Two years ago, if someone asked me what philosophy is all about, I would have given some long rambling answer that clearly shows “I am beating around the bush.”

Today, if someone asked the exact same question...

Philosophy is the art of living.

It’s as simple as that.
19:12
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

It turns out that Thomas Hobbes has expressed my views on individual liberty perfectly, as though he had read my mind. It seems that I am of the school of classical liberalism.

"A free man is he that in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do."
-Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
23:19
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

I finished reading Homer’s The Lliad over the holidays in China. Indeed, it really is a great story once you get over the unfamiliar style of epic poetry used by those ancient storytellers, and acquaint yourself with the strange world in which man and god coexist.

What really strikes me as I turned the pages was the acute sense of honour the Greeks have and how strongly it influences their practices. Archery, for example, when used in backstabbing, is something looked down on, whereas one on one battles with both spear and sword and shield are honourable duels to the death. They are a proud race of men, and perhaps are the first examples of what true heroism is all about. It is also striking how they pay tribute and respect to their opponents; despite their hatred, they readily acknowledge the capabilities of their opponents, and rarely do they verbally abuse each other, and certainly nowhere near the level of menace we see today.

Three scenes remain etched onto my mind. First is when Hektor bade farewell to his wife, Andromache, with intentions to fight to his death than to let the enemy storm the city and subsequently enslave her. This is despite knowing that it is unlikely that he would ever return. Secondly, when Hektor stormed the ships of the Achaeans, you can picture in your mind an image so clear of an epic battle, of a raging army battling the routed remnants of the Argives, which is held together only by the valiant defense of the Salamis king, Telamonian Aias. One man, holding back the advance of nearly a battalion, hence holding off the destruction of their ships, is an image of heroism that has been copied to death; but the original image remains potent. Lastly, Hektor stood his ground outside Troy in face of death arriving in the form of Achilleus, after having had his army collapse around him back into the city. And so he stood, one man facing the advance of the hostile army, and above all, the advance of Achilleus, who was almost certain to kill him. Pride and honour was the force that held him there.

Hence, my mind was once again turned onto the issue of honour. I’m not too sure what happened to the concept, but the world sure does need a lesson in it. A world where people are raised in the tradition of honour would, in my opinion, be a much better place than today’s is. They always claim that human nature is the cause of all those pain and suffering you see on the news, that some are wrong and some are right and others are just unfortunate to be caught in between. As I see it, everyone is acting in the way each feel is right, and most end up victimised just because they lack the capability to overcome their individual circumstances.

I define honour as the individual ethical judgment of personal excellence. The problem in the world today is that people prioritise accomplishment over means. This has been proven time and again, that they are willing to sacrifice all honour for the sake of goals. It is important to note that it doesn’t mean they needed to forsake honour, it just means that they weren’t looking hard enough for right enough method. It also doesn’t help that everyone else is happily doing the same thing, and so it creates additional social impetus to act despite the awareness of the wrong they are committing.

It doesn’t mean that we need to go through all the tedious centuries of raising our child correctly, giving them ‘right’ education, and working from grassroots. Governments like to do this to shun the issue so that they can work ‘unconstrained’ without dealing with issues of ethics. A tradition of honour has to start somewhere, on an individual level, and eventually fuel a drive at the societal scale to recreate the culture of past ages like that of the Achaeans.

Honour, however, is not foolproof. It is individualistic, and subjective, hostage to the passions of the people. Indeed, the Achaeans did do terrible things too, like the killing of babies during the sack of Troy. But in an age in which we uphold democratic values, I should think we ought to trust in our fellow men, that they, deep down, can distinguish right from wrong. They just need a little nudging in the right direction. The only thing that troubles me is how people can sit and contemplate wrongness in the face of alternatives, and hopefully, honour, self-imposed ethical constraints, can provide the solution.
23:06
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

It is not often that I write about current affairs. Smoking has been in the spotlight quite often, but is a topic which I felt wasn’t sufficiently digested. People talk about smoking and they talk more about smoking but what needed to be understood was not understood, only what was on the surface of things.

