Quests at the Speed of Thought

Fundamental errors

2011-08-12T02:54:00.001+08:00

I read E. O. Wilson's "Consilience" yesterday - at first glance, it seems to be an interesting take on the state of knowledge in the world today and how we might get around the fragmented nature of contemporary academia. However, despite the professed confidence of Wilson on his theory of Consilience, there are major, major problems with the theory that one must keep in mind when reading about it. I am especially infuriated by his comment on philosophy, and as a philosophy major, it is my foremost duty to defend my discipline against misguided scientific infringements such as his, and this post is my response, both emotional and intellectual, to his arrogance and naivety.

"Consilience is the key to unification (of knowledge)... literally a 'jumping together' of knowledge by the linking of facts and fact-based theory across disciplines to create a common groundwork of explanation" (8). Clearly, his vision of Consilience and the attempted grand unification of knowledge is based firmly upon science. In his view, the primary purpose of knowledge is explanatory and descriptive. By grounding the knowledge upon the sciences, he hopes that the humanities can benefit equally by attaining a deterministic basis by which one may say "I know". This is in opposition to the current fluxation of humanistic studies - and also for inter-disciplinary studies where his theory of Consilience seems to be most focused upon.

However, according to his own admission, the belief in consilience suffers from the following flaws. It is not yet science; it is a metaphysical world view, shared by only a few scientists and philosophers; it cannot be proved with logic from first principles or grounded in any empirical tests; its best support is an extrapolation of the consistent past successes of natural sciences. Hence, Consilience fails by any scientific or even logical standards.

Philosophers also criticise his theory as "conflation, simplism, ontological reductionism, (and) scientism" (11). These are all fair criticisms, once you look deeply enough into the terminology of the critics. Below, I elaborate on how some of these criticisms may be framed:

Conflation - he intends to use science as a theoretical basis not only for the sciences, but also for philosophy and the humanities. The only reason one may provide is that science has so far proved to be the superior paradigm, and that this should be extended to the rest on the basis of intellectual authority. This is obviously false. The humanities operate on a completely different theoretical basis from the sciences by virtue of their subject matter. Wilson explained Consilience as the linking of various disciplines by the coincidences of Induction, but if so, his vision of unity of knowledge is superficial at best, artificial at worst. Yet, he argues for the disappearance of disciplinary boundaries despite providing no solid, common conceptual basis for linking all knowledge together, aside from Induction.

Simplism - Wilson suffers from the amateur's mistake of oversimplification, and overgeneralisation. Consilience works only if one assumes a common theoretical basis for all knowledge, and that all bodies of knowledge can be compatibly fused with the sciences. Both assumptions are highly doubtful. By simplifying the intellectual difficulties and ignoring the issues involved in the nature of knowledge itself, he is able to provide some examples of Consilience at work - examples that, I must say, are framed specifically for his purposes. For example, on page 9, he provides the example of overlaps in environmental policy, ethics, social science and biology, which he presents as equal and distinct disciplines in themselves. However, the comparisons of these four disciplines only makes sense when the overlap of ethics, social sciences and biology lies directly ON environmental policy, in which case environmental policy is a discipline whose body of knowledge depends on the other three. His example clearly fails in this case.

Scientism - According to Bernard Williams, scientism is the idea that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, indepedent of perspective... science leaves no room for an independent philosophical enterprise". However, that "science describing the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective" leads to "science leaving no room for an independent philosophical enterprise", is not obvious. It is true only if we assume that the aims of an independent philosophical enterprise is to describe the world as it is in itself. While Wilson does not actually say outright that philosophy has become outmoded, he claims that scientists are equally qualified to do what philosophers are doing. This is certainly true insofar as scientists performing armchair philosophy is concerned, but not true in the manner he seems to imply - that philosophy itself will become part of the sciences.

The way he has gone about making his case is not particularly encouraging. The above criticisms have shown that his theory fails by the standards of philosophical debate. Now, instead of even trying to understand his critics, Wilson simply labels them as "a few professional philosophers" sepaking in "their language", and by the use of semantic smokescreen and personal attacks, avoids the issue entirely, saying "let us move on, thus" (11). In other words, knowing the problems his theory faces, he arrogantly charges head on with his flag of scientism, blindly leading his followers down the road of ignorance.

Lastly, Wilson comments that "trust in consilience is the foundation of the natural sciences" (10). Unfortunately for him, Newton did not need to know anything outside of physics and mathematics in creating his three laws of motion. You do not need consilience, or even the attitude of consilience (if that is his intention) to do science. Even today, practicising scientists can be so specialised that some hardly look beyond their individual subject matter. Rather, trust in consilience is the foundation of HIS metaphysical world view of the natural sciences, "shared only by a few scientists and philosophers".

