One day, God decided to take a stroll around the Earth. While doing so, He came upon a group of four philosophers discussing the nature of knowledge, and impressed Him with the depth of their discussion. He decided to reveal the true nature of knowledge to them.

However, while doing so, one stood up and declared angrily, “Nonsense! There is no such thing as knowledge in this world!” The second philosopher shouted, “No, God, that’s not right! There is no such thing as objective truth, and that applies to your proposition as well!” Someone was sitting in the corner muttering incoherently about whether they were all hallucinating, while the last guy started spewing counterexamples, obviously with the Gettier problem in mind.

God threw up his hands in surrender and left for heaven.

19:35
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

"I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
- Bertrand Russell

This quote aptly sums up my internal struggle depicted in the previous post; a struggle that I currently think would never be resolved satisfactorily.
19:42
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

There is a very fine line between having strong beliefs and being very stubborn about them. Beliefs are a strange thing. It is belief that propels us towards a preference for certain activities, for certain foods, for a certain career path, and indeed, for a certain lifestyle. It is also belief that enables us to distinguish where the distinctive areas of right and wrong lie, enabling us to make moral judgements of “should” and “should not”. It is therefore of no coincidence that belief is what makes each of us humans unique, apart from our own unique (mostly) outer appearances, and belief that shapes our lives and identity.

The basic problem here is this: if someone believes that he is correct in his action, where do you draw the line between being right and being stubborn? When will there ever be a correct time to put your hands up and admit that “yes, I was wrong”, and take action to correct the mistakes you made? How would you know if something is right or not, other than self judgement from popular opinion, which more than often, is usually wrong?

I had decided some time ago that I shall enjoy life, rather than suffer repeatedly under the education system and whatever other crap life will throw at me in the future. If I am to die in 5 years’ time, I will die a happy, satisfied man with few regrets, and not as someone who has, until then, mugged so hard for those 5 ‘A’s on a university transcript, with few other achievements... that’s not what I want my life to amount to. I want to be more than that, to go beyond the social perception of what success is, and create my own definition of what is success. I want make life worth living, to do things worth doing, and to, above all, enjoy life. That is what I set out to achieve, what I felt was correct.

My parents tell me that I am crazy. For the ‘A’ Levels, so far, I have barely studied much for it, spending more time playing games and reading than actually studying (e.g. doing assignments, answering questions). I felt that getting ‘A’s is not very important; I rather do what I enjoy, do whatever it is that gives my life meaning, like writing this post. However, the social perception that ‘A’s are very important remains, and continues to pressure me towards my books; especially influential is the view that a university degree is the most reliable pathway to success, and top scores are even more important to differentiate you from the rest of the pack. Even now, I am still scared of the possibility that I will screw up my ‘A’ Levels and my future, something that is quite potentially catastrophic. This is what I call social pressure, pressure that will unknowingly change your own perception of what is correct, and will at the very least make you question again and again whether you made the right choice in the first place.

I have decided to continue down this path, even into the university, doing what I want, being the fucking non-conformist bastard that I am, studying the least but learning the most. This is my unique identity, my unique path that I shall take in life, and my own unique philosophy of life that I will hold to until I see fit to change. If what I envisage comes true, when I enter university, I will do independent study in physics and mathematics, and eventually enter the field of theoretical physics as a scientist, all the while giving grades a rat’s ass; after all, grades are not an accurate means by which you can judge the worth of a man. While many may try taking five, or even six modules (nutcases, I say!), I will take as few as possible, in order to live university life to the fullest. These are my beliefs, what I feel I should engage myself in, what I feel will give me the most meaning in my life. This path is what I believe will give my life worth, and that alone is reason enough to follow it where it takes me. Thus, this is what I believe strongly in, and how I believe I should live my life.

Quite obviously, my beliefs are at odds with social perception; sometimes I would sneer at those muggers who may know how to study, but have not found their own meaning in life; yet I wonder how many of those muggers are actually laughing at me behind my backs, thinking that I am just a disillusioned teenager with childish, rebellious teenage impulses. Perhaps I am wrong, but the problem remains of how you can judge your own beliefs as being wrong, when the only alternative to scale against is that of social perception. Is the society wrong, or are you wrong? It is very intimidating to stand against the flow, against the flood of differing opinions, and yet stubbornly holding your ground. It demands a strong will, a strong personal belief that you yourself are correct, and all those other stupid bastards are wrong, all wrong.