Look around you: ‘no smoking’ signs are pinned up all over the island, more numerous than bargain signs at the night market. The newspapers talk about how they want youths to undergo shock therapy to ‘cure’ them of smoking, like it is a disease. Coffee shops sell cigarette packs at disgustingly high prices, which politicians still claim is insufficient as a deterrent. I have come across blogs that thrash smoking with a fanaticism worse than Nazi Germany. And if you still find that nothing is wrong, you ought to be shot.

Some people think that smoking is bad. Sure, smoking is bad for the health; it destroys the lungs and causes cancer, it can be a hazard and a social menace to non-smokers around, and it irritates the workaholic Singaporeans to see a bunch of smokers skiving around a table with a stick in their mouths. But besides all these issues, there is honestly nothing wrong with smoking. A century ago, if you are not a smoker, then you would probably be an outcast of society. Today, if you are a smoker, society outcasts you.

It is the attitude that is wrong. It is the ancient attitude of majority against a disliked minority, one that has been played time and time again over the course of history. People like to see the minority taken down a rung or two, it intoxicates them to unite against a common foe, and it gives them a sensation of power to downplay them, like they are an inferior race. However, this is often not enough. In the majority, there will always be people who wish to go further, to destroy this inferior race outright, and these people will be the most vocal, most charismatic and visionary of the lot. These are the ones who happily bring the power-hungry feeling to its extreme, and will bring it to bear against the minority, and all the while the rest will happily stand by and do nothing.

This is exactly what is occurring now against the smokers in Singapore. This is also exactly how the Holocaust came to be.

The primary brunt of the arguments against smoking usually focuses on its detrimental health effects. I don’t understand why, for if people are so damn concerned about health, why not kick MacDonalds’ out of the country? The effects of smoking takes place after decades of intense smoking, and I am sure that more people died of obesity and strokes than do people die of smoking in the past few years. I am also quite aware that perfectly normal flu has killed millions more than the few that H1N1 virus ever will. The difference between flu and H1N1 is fear. Similarly, health reasons are only an excuse for igniting the fear people inherently hold towards smoking, a fear that is the result of mass propaganda from the government.

The other reason people give is that smoking is a social menace. They hate the smell of smoke. I also dislike the smell of smoke. However, I am also very sure that car exhaust, with its lethal carbon monoxide and odious diesel smell, is a much greater danger. Cars still drive, don’t they? We don’t kick them off the roads because they are a social menace to the pedestrians and cyclists, not to mention a hazard against the planet, so why are people reacting so violently against smokers? The few practitioners of tobacco that I know of are very considerate people, willingly going off to smoke at one corner rather than be deliberately irritating by blowing smoke in your face. That ‘social menace’ bit is probably the bad impressions that a small minority give to others. Why can’t people have faith that humans are inherently good? It will save us so much trouble.

The government’s democracy style has also accentuated the issue by lending so much power to the majority, undoubtedly a problem also faced by democracies everywhere, big and small, a prominent example being the white/black divide in America. Democracy works ideally in theory only when there is no majority representation in the government and country, and in practice for that scenario, decisions will take forever to make. The country will come to a standstill. Yet, having majorities will allow them power to destroy minorities if some brave soul is willing to lead the way. Just look at Iraq.

Rounding it up, clearly, smoking is not itself a major problem, but the impressions of people has exaggerated it into becoming a major problem, which had been, and is being, exploited by politicians and propagandists. It is a vicious cycle that may only end with the destruction of the minority: the smokers.

And when that time comes, lament, for we have forsaken a culture of olden days, for the sake of primitive fear and superficial reasoning. Lament, and let it be known how so hopelessly human we are, we who band together to wield power and rejoice in its destructive effects, without regard to those outcast by the brunt of its strength.
22:13
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

(On being opposed on the issue of getting back his boxing license at his old age)

Rocky: I’m pursuing something and nobody looks too happy about it.

Judge: But we are just looking out for your interests.

Rocky: I appreciate it, but maybe you are looking out for your interests just a little bit more. I mean, you shouldn’t be asking people to come down here to pay the fee on something they play and it still ain’t good enough, you think that’s right? I mean, you are doing your job but why do you got to stop me from doing mine? ‘Cuz if you want to go through all the battles that you got to go through to get to where you want to get, who’s got the right to stop you?

