Dalrymple has always been dismissive of the ultimate worth of physical exercise (as opposed to its purely medical worth). So his conclusion here is a little surprising.
At his Hilarious Pessimist blog, Dalrymple writes of a difference in the way a crime was reported by the Guardian versus the Daily Mail:
Simelane had a long history (long, that is for his age) of disordered, aggressive and even violent behaviour. As far as it is possible to tell from the reports in the newspapers, his mental state fluctuated considerably. The Daily Mail report mentioned that he had been smoking cannabis before he killed his victim, which would explain that fluctuation; the Guardian did not mention this.
Why is this important? Read the post to find out.
At Pajamas Media Dalrymple discusses the difficulties and uncertainties around the increased rate of autism diagnoses, and addresses the difficulty for those who are “dis-diagnosed”:
Diseases that have no objective tests to distinguish them from normality have a tendency to spread like fungus: for example, it is years since I heard anyone say that he was unhappy rather than depressed, and it cannot be a coincidence that 10 percent of the populations of most western countries are now taking antidepressants. Yet the state of melancholia undoubtedly exists, as anyone who has seen a case will attest.
In TakiMag Dalrymple considers his modest investments, and thinks of the West’s shaky financial status.
There is a great deal of pleasure to be had from contemplating future disaster, especially when one can claim not only to have foreseen it (unlike most of the blind and benighted people by whom one is surrounded), but when it will be on a vast and horrific scale. Man is the only species that derives consolation and even delight from the contemplation of its own extinction. Who has not thrilled to news of the emergence of viruses of unheard-of virulence, or of asteroids which, should they collide with Earth, will send Homo sapiens the way of all dinosaurs? A film I once saw treated almost with joyous anticipation the period after nuclear war when the insects would inherit the Earth. The problem with global warming as a catastrophe is that it is too slow to capture our imagination. If it takes place at all it will give us time to adapt and might even bring us advantages, such as a long growing season in Greenland. Even if some Pacific atolls disappear, there will be Norwegian vintages and Patagonian tropical fruits; lemons will grow in Siberia. To delight us, disasters must be unequivocally disastrous.
Dalrymple has often warned of the modern trend toward rationalism, the belief that a commitment to abstract principles can or should be absolute. Complete philosophical consistency is often in conflict with a desirable outcome, he says, and the latter is more important. In a new piece for Volume 2 of The Journal of Modern Wisdom, he gives several clear examples of this, one being the argument that High Court judges should be selected in a more democratic manner. These judges perform their duties extremely well, he says, but those who argue for a different selection method are not interested in “whether what they are replaced by will work any better (or worse)”.
Even more interesting is his examination of the controversy in Germany over male infant circumcision, which shows how “the heedless application of general principles to real life… can conjure problems, potentially serious and very divisive ones, from the air.”
This new volume of The Journal of Modern Wisdom features ten essays in total and, like the first one, is beautifully illustrated throughout. It is available for purchase here.
Dalrymple travels to Folkestone and puts his finger on the impetus behind the horrid twentieth century architecture he finds there: ideological malice.
…only this can explain why every prospect has been ruined by the strategic placement of something constructed in what might be called social-democratic style, the style that is incompatible with any other and which is so obviously [sic] pronounces a dog-in-the manger philosophy: if not everyone can live somewhere beautiful, then no one will. For of course it is much easier to destroy beauty or grace than to create it.
Dalrymple reports at Pajamas Media on a recent study finding that trials of various medical screening procedures tend to report the procedures’ successes and avoid reporting their failures, and the benefits of many screens may not therefore outweigh their detriments:
This is particularly important ethically because screening reverses the usual relationship between patient and health-care system. In screening it is the health-care system that initiates the contact, not the other way round. Screening is offered to healthy people, or at least to those complaining of nothing; moreover, the chances of benefit from screening are often slight and those who do benefit from them do so in a sense at the expense of those who are harmed by them. The moral imperative to know the harms of screening is therefore great.
Here is another City Journal entry we missed, a short piece from August on the riots in Sweden earlier in the summer. Dalrymple puts his finger on something that always seems apparent in such instances, the fantasy world of evasions, half-truths and polite fictions associated with anything involving immigration or multiculturalism in Europe:
A gulf soon opened between the pays légal and the pays réel. Officially, all was welcoming, generous, and equal; in reality, urban ghettos were springing up, with all their attendant problems…If there is one thing that we fear and attempt to stifle in Europe, it is open and honest debate.
We were recently contacted by Ben Irvine, a writer and the editor of The Journal of Modern Wisdom, who notified us that Dalrymple has contributed to the journal’s first two volumes (available for order on their website). Mr. Irvine helpfully sent along a couple of copies, and we are very impressed with the publication.
First, the journal itself is physically beautiful. If anyone thinks there is no reason for actual print publications any more, this journal should convince them otherwise. It is beautifully illustrated in ink and watercolor by Brazilian artist Thais Beltrame, and as with my two favorite publications The New Criterion and City Journal, one feels more enlightened just holding it in one’s hands.
The thirteen essays inside the first volume are clear and profound, touching on various aspects of the truly good life. Dalrymple’s piece is on the growing popularity of connotation over denotation:
The penumbra of emotional and ethical associations of a word come to be more important than the examination of reality itself. This is because it is easier and more pleasurable to manipulate words than to change, or even to recognise, reality.
His illustration of this principle at work in the British educational bureaucracy is not to be missed.
This journal seems like a fitting home for Dalrymple’s work, as the writers here demonstrate that finding modern wisdom starts with questioning the conventional kind.
Dalrymple reports on a recent survey:
There were 1,712 votes from 39 of the United States and 2,356 votes from 74 other countries. Overall the votes were similar in the U.S. and abroad: 67 percent of American doctors, and 65 percent of foreign ones, were against and 33 and 35 percent, respectively, were for.
There were 11 countries, however, in which a majority of voters were in favor (with Mexico in the lead), and 18 of the 39 American states. Interestingly, Oregon and Washington were not among the former, though they are the two states in which physician-assisted suicide is actually legal…
The voters were allowed to record briefly their reasons for their vote. The main argument for is that doctors have a duty to relieve suffering as well as prolong life. A less good reason given, indeed one that seems to me senseless, was that if physicians assist at birth they ought also to assist at death. Those against used the familiar argument from the slippery slope. We are all of us dying from the moment of conception; why should the mortally ill alone be spared the pain of continued existence? And if assisted suicide is a right, who has the corresponding obligation to provide it?