To conclude, Wilson's entire argument is almost completely based on the premise that one should have "trust in consilience", because "intellectually it rings true". One may discover a remarkable coincidence in his argumentative approach with that favoured by religious fundamentalists - in his case, Consilience is his religion, and he is its pastor. He is overconfident and arrogant (which is forgivable), and philosophically naive and childish (which is unforgiveable in an academic of his stature), backed by the seemingly indestructible edifice called the sciences, unperturbedly imposing his vision upon the rest of academia. With that, I beg everyone to read Wilson with extreme caution.

Theoretical art

2011-06-07T00:19:00.000+08:00

“Life,” he said, “life – that’s the great, essential thing. You’ve got to get life into your art, otherwise it’s nothing. And life only comes out of life, out of passion and feeling; it can’t come out of theories. That’s the stupidity of all this about art for art’s sake and the aesthetic emotions and purely formal values and all that. It’s only the formal relations that matter; one subject is just as good as another – that’s the theory. You’ve got to look at the pictures of the people who put it into practice to see that it won’t do. Life comes out of life. You must paint with passion, and the passion will stimulate your intellect to create the right formal relations. And to paint with passion, you must paint things that passionately interest you, moving things, human things. Nobody, except a mystical pantheist, like Van Gogh, can seriously be as much interested in napkins, apples and bottles as in his lover’s face, or the resurrection, or the destiny of man.”

Votes do not matter

2011-04-30T04:26:00.000+08:00

It’s a strange phenomenon to observe that people my age, who were usually apathetic, get so excited over Singapore’s elections this year. Perhaps it is true that election have become more exciting, with much more competition than before between the opposition parties and the incumbent, but this argument ignores the problem that a single vote almost definitely makes little to no difference to the overall results.

Out of the entire population in Singapore, 2,311,582 people are eligible for voting in the 27 constituencies available. That rounds off to maybe 85,600 votes determining the outcome of any one district election. The fact is that the chance of your vote changing the fate of either the PAP or the opposition in that one district is about 0.001%, let alone whether it will ascertain if the PAP loses its status as the incumbent party. The chances of any one vote making a significant difference has about as much probability of anyone winning a lottery. This is sufficient to prove that the vote, on an individual scale, makes no difference at all. (Imagine the situation in, say, India?)

Why then do people vote if their vote has negligible meaning to it? I believe that the act of voting, and people’s rationale for doing so, boils down to two social phenomena. It is both a social ritual and a social delusion by the state.

It seems to me that the vote as a ritual is an affirmation of the coming-to-age, as well as an affirmation of citizenship to the country. The importance of the “coming-of-age” as a social celebration should not be underestimated: people congratulate friends for their twenty-first birthday as though it is uniquely different from other birthdays. Meeting this boundary is supposed to be a major landmark in your life, since it legally allows you to watch R21 shows, as well as to vote. More importantly, this boundary marks the final restriction that separates teenagers from adults, the first being 16 (consensual sex, NC16 shows) and 18 (drinking, driving). The 21st birthday is hence the social age of adulthood, and voting is an affirmation of that status. As to voting as an affirmation of citizenship, perhaps that is true especially in the post-colonial era, when people succeeded in winning independence from the British. For the first time, they were able to vote, to choose the government that are made up of their own people, instead of being led by foreigners. However, it is my opinion that the former has grown significantly in importance as compared to the latter. An affirmation of citizenship is theoretically more plausible an explanation of the vote only when nationalism is the ideological trend in the country. As time goes by and the new generation of citizens takes over who did not have to fight for their citizenship, “affirmation of citizensip” reduces in importance as compared to “affirmation of coming-of-age”. This implies that the collective meaning of the vote changes over time, which this argument has perhaps inductively proved.

It is a necessary condition that a successful democracy must ensure that its population believes that the vote matters, since a democracy in which no one believes in voting will inevitably fails by definition. The state has two powers by which it may ensure votes from the populace: by enforcing the vote by law, and by making full use of rhetoric. The former requires no discussion. However, the latter is a much more interesting issue to discuss. The power of rhetoric is extremely important in swaying votes in any democracy. Witness, for example, Barack Obama’s successful campaigning that led to a landslide victory for his party. For an older example, Pericles of Athens dominated Athenian politics for thirty years by his sheer force of presence, to the point that Athens then was known as Periclean Athens, even though Athens features perhaps the most authentically democratic system in history. Rhetoric is a powerful tool to persuade, to sway their minds to the cause of the rhetorician, either through actions or speech. Even today, in an age when most do not actually hear or see rhetoric in first person, the effect trickles down by hearsay and rumours. Perhaps third parties such as online forums and newspapers and friends contribute by amplifying this trickle-down effect of rhetoric. Ultimately, people vote for the parties they feel they want to vote for, and it is very rarely a rational decision. Moreover, I am of the opinion that people who vote “rationally” actually reason in favour of their prejudiced choices. People who are swayed by the rhetoric of any one party into voting for them implicitly accepts that voting matters, which plays directly into the needs of the state as a whole. All who want to vote are deluded by the state, through rhetoric, into believing that their vote matters. When it has such a high probability that it does not, then this belief is as good as faith.

