The Monarchy - An Ancient Symbol?

It's a quite interesting subject. Constitutional monarchy. When the Queen or King may be said to reign, but not to rule. Then why even bother with a monarch? To me it doesn't really make sense. It's such an expense. The monarch does not vote, because he or she is supposed to be natural. I mean, sure if the monarch had anything to actually do with society other than just be a popular symbol combined with big ceremonies.. I don't say it is wrong to keep old traditions, but why when they don't fill a function? Wouldn't it be better to focus on todays society as it is? And since we are said to be living in such a 'fair' and 'equal' society today, how come monarchy is something you are born to be? If that is so, that certain persons are born to be certain famous figures for an entire nation, then why doesn't the same rule apply to Prime Ministers?

The UK isn't alone. Along with the Britain there is Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and Norway that are practising constitutional monarchy.

Humankind has developed so incredibly much the last century, and the entire society with it. Isn't it finally time for the monarchy to change with the society as well?

Is there anyone else out there?

I would like to think that life on another planet, in another universe or maybe in a parallel world to ours does exist. I would like to think that in the future there is something more to life than just working your ass off to get good grades, a job you're satisfied with and with that a decent payslip every month. I would like to think that there is something more out there for us to discover and learn from. But I don't have any proof or evidence whatsoever.

Does this make me weird?

According to the Empirical theory, knowledge arises from experience. John Locke (1632-1704) argued that "the mind is a tabula rasa ("white paper") on which experiences leave their marks". So, if I've understood this very complicated ideology right, one of the main arguments for this theory is basically that without actual proof, there is no knowledge. For example, someone could tell you that a super popular band made an amazing gig in London a couple of weeks ago but it was a shame the sound quality wasn't as good as the rest. This would, from an Empiric view apply that the person speaking these words was there to experience the show, and is therefore able to comment on these things... I guess...

But what if he or she wasn't there? All that this person told you was just an account of someone else's experience or a rumour heard from someone, who heard it from someone.. Would this be proof enough to support the Empirical theory?

This would probably suit better in the A-Priori category. A-priori does not require any science. It is simply enough to say that you can see it is true even though you haven't experienced it on your own. I'd reckon that my hopes and belief would be placed in this theory. I don't have any proof or haven't experienced any things like UFO's, ghosts or any other supernatural things but I still hope and believe that they (or some alternative form of these 'myths') do exist.

These expressions will probably keep spinning around in my head for quite some time, because it seems almost too big to get a proper understanding of it..
I hope I didn't spin your head around..

Politics - Part 1

A couple of years ago I thought I'd never be interested in politics. I mean hey, all about men who have too much power and money for their own (and others) best. Always been having this view of politics being a tiny part of the world. Imagined it depending on us rather than us depending on it. But the more I breathe, think, socialise, communicate I understand that politics is so much more than what I could ever expect it to be. No one is unaffected by politics.

So when attending my first politics lecture last week I was actually quite curious and excited about what it would be about and how this might be able to change my picture of politics as 'boring'. And as we got started, talking about classical theories, Plato and Aristotle, human nature and the republic something caught my interest and the hours just vanished as if we'd only spent a fragment of an hour in the tiny room.

I've always been interested in history and how the world with its inhabitants has changed with time. Curious about what might have been and not, and why. I've never thought of it as politics though, but after the lecture I realise it more and more that every tiny detail of the past (and present and future) is marked by a political event. Every decision made, every building built and every child brought up by its parent is partly depending on politics. Might be quite scary but no one, and nothing, is unaffected by politics.

Unfortunately I couldn't attend the second lecture last Tuesday. For a good reason though. My lovely parents came over on a visit and I was able to spend some quality time with them, showing them how I spend my days here in England and how the move over here is affecting me and my life.

Well, I better get back to my offline studying now.
My books want some company.
So does my coffee.

Take it easy.
//Maddie