Evolutionary Philosophy
  • Home
  • Worldview
    • Epistemology
    • Metaphysics
    • Logic
    • Ethics
    • Politics
    • Aesthetics
  • Applied
    • Know Thyself
    • 10 Tenets
    • Survival of the Fittest Philosophers >
      • Ancient Philosophy (Pre 450 CE)
      • Medieval Philosophy (450-1600 CE)
      • Modern Philosophy (1600-1920 CE)
      • Contemporary Philosophy (Post 1920 CE)
    • 100 Thought Experiments
    • Elsewhere
  • Fiction
    • Draining the Swamp >
      • Further Q&A
    • Short Stories
    • The Vitanauts
  • Blog
  • Store
  • About
    • Purpose
    • My Evolution
    • Evolution 101
    • Philosophy 101

Bridging the Gap That Hume Surveyed

6/20/2014

1 Comment

 
In every page of David Hume, there is more to be learned than from Hegel's, Herbart's and Schleiermacher's complete philosophical works.
                                                                                                            —Arthur Schopenhauer


Upon the whole, I have always considered him, both in his lifetime and since his death, as approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man, as perhaps the nature of human frailty will permit.
                                                                                      —Adam Smith


When the Philosophy Bites podcast group released their second book, they took the opportunity to gather clips from 70 philosophers they had interviewed, and compile all their individual answers to a single common question: Who is Your Favourite Philosopher? Listening through their choices, a total of thirty philosophers received votes. Nineteen names were given 1 vote, including such luminaries as Plato, Socrates, Sartre, Marx, Locke, Russell, and several obscure personal choices. Five philosophers managed to get 2 votes: Hegel, Bentham, Rousseau, Hobbes, and Descartes. These lowest twenty-four philosophers earned just a couple more votes (29) than the next five in the top six did: John Stuart Mill (4), Wittgenstein (5), Nietzsche (5), Aristotle (6), and Kant (7). But the runaway winner with twice the number of votes (14) as his nearest competitor was David Hume, garnering a whopping 20% of the highest admiration from those polled. What might Hume say about this? In a moment of humility, he might say:

Nothing indeed can be a stronger presumption of falsehood than the approbation of the multitude.

Or in a moment of stubborn Scottishness, he might say:

Fain wou'd I run into the crowd for shelter and warmth; but cannot prevail with myself to mix with such deformity. I call upon others to join me, in order to make a company apart; but no one will hearken to me. Every one keeps at a distance, and dreads that storm, which beats upon me from every side. I have expos'd myself to the enmity of all metaphysicians, logicians, mathematicians, and even theologians; and can I wonder at the insults I must suffer?

As an amateur philosopher putting forth a controversial position, I understand why so many philosophers identify with this kind of sentiment. But what are some of the more important things Hume said that drew such widespread admiration?

Principles taken upon trust, consequences lamely deduced from them, want of coherence in the parts, and of evidence in the whole, these are every where to be met with in the systems of the most eminent philosophers, and seem to have drawn disgrace upon philosophy itself.

Morality is a subject that interests us above all others: We fancy the peace of society to be at stake in every decision concerning it. Without this advantage I never should have ventur'd upon a third volume of such abstruse philosophy, in an age, wherein the greatest part of men seem agreed to convert reading into an amusement, and to reject every thing that requires any considerable degree of attention to be comprehended.

Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.

If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other; and so on, without end. It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world. When you go one step beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humour which it is impossible ever to satisfy.

Look round this universe. What an immense profusion of beings, animated and organised, sensible and active! You admire this prodigious variety and fecundity. But inspect a little more narrowly these living existences, the only beings worth regarding. How hostile and destructive to each other! How insufficient all of them for their own happiness! How contemptible or odious to the spectator! The whole presents nothing but the idea of a blind Nature, impregnated by a great vivifying principle, and pouring forth from her lap, without discernment or parental care, her maimed and abortive children!

Nothing appears more surprising to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers.