The pitfall will lay waiting. When I convince myself that I am correct, I convince myself that only my own opinion is the right one to follow, but only based on the judgement that social perception is wrong. Where is the justification? For all I know, there is none, except based on my personal philosophy of life, which is obviously a subjective matter. Is this justification enough, to say that since everyone’s “meaning of life” is different, that if you live life based on that, it is a correct decision? I don’t know. I am afraid that one day, the ground beneath the path will give way to the pitfall. I am afraid that my beliefs would turn out to be strangleholds, and ruin my life. I am afraid that my decisions today, based on these possibly wrong beliefs, would turn out to be something I regret. However, I have few choices available at the moment; for me, it is either this path or to follow the crowd.

I will carve out my own path through the jungle of life, and I shall withstand the flood; I will do so with the knowledge and satisfaction that I am unique in my own special way, and I shall live a life with as few regrets as possible. But it is hard; so very hard indeed. The dilemma remains unsolved, the doubts retain their strength in my mind; one day, I may stumble onto a tiger’s den, or get swept away against social forces. May that day never come, and may I retain the wisdom to recognise when I am ever wrong.
01:08
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

On a day when I was supposed to be mugging, I was watching anime. Last Exile. It really brought back memories of secondary school life, and I remembered I actually watched the finale back in Sec 4, when I was supposed to do Job Week. That was at a friend’s house, wearing my Scout uniform, no less. Well, I am a natural slacker, and ultimately, it’s not as though failing a subject or two will affect my university application that much.

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

I was thinking about why countries like USA and Myanmar do things that seemed so obnoxious to us, so contrived, bringing about suffering to scores of people, whether knowingly or unknowingly. It does not help that Digg once reported that President Bush spoke with many philosophers, scholars and advisors in planning his policies, that he of all people should have been able to see the consequences of his actions. Ethics is, after all, one of the main foci of the critics in judging the success of his actions. Why had he not seen the problems that troop surge will bring to Iraq? Why had he invaded Iraq in the first place? Why has USA continued to support Israel, an obviously twisted country with a twisted regime that abuses that support in their war of attrition with Pakistan? These are just some of the many grudges that we hold against the USA, but the point I am making is that for the sake of national interests, countries have repeatedly committed mistakes, bringing their own citizens, or even that of others, down into the pit with them. Myanmar, with their recent flamboyant conflagrations and civil unrest, is a good example.

At first glance, it seems that countries have policies that are aimed at the fulfilment of their national interest. Such a state of affair can easily be seen at situations like the negotiations concerning the Kyoto Protocol, where developed countries refused to accept additional burdens of reducing carbon emissions, whereas less developed countries get to make up the slack. The very fact that they simply refused to take action to secure the future of mankind, by making a huge fuss out of such petty matters, simply shows that national interests shall always take priority. Thus, the only way to get countries to cooperate towards a single goal is for them to all share similar interests, or for their nation to be threatened, which will force them to take action in immediate defence of their nation’s integrity.

However, the fulfilment of national interest has a multi-layered meaning. There are many ways of doing so; you can threaten others into achieving your goal, persuade them, bribe them, or kill them, whatever works. Why has everyone adopted diplomacy, then? Is it just because it is the most humanitarian method of inter-nation communication?

There is a pattern in history – whenever one country got too powerful, it will ultimately draw the wrath of others. Humans are, by nature, jealous creatures. What others get, we should have them too! they declare. Who will give a damn about corrupted governments in some backwater state in Africa? After all, the actions that move the world are not those of these small governments, but whoever is most powerful at that point in time. Everyone else would happily cringe and kiss the robes of these almighty powers, all the while plotting a way to overcome them, yet not wanting to be dragged down as well, rather than pea-shooting him and risk getting nuked. From this perspective, the development of diplomacy as a peaceful communication medium is inevitable, and is also convenient for the powerful country to lord over the rest. This is the easiest way of speaking to another country, thereby attaining your goals, whether it is trade, peace or agreements, without excessive risks.