Rocky: I mean maybe some of you guys got something you’ve never finished, something you really want to do, something you never said to somebody, something! And you are told, “no, even after you pay your dues”; who has got the right to tell you and who? Nobody! It’s your right to listen to your gut, and it ain’t nobody’s right to say no, for you to earn the right to be what you wanna be, and to do what you wanna do!

Rocky: You know, the older I get the more things I gotta leave behind, that’s life. The only thing I’m asking you guys to leave on the table is what’s right.

-Rocky Balboa, VI


It has only been several short months since I heard the above argument, and it has inspired my determination to carry on doing what I want, based on gut feeling, despite the opposition towards my course. Every time someone expresses an opinion against cycling (inherent danger is usually the primary motivation), I always get this feeling as though my time is limited, as if Death himself waited around the horizon. My cycling life is limited; as I grow older, muscles will start to flab, bones will grow brittle, and recovery will no longer be as fast as it used to be. Why do people want to stop me now, when life itself will inevitably stop me eventually? I just want to enjoy the sun while I still can, and not keep in mind the coming sunset.

What I think is that these guys have always lived in the shade, and grown so used to it that the sun has become something to be feared. When time has come to pursue their dreams, they have always looked more to the negatives, and got so used to giving up this pursuit for the “better interests” of others that they forgot what their own interests are to begin with. The appeasement of the interests of others has become the goal they need to pursue, rather than the goal they want to pursue. No matter how you put that, it doesn’t really sound quite right.

I have never understood something. Just pursuing a goal based on gut feeling, based on it being something you want badly, when has this feeling based approach become bad, however illogical the goal may be? As long as it is a feeling that originates from deep in your heart, the pursuit of the goal ought to be justified in itself.

I guess the society we are in is simply too pragmatic, and does not condone the heart. How often has schooling emphasised the separation of needs and wants, discouraging the fulfilling of the latter as though its importance were insignificant? Thus did the pragmatic mindset influenced the championship of individual liberty, to the extent that the effect can be felt in the most liberal of individuals here in Singapore.
10:24
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

I used to enjoy non-fiction. Indeed, I read more non-fiction books than I did fiction back in junior college, but now it’s the other way round. Non-fiction is slowly but surely taking the backstage. They are a good source of facts and information and theories, but they are lacking. There is simply something that ought to be there but isn’t, an essential part of what makes the book wholesome and fascinating.

Fiction, on the other hand, is something we can relate to easily. Rather, it is the job of fiction to ensure that we can relate to its contents. Fiction, in general, appeals to the heart, and brings us into the lives of the characters it conjures, relating us to their thoughts and behavior and emotions. Whenever I read these books, I feel like an explorer, uncovering a world outside of my own.

What I think non-fiction lacks is the heart. Many authors simply neglect rhetorical writing skills and focus too much on the content, but the fact remains that sometimes, it is not what you say, but how you say things, that make all the difference in how the content is evaluated. Some things need not be said to be understood, and some things simply cannot be described, but experienced. A neglect of rhetoric neglects such apparent non-essentials, and contributes greatly to the general view of non-fiction as boring.

However, the problem may be deeper than that. I sometimes think that non-fiction can become too shallow, however comprehensively in depth it is in the discussion of the topic. The conclusions become obvious, the equations become meaningless, and the arguments, redundant. It points to a problem underlying science itself. Science, with its methodical approach to problems, encourages or even enforces a “one step at a time” mindset towards problems, thereby inadvertently narrowing the scope of the experimenter from the general to the specific. It works, but it worked too well perhaps: the effects can be felt not just in science itself, but also in areas as removed as anthropology and history, contributing greatly to the writing of non-fiction. Non-fiction becomes comprehensive but shallow. It takes quite a bit of effort to get through a non-fiction book without discarding it out of sheer boredom induced by the rigidity of its “step by step” way of leading to the conclusion.

So much for science and non-fiction. Now, time to get back to that fiction book of mine…
21:54
0 Comments | Post/Read comment