It is seldom, that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Slavery has so frightful an aspect to men accustomed to freedom, that it must steal upon them by degrees, and must disguise itself in a thousand shapes, in order to be received.

The richest genius, like the most fertile soil, when uncultivated, shoots up into the rankest weeds; and instead of vines and olives for the pleasure and use of man, produces, to its slothful owner, the most abundant crop of poisons.

Honour is a great check upon mankind: But where a considerable body of men act together, this check is, in a great measure, removed; since a man is sure to be approved of by his own party, for what promotes the common interest; and he soon learns to despise the clamours of adversaries.


It is a great mortification to the vanity of man, that his utmost art and industry can never equal the meanest of nature's productions, either for beauty or value.

He is happy, whose circumstances suit his temper; but he is more excellent, who can suit his temper to any circumstances.

Hume was a beautiful writer who found religion ridiculous, thought deeply about a wide variety of subjects, brought a new clarity to psychology and emotions, and looked to nature for answers to it all. But still, he was writing in the middle of the 18th century so he ended up with some conclusions that might today be called "bat-shit-ball-to-the-wall lunacy" in a three-minute cartoon summary: 

That was amusing. But let's look at Hume's thoughts in a slightly more considered way by seeing how he fared in my analysis of his survival among the fittest philosophers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hume (1711-1776 CE) was a Scottish philosopher, economist, historian, and a key figure in the history of Western philosophy and the Scottish Enlightenment. Hume is often grouped with John Locke, George Berkeley, and a handful of others as a British Empiricist.

Survives
The classic philosophical treatment of the problem of induction was given by Hume. Hume highlighted the fact that our everyday habits of mind depend on drawing uncertain conclusions from our relatively limited experiences rather than on deductively valid arguments. For example, we believe that bread will nourish us because it has done so in the past, despite no guarantee that it will do so. However, Hume immediately argued that even if induction were proved unreliable, we would have to rely on it. Rather than approach everything with severe skepticism, Hume advocated a practical skepticism based on common sense, where the inevitability of induction is accepted. Yes. The universe is larger than we can know and it is moving and changing. Eternal and absolute knowledge is unlikely to be found. We must rely on probability and act with confidence and caution according to the likelihood of our knowledge being true.

Hume, along with Thomas Hobbes, is cited as a classical compatibilist about the notions of freedom and determinism. The thesis of compatibilism seeks to reconcile human freedom with the mechanist belief that human beings are part of a deterministic universe, whose happenings are governed by the laws of physics. Compatibilists define free will in a way that allows it to co-exist with determinism. Hume argued that in order to be held morally responsible, it is required that our behavior be caused and where they proceed not from some cause in the character and disposition of the person who performed them, they can neither redound to his honor, if good; nor infamy, if evil. This is correct. The physics and chemistry of the universe is blind and determined. Biology, on the other hand, seems to have endowed at least one species with the ability to override the predominant pulls on our nature, thereby giving us the freedom that compatibilists define as free will.*

Needs to Adapt
In a famous sentence in the Treatise, Hume circumscribes reason's role in the production of action: Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them. We are not bound by any laws of nature to act on every emotional state we feel. Reason arises in nature to help life choose between actions that satisfy short-term desires or long-term needs. The joy of the survival of life is our deepest feeling so reason can be said to serve that emotion, but reason rules over other emotions as it instructs us about which actions we should take and which emotions we should feel.

Hume's views on human motivation and action formed the cornerstone of his ethical theory. Given that one cannot be motivated by reason alone, requiring the input of the passions, Hume argued that reason cannot be behind morality: Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason. Morality does arise from the ultimate emotion - the joy of the survival of life. Our reason is required to uncover which actions are ultimately moral or not.