It seems clear that the only people who do not believe that votes matter are those who are forced to vote by law, and even then, they vote based on what rhetoric they hear of by happenstance. There are no non-prejudiced voters: in the vote, all are forced to take sides, unless one wishes to forfeit the possibility of voting in the future, by not voting at all. However, most people do vote, and very willingly too. I contend that it is a combination of “vote as ritual” and rhetoric that predisposes people towards voting, and subsequently becoming an underlying basis for any possible interest in elections. As an unexamined prejudice, it is then justified post-hoc by the illusion that the individual vote matters.

Disclaimer: The author is providing an explanatory theory, but not a normative theory about voting. The author is not saying that one should not vote, but rather arguing that the voting mentality is based on the illusion that votes are significant. He is part of the Aljunied GRC, and is voting because he is forced to, and because he dislikes PAP and just happens to like a speech of Sylvia Lim’s.

Architecture of ideas

2011-04-14T01:24:00.002+08:00

A system of thought, like a house with brick and mortar, has a foundation and a superstructure. It is the superstructure which attracts more attention, applause or censure. The foundation remains unnoticed. Yet it is the foundation which hides the secret sources of nourishment of the entire structure. This foundation consists of a group of basic concepts and assumptions which the thinker brings into play. The greatness of a thinker lies in the originality and strength of these concepts and assumptions. The mediocre build on nothing new.

- J. N. Mohanty

Irony

2011-04-03T01:15:00.000+08:00

Title: A Celebration of Reason
Speech by Williams, a leading Rationalist intellectual. Year 2324AD.

“We gather here, my dear friends, to celebrate life. Now, before the festivities commence, let us question what life essentially is. Just what we are celebrating here tonight?

“Look at those poor artists, poets, musicians and mystics! ‘Oh, what joy life is! Each day brings so much excitement that it is worth living! Each morning, when one beholds the glory of the rising sun, the sight of it will bring tears to the eyes, the beauty of it does move us so!’ So says the sentimentalists, but we all know what unfortunate, uncertain and fickle creatures they are. If emotions are the sole basis of a worthy life, then life will clearly lack foundation, for emotions change so rapidly! Such is the stupendous illogicality of their enterprise!

“Enough of these emotions! Begone with them! Friends: my fellow scientists, technicians, rationalists, philosophers – we are true humans! Without our reasoned foundations, life has no value, no meaning. Where can there be certainty and constancy without the use of reason? Only in science and mathematics do we see eternal, empirical, and undoubtedly true principles, devoid of the mysticism and illogicality of religion, and the indecisiveness of flighty emotions! This is what life ought to be centred around – truth, and nothing but the truth! Yea, even at the risk of mechanising life, this is what makes it worth living, worth celebrating, and worth enjoying!”

Love

2011-03-14T02:36:00.003+08:00

Love is patient, love is kind.
It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails.

-1 Corinthians 13:4

The end of time

2011-02-11T21:55:00.002+08:00

I think the academicians have got it all wrong. The world today does not suffer from spiritual deprivation, nor from materialism, nor from post-modernism and all the other jargon that have been used, in a desperate and misguidedly intellectual attempt to diagnose the disease of the modern man. It suffers from over-analysis, an overly rational way of attempting to understand a problem that really is very simple. Modern life suffers from the same disease that has inflicted all of mankind since the birth of man. The roots of it is emotional, the cause of it is social, the consequences of it is cruel. It is a disease called loneliness.

It is loneliness that brings people together.

It is loneliness that creates a blossoming of faith, a belief in a heavenly Father that is ever and always by your side, or a more ascetic hope of uniting with the divine.

It is loneliness that drives people towards the sensual life, an experience of a rich exterior world that conceals and deceives themselves about the emotional emptiness beneath.

It is why we make friends

Why we fall in love.

At the end of my life, what I want is not to be famous or to be rich and powerful. It is enough to be understood.