Such inventions have shown an underlying objective that comes together with all national interests, when the above analogy is broadened to a macro level. A nation like Myanmar, with a government that aims to maintain position in power, thereby achieving a goal of self-preservation of the army’s importance within the country, would do so through the easiest method possible. The military government, when confronted with civil unrest, will obviously settle it with the easiest method it knows: killing those who protest. This is the immediate response that they would give, an instinctive reaction that does not consider the consequences. Since governments are led by humans, they will also commit human mistakes, and taking the easiest route to a destination is a concept that would be familiar to all of us. We do not look at the big picture unless it affects us; we do not consider the consequences unless they will endanger our future. Well, since a war in Iraq does not affect me, why should I care, unless my popularity rankings go down by dissatisfaction of my actions that ignited it?

Trying to find the easiest way out of a situation is probably a misguided methodology. It is a hasty action, like trying to ski without knowing the basics, because it is the fastest go down the mountain. We may get ourselves out of a sinkhole to find our feet trapped in quicksand. While it is important to escape the sinkhole, it is equally important not to land in quicksand, or to fall into a pit of spikes, or other life-threatening danger. The old saying goes: “More haste, less speed”. The sagely intents of these wise advices are oft misinterpreted, but when the blame falls, no one will say it is their own fault. We are humans after all.
04:00
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

There is a problem with having too much power. The basic idea is that if one has powers close to that of a god, life becomes less meaningful for him. There is little worth looking forward to; your material needs are fulfilled, you are respected by the people, and anything you wanted, you can easily obtain. What, then, should this god-being do with his life? Should he dedicate it towards helping others, or help others rise to his level? Or will he try to find something, anything to interest him, so that he at least would have something worth doing?

It is part of human nature to compete against someone else, to rise towards a position of power and prestige, an instinct that has carried forward since the days of ancient man. A person of absolute power would have lost part of his purpose in life, for there is nobody who can even come close to competing with him, and he can easily manipulate others towards his own goals. There is no challenge for him in life, nobody of his equal that he can treat as his rival. In short, he will attempt to find something to do that is remotely interesting, else life is no longer worth living due to lack of a purpose.

A master craftsman would have tasks befitting to his ability; an apprentice would have easier tasks which befits his ability. Any less would be an insult; any more, an impossible task. Thus, a person with power should have a purpose in life that befits his power, and a person without power should have insignificant purposes, unless he is ambitious enough to go above his current status. By this logic, everyone in a society should have a place that fits his abilities; the question is the satisfaction you glean from finding such a place. While a god should a position of absolute power, it merely means that whole societies would change to fit him, and thus, since he is not a proper part of society in itself, it must be that he does not have such a place befitting him. An ultimate craftsman without a befitting purpose is like a lion reduced to hunting chickens for a living. No matter how powerful he is, his very existence is to be pitied.

I pity this being we call God. By our definition of God, he is omnipotent; yet he apparently does not have the power to kill himself. His existence is timeless, and due to lack of a purpose, he created this world. It serves merely to give his life some measure of meaning, something remotely worth living for. Pity him, for he has no meaning in life, no proper place in what we call society. Pity him, for his very existence is probably torture for himself.
01:37
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

Human life can be likened to the process of digging a well in the midst of a vast desert. In desperation to find water that liberates us from our suffering, we dig downwards, believing that progress in this activity will eventually bear fruit.

Yet, the further we dig, the higher the walls of the well surround us. Some of us just dig downwards, while others prefer to scrap the sides once in a while; yet we dig still, for the alternative is to die of thirst. We dig in faith that we may find water, no matter how endless the desert appears to be. We dig in the hopes of salvation, in a quest for revelation, and in pursuit from freedom of the desert thirst. One day, when we look up, we would be startled to find that the walls have risen so high that it has become impossible to exit; we are trapped in the bottom of the well, forced by circumstances and fear to continue. What started off as a hope has how turned into a nightmare.

And it must come to pass, that whether or not we find the water that has lain so evasively in the desert plain, we shall all eventually die, with wishes unfulfilled. As we lay at the bottom, forgotten, ignored, one would wonder what we actually set out to achieve in the first place; for however great our efforts may have been, all have been in vain. The sandstorms of time shall cover the holes, burying all within, until the unfinished wells are covered, until none remain in the cruel desert. Those of us who have not staked their claim with firmness, these are the ones who shall fall, and the survivors will be few and far between.

Kill or be killed. Dig or be buried. This is the way of the world, as it has been and always will be.
19:55
0 Comments | Post/Read comment