Hume does not believe, as Locke does, that private property is a natural right, but he argues that it is justified since resources are limited. If all goods were unlimited and available freely, then private property would not be justified, but instead becomes an "idle ceremonial.” Hume also believed in unequal distribution of property, since perfect equality would destroy the ideas of thrift and industry. Perfect equality would thus lead to impoverishment. There are no natural rights - in the state of nature, unchecked competition reigns and might makes right. In a society, we cooperate in order to better compete with death. Members of society receive rights in return for their participation. Property should be accumulated according to effort and participation in that society - not according to means or need. Perfect equality is trying to attain perfect cooperation, when a balance between cooperation and competition is what is required.

Gone Extinct
Hume is well known for his treatment of the ‘is–ought’ problem. Hume stated that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. However, Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and it is not obvious how we can get from making descriptive statements to prescriptive. Life is alive. Life ought to act to remain alive. All else flows from this solution to the is-ought problem.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Note that this section is changed from my original publication. I essentially agreed with Hume about moral responsibility, but was ignorant of the nuanced view that compatibilists take, so I thought that word implied more logical contorting than actually occurs in that philosophical camp. I now realise my position on free will is a compatibilist one as well.

I would also like to acknowledge that my treatment of Hume ended with a trifling dismissal of the greatest problem in moral philosophy—the bridging of the is-ought divide. I presented my conclusion without any of the justification necessary for philosophers to believe it—or so I've continued to discover—and so to remedy this, and to strengthen probably the most important claim in my philosophy (as I said, all else flows from this), I've written a lengthy and serious derivation of this claim about getting oughts from is and I hope to have it published in a philosophy e-magazine soon. Let me know if you'd like an advance copy. It's 26 pages long with over 60 references scattered throughout, so expect it to take a bit of time to read. I hope it gets read though because I do think it's probably the most important thing I've ever written. I'll be sure to post a link to it if it does get published, and I may copy segments of it here in future blog posts.
1 Comment

Acrobatically Facing One's Enemies with Speed and Daring

6/13/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
See those enemies coming round the bend?
Go get 'em boy.

Here we are again, with yet another writer who's got a philosophical bent. Last week it was Montesquieu. This time, it's Voltaire. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Voltaire was not a philosopher at all in the modern sense of the term. He wrote as many plays, stories, and poems as patently philosophical tracts, and he in fact directed many of his critical writings against the philosophical pretensions of recognized philosophers such as Leibniz, Malebranche, and Descartes." Well, if you remember my recent essays, you'll know I've got no problems critiquing Leibniz and Descartes. And I just looked at the wiki entry for Malebranch and saw "he sought to synthesize the thought of St. Augustine and Descartes, in order to demonstrate the active role of God in every aspect of the world." He's best known for his doctrine of Occasionalism, which "says that created substances cannot be efficient causes of events. Instead, all events are taken to be caused directly by God." With philosophers like these out and about, who would have wanted to be a philosopher??

Circumstances though forced the young Voltaire (not called that at the time) to compare and contrast the belief systems that governed his country with those of post-revolution England. In 1726, Voltaire "responded to an insult from the young French nobleman Chevalier de Rohan, whose servants beat him a few days later. The aristocratic Rohan family obtained a royal lettre de cachet, an often arbitrary penal decree signed by the French King that was often bought by members of the wealthy nobility to dispose of undesirables. This warrant caused Voltaire to be imprisoned in the Bastille without a trial and without an opportunity to defend himself. Fearing an indefinite prison sentence, Voltaire suggested that he be exiled to England as an alternative punishment, which the French authorities accepted. Voltaire's exile in Great Britain lasted nearly three years, and his experiences there greatly influenced his thinking. He was intrigued by Britain's constitutional monarchy in contrast to the French absolute monarchy, and by the country's greater support of the freedoms of speech and religion." It was then that Voltaire might have realised,

It is better to risk sparing a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one.


To hold a pen is to be at war.

It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong.

Even after his exile, Voltaire continued to have "trouble with the authorities for even mild critiques of the government and religious intolerance. These activities were to result in numerous imprisonments and exiles. One satirical verse about the Régent led to his imprisonment in the Bastille for eleven months. While there, he wrote his debut play, Œdipe. Its success established his reputation."

