.

Broken guitar for sale – no strings attached.

Thank you for reading my writings. If you’d like to, you can buy me a coffee for just £1 and I will think of you while writing my next post! Just hit the link below…. (thanks in advance)

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/assuredeffC

This Day in History: October 12th

Here are ten interesting historical events that took place on October 12th:

  1. 1492 – Columbus Reaches the Americas: Christopher Columbus made landfall in the Bahamas, marking the beginning of European exploration and the Age of Discovery in the Americas.
  2. 1773 – America’s First Insane Asylum Opens: The first mental hospital in the United States, the Eastern State Hospital in Virginia, admitted its first patient.
  3. 1915 – Ford’s Assembly Line: Henry Ford implemented the moving assembly line, revolutionizing manufacturing processes and making the production of automobiles more efficient.
  4. 1918 – Cloquet Fire: One of the deadliest forest fires in Minnesota’s history, known as the Cloquet Fire, began and eventually claimed the lives of over 450 people.
  5. 1928 – First Transatlantic Telephone Call: The first successful transatlantic telephone call was made between New York and London by American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T).
  6. 1960 – Cold War Tensions: Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev pounded his shoe on a desk during a United Nations General Assembly meeting to protest a speech by a Filipino delegate, symbolizing Cold War tensions.
  7. 1968 – Equatorial Guinea’s Independence: Equatorial Guinea gained independence from Spanish colonial rule.
  8. 2000 – USS Cole Bombing: The USS Cole, a United States Navy destroyer, was attacked by suicide bombers while refueling in the Yemeni port of Aden. Seventeen sailors were killed and 39 injured in the attack.
  9. 2005 – Second Palestinian Intifada Ends: The Palestinian leadership and Israel announced a ceasefire, effectively ending the second Palestinian Intifada.
  10. 2010 – Chilean Miners Rescued: Thirty-three Chilean miners who had been trapped underground for 69 days were successfully rescued in a remarkable operation that captivated the world.

These historical events on October 12th span a wide range of topics and eras, from exploration and industrial innovation to tragic disasters and significant moments in international relations.

Thank you for reading my writings. If you’d like to, you can buy me a coffee for just £1 and I will think of you while writing my next post! Just hit the link below…. (thanks in advance)

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/assuredeffC

Thought of the Day: Travel and Transport

Why do you get on a bus and a train but get into a car?

The use of “get on” or “get into” when referring to different modes of transportation is primarily a matter of convention, and it is influenced by the nature of the transportation and how people typically interact with it. Here’s why these phrases are used the way they are:

  1. Get on a Bus or Train:
    • Buses and trains are generally considered to be more like public transportation services or shared spaces. People usually step onto these vehicles as they are boarding, and the terminology reflects this.
    • “Get on” is used for buses and trains because you’re stepping onto a platform or station to enter the vehicle.
  2. Get into a Car:
    • A car is a private, enclosed space. When you’re entering a car, you’re physically going inside an enclosed cabin or space, making “get into” a more fitting choice of words.
    • The usage of “get into” for cars emphasizes that you are moving from the outside into an interior space.

In summary, the choice of whether to “get on” or “get into” a mode of transportation reflects the specific dynamics of that transportation method. It’s a matter of linguistic convention, which is based on practical and traditional usage.

Thank you for reading my writings. If you’d like to, you can buy me a coffee for just £1 and I will think of you while writing my next post! Just hit the link below…. (thanks in advance)

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/assuredeffC

Joke of the Day: Thursday’s thoughtless theory of thankless throat-clearing ….

Should I be worried that my children are in the other room quietly reading through the “S” entries of the dictionary?

I think they’re up to something.

I’ve been reading a book about the history of paper towels…

It’s absolutely absorbing…

Thieves who stole three tonnes of tarmac are believed to currently be in hiding.

A police spokesman said; “We are hoping that they will resurface soon”.

Doctor: Drink a glass of milk after a hot bath.

Patient: No doctor, I don’t think I’ll have space left.

I was going to post about anti-climaxes, but in the end, I didn’t.

I’m entering the world’s tightest hat competition.

Just hope I can pull it off.

Words can’t express how much I hate World Emoji Day.

When I found out the water park was taking photos of me on their rides without my permission I was fluming.

Thing is, we all just want to belong.

But some of us be short.

A thesaurus is great.

There’s no other word for it.

‘Doctor, I keep spontaneously singing songs by The Who’

‘How long has this been happening?’

‘Ever since I was a young boy…’

10th of October was an excellent day.

In fact, I’d say it was definitely a 10/10!

I accidentally booked myself onto an escapology course.

I’m really struggling to get out of it.

What do colour blind people do when they are told to eat their greens?

Thank you for reading my writings. If you’d like to, you can buy me a coffee for just £1 and I will think of you while writing my next post! Just hit the link below…. (thanks in advance)

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/assuredeffC