So, there's that to be said about being sent to prison for your writing. But perhaps this is also why Voltaire used at least 178 separate pen names during his lifetime. The name Voltaire, which "the author adopted in 1718, is an anagram of "AROVET LI," the Latinized spelling of his surname, Arouet, and the initial letters of le jeune (the young). The name also echoes in reverse order the syllables of the name of a family château: Airvault." Additionally, "a writer such as Voltaire would have intended it to convey its connotations of speed and daring. These come from associations with words such as voltige (acrobatics on a trapeze or horse), volte-face (a spinning about to face one's enemies), and volatile (originally, any winged creature)." I can remember reading about this pen name when I read Candide as a teenager and thinking, what would my pen name be? I still don't have an answer to that, but isn't it great that I don't have to? It's great—to be cognizant of it once again—because of people like Voltaire.

And while he was "the first scholar to make a serious attempt to write the history of the world, eliminating theological frameworks, and emphasizing economics, culture and political history," and he "pointed modern philosophy down several paths that it subsequently followed," Voltaire is best known for his many memorable aphorisms. So let's hear some of the best ones before we take him up on this quote:

We should be considerate to the living; to the dead we owe only the truth.

and examine the philosophical positions he did espouse and speak the truth about how these ideas fare in the survival of the fittest philosophers.

It is sad that often, to be a good patriot, one must be the enemy of the rest of mankind.

Men can only bear light to come in upon them by degrees.

Opinions have caused more ills than the plague or earthquakes on this little globe of ours.

Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do.

We all look for happiness, but without knowing where to find it: like drunkards who look for their house, knowing dimly that they have one.

To pray to God is to flatter oneself that with words one can alter nature.

Use, do not abuse; as the wise man commands. Neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.

Love truth, but pardon error.

Every sensible man, every honorable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror.

It is with books as with the fire in our hearths; we go to a neighbor to get the embers and light it when we return home, pass it on to others, and it belongs to everyone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voltaire (1694-1778 CE) was a French Enlightenment writer, historian, and philosopher famous for his wit and for his advocacy of civil liberties, including freedom of religion, freedom of expression, free trade, and separation of church and state.

Survives
Voltaire’s best-known work, Candide, attacks the passivity inspired by Leibniz's philosophy of optimism. Yes. The universe is not perfect - it is uncaring and will crush us if we let it. We must progress and remain vigilant to survive.

Voltaire is remembered and honored in France as a courageous polemicist who indefatigably fought for civil rights – the right to a fair trial and freedom of religion. We owe a great debt to history’s courageous polemicists. May their example be followed. Fair trials and freedom of belief are necessary in virtuous societies. And the church must be kept separate from the functions of the state - chief among these, the education of its citizens.

Needs to Adapt
Like many other key figures during the European Enlightenment, Voltaire considered himself a deist. According to deists, the creator does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by intervening in it. This idea is also known as the clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own. No evidence for supernatural intervention has ever been found so it is right to dismiss this with great certainty. As we have little understanding for how the universe came to be - why there is something rather than nothing - a belief in a supreme architect is hard to suppress. Now that much of the history of the universe is understood though, the blindness and cruelty of extinction would imply either a blind god or a cruel god. If such a god did exist, it would be better to ignore it and plot against it.

Voltaire perceived the French bourgeoisie to be too small and ineffective, the aristocracy to be parasitic and corrupt, the commoners as ignorant and superstitious, and the church as a static and oppressive force useful only as a counterbalance since its "religious tax," the tithe, helped to create a strong backing for revolutionaries. Voltaire distrusted democracy, which he saw as propagating the idiocy of the masses. Voltaire long thought only an enlightened monarch could bring about change, given the social structures of the time and the extremely high rates of illiteracy, and that it was in the king's rational interest to improve the education and welfare of his subjects. An enlightened monarchy is better than an ignorant democracy. Given the state of the world and the lack of better examples, Voltaire’s analysis and resulting recommendations were good steps towards a better society. However, we see that the beauty of democracy lies in its ability to evolve through meritocratic trial and error, and in the example it sets for cooperation, while monarchies become static without the spur of competition to urge it on, and rigid in its insistence on hierarchy. Democracy was the better path.

Gone Extinct

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0 Comments

Another Great Writer / Philosopher

6/6/2014

0 Comments

 
Constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go. To prevent this abuse, it is necessary from the very nature of things that power should be a check to power.

                                                        — Montesquieu, 1748, The Spirit of the Laws

Charles-Louis de Secondat baron de Montesquieu has become another hero of mine after researching this blog post about him. I had known that he was famous for introducing the idea of separation of powers within government, but I didn't know how he had attained the influence necessary to make sure that idea was adopted. Although I'd wager he's not very well known in America today, "Montesquieu was the most frequently quoted authority on government and politics in colonial pre-revolutionary British America, cited more by the American founders than any source except for the Bible." (wikipedia entry) Specifically, Montesquieu had a powerful influence on "James Madison, the Father of the Constitution. Montesquieu's philosophy that 'government should be set up so that no man need be afraid of another' reminded Madison and others that a free and stable foundation for their new national government required a clearly defined and balanced separation of powers." (ibid.)

How fortunate for us that his idea was floating around at the time the country was founded. And how fortunate was he that someone was about to write a constitution for a new nation. It's no coincidence, of course, that new ideas and revolutions often dance together, but Montesquieu probably took less pride for this than others in his shoes might have. In Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline, published in 1734, Montesquieu stated his philosophy of history that "minimized the role of individual persons and events." He believed that "each historical event was driven by a principal movement." (ibid.) I wonder if the Income Inequality / Occupy Wall Street movement that is bubbling up around the world at the moment is at all strong enough to lead to a new "historical event." I rather hope so.

But I still haven't said how Montesquieu rose to prominence. He was born to a wealthy and titled family in the southwest of France near Bordeaux. He went to top schools, became a lawyer, and served in the local parliament. But then after his father and uncle both died, leaving him a fortune as well as his title, Montesquieu "withdrew from the practice of law to devote himself to study and writing." (ibid.) About five years later, in 1721, he achieved literary success with the publication of Persian Letters, a satirical novel that criticised the absurdities of contemporary French society through the literary device of presenting fictional letters back and forth between two imaginary Persian visitors to Paris and Europe. The Persian Letters is "both one of the funniest books written by a major philosopher, and one of the bleakest. … While Montesquieu was not the first writer to try to imagine how European culture might look to travellers from non-European countries, he used that device with particular brilliance." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page) So he was a man who withdrew from government work to write fiction and philosophy. That's just like me! Only without the deaths of fathers or uncles with fortunes and titles...
Picture
Speaking of me…it's been a couple of years now since I self-publshed my first novel Draining the Swamp. And while I've continued writing philosophy, short stories, and the first draft of another novel since that first publication, I've also been learning a lot about what it takes to become successful in today's writing industry. As it turns out, it isn't just writing a good book and waiting for word of mouth to spread the news far and wide. (Though I thought that was great advice when I'd first read it. "Easy!" I thought. "I can do that.") And so I've been working on a proper PR campaign for the novel, hopefully timed to ride a bit of the news cycle about the upcoming mid-term elections in November. As part of that marketing plan, I just received my first professional review, and since it's a good one, I might as well share it here. From the notoriously difficult to please, Kirkus Reviews:

Draining the Swamp, "doubles as a sort of American civics textbook, explaining the functions of each agency while adding the spice of insider knowledge. … It’s bookended with references to Ayn Rand’s brand of libertarianism, which provides philosophical power to the concluding moral. … [I]ts crisp dialogue...and deep knowledge of Washington's inner workings make it an edifying read. … A philosophically charged critique of government, couched in the form of a novel."

I'm extremely proud to hear that. It's especially hard for self-published authors to get respect in literary circles in general, and I'm finding it specifically difficult to find literary circles who are interested in philosophy. But no matter. As Montesquieu said:

An author is a fool who, not content with having bored those who have lived with him, insists on boring future generations.

NO NOT THAT QUOTE! THIS ONE:

The success of most things depends upon knowing how long it will take to succeed.

There, that's better. And while it took Montesquieu 5 years to produce a successful novel and a further 27 years before he wrote his influential political tract, I am hoping I can cut that down by just a year or two. Even if I'm never anywhere near as influential as Montesquieu, and even if no countries plan to rewrite their constitutions any time soon. (Unless it's Norway, with the help of the Evolution Institute, in which case I'm sending them many, many resumes.)

My personal link to Montesquieu isn't just for fiction and philosophy though. His idea of the separation of powers within government (along with the modern business need for specialisation) ended up leading to the very breakdown of individual power that I tried to point out through the structure of my novel. In Montesquieu's time, a few men had too much power. Now, as illustrated in Draining the Swamp, no one, not even "the world's most powerful man" can accomplish very much on his or her own. There are reasons why that is a good thing, but it means our need to cooperate is higher than ever. Let's finish this profile with a few more good quotes from Montesquieu before I take a look at how he fared in my analysis of the survival of the fittest philosophers and add to that point about cooperation.

I shall ever repeat it, that mankind are governed not by extremes, but by principals of moderation.

The deterioration of a government begins almost always by the decay of its principles.

This punishment of death is the remedy, as it were, of a sick society.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles-Louis de Secondat baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755 CE), generally referred to as simply Montesquieu, was a French social commentator and political thinker who lived during the Enlightenment. He is famous for his articulation of the theory of separation of powers, which is taken for granted in modern discussions of government and implemented in many constitutions throughout the world.

Survives

Needs to Adapt
Montesquieu saw two types of governmental power existing: the sovereign and the administrative. The administrative powers were the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. These should be separate from and dependent upon each other so that the influence of any one power would not be able to exceed that of the other two, either singly or in combination. This was radical because it completely eliminated the three estates structure of the French monarchy: the clergy, the aristocracy, and the people at large represented by the Estates-General, thereby erasing the last vestige of a feudalistic structure. The separation of powers is an enormous contribution to political design as it removes the dominance of a competitive absolute hierarchy and replaces it with a structure that encourages and ensures a balance between cooperation and competition. Keeping a sovereign around undermines the cooperative spirit of the society. It would be done away with in France soon after this though.

Likewise, there were three main forms of government, each supported by a social principle: monarchies - free governments headed by a hereditary figure, e.g. king, queen, emperor, which rely on the principle of honor; republics - free governments headed by popularly elected leaders, which rely on the principle of virtue; and despotisms - enslaved governments headed by dictators, which rely on fear. Fear is no way to prosper and survive. Life seeks to avoid fear. Despotism is easily ruled out. Honor is used to justify hierarchies (I am honorable / you must honor me), which are inherently unstable. Society is stronger when humans cooperate because they are considered equals. Progress is greater when effort and innovation can come from anyone and bring rewards and benefits to all. Monarchies are therefore dismissed. When virtue is understood to come from actions that promote the long-term survival of the species, then that is a proper basis to build a society upon. Republics that don’t rely on virtue will eventually crumble and give way to virtuous ones. This is the best way to organize government.

Gone Extinct

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Baron! You helped save us all from a lot of despotism and fear. Now if only our republics could be governed with more virtues of cooperation...
0 Comments

    Subscribe to Help Shape This Evolution

    SUBSCRIBE

    RSS Feed


    Blog Philosophy

    This is where ideas mate to form new and better ones. Please share yours respectfully...or they will suffer the fate of extinction!


    Archives

    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    August 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    May 2019
    March 2019
    December 2018
    July 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    April 2012


    Click to set custom HTML
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.