Heaven and hell

2010-12-28T16:11:00.000+08:00

The basic axiom that governs the conception of heaven and hell, regardless of religion, can be boiled down to the idea that justice must be balanced. That is, for every act of evil or immorality, there must exist an act of punishment to countermand this act of evil, thereby negating it and hence creating a balance in the scales of justice. This idea is implemented earthly within the system of judiciary of the country, where every act is against the law is punished by the law. If such a balance of justice is achieved, we may call the system to be “fair”, for everyone receives their moral desert without favour. Here, I shall just elaborate on my thoughts regarding this conception of justice and how is may be philosophically justified in support of heaven and hell.

In all conceptions of heaven and hell, men who act immorally are eventually penalised for such acts. In the following examples, I will show, based on my understanding of them, how the different Abrahamic religions conceive of justice, so please correct me if I am mistaken. Judaism hell punishes according to infringement of the divine law, manifested in the Ten Commandments; Christianity punishes based on a criterion of belief in God and Christ, in which believers are sent to heaven and non-believers are sent to hell, where they suffer in degrees according to their earthly acts; Islam punishes based on the accumulated acts of evil, where believers may enjoy leniency in their punishment. Heaven and hell is not universal. In Indian religions like Jainism and Buddhism, the idea of karma detracts to quite a large extent from these Abrahamic conceptions, since karma is based on a conception of mortal life itself as suffering. To attain salvation, one must transcend earthly life, which can be generally done either by accumulating good karma (Buddhism), destroying all karma (Jainism), or breaking through the Maya of reality (Vedic). Hence, ideas regarding heaven and hell is more pertinent towards Abrahamic religions, though they are obviously not exclusive to these religions. As can be seen from the summary above, the common thread running through them all is the idea of balancing justice.

“Justice must be balanced” is a terribly loaded statement that demands to be inspected. There are two main issues within this concept itself: firstly, why should justice be balanced? and secondly, by what standards is justice to be balanced? The second question is more easily answered, and it is to that which I shall turn to first.

The balance of justice is something impossible to achieve by human means. What standards can you possibly use to determine if a punishment is deserved by a man? Legal systems necessarily fail because they are unable to objectively judge desert, not for the lack of effort to do so, but because of the very human problem of the lack of information, and the human inability to make perfect judgments. Perfect desert cannot be attained by human means, so it can only be attained by divine means. For divinity to achieve this balance of justice, God must necessarily be omniscient and omnipotent. Without these attributes, He will be lacking the requisite information, or lacking the requisite ability of judgment by which fairness may be attained. Only by postulating such a conception of God can there be established a consistent moral standard by which everyone can be evaluated on an equal and fair basis.

The next question, admittedly the tougher of the two, asks: why should justice be balanced? Indeed, the Indian religions, as I have summarised above, do not demand justice to be balanced, or at least not directly. For them, the earthly life seems very much akin to hell, and the only way to achieve salvation is through individualistc pursuits to transcend such a life. For such religions, they do not require justice to be served against practitioners of evil. Should he pursue this path, evil immerses the sinner deeper into the earthly life of suffering. This amounts to an indirect side-effect that can prevent him from achieving salvation within his lifetime, and is hence indirectly equivalent to punishment and a form of judiciary fairness, but this is a conception based entirely upon the intuitive proposition that “earthly life consists of suffering”. In Abrahamic religions, however, sins are directly punishable by suffering in hell, and such punishment demands a direct act of judgment by an agent, which is God. However, in addressing the question directly, it seems to me that there is no imperative that justice need be balanced at all. It is not axiomatic, that is, it is not a fundamentally intuitive moral proposition that such fairness must be the way the world works. The only reason why I can conceive that such a proposition must be made is drawn from the nature of God, namely, that God is good. If God is good, then He ought to have constructed the world such that evil is punished, and the good is rewarded, such that morality is actively rewarded. However, this begs the question of the very existence of evil itself, though that is a separate issue altogether.

Hence, it seems to me that the conception of heaven and hell are logically consequential only from the Abrahamic conception of God, and are otherwise non-intuitive ideas. It also seems to me that Western law derives their legal basis of state punishment directly from this transcendental idea of divine reward and punishment, historically personified in the divine right of kings. There have been identified differences in Western and Eastern conceptions of law and morality: westerners tend to see right and wrong as objectively determinable, while the east tend towards values inherent in persons as the primary distinction of moral actions. I believe I can claim with some validity that divine punishment of Abrahamic religions have a large part to play in this western conception, and this also shows that the very idea of objective morality are very likely non-universal constructs that can only be supported given that the Abrahamic God exists.

NUS and philosophy

2010-08-09T01:52:00.000+08:00

I find it extraordinary that while the philosophy department of NUS offers modules that touches upon just about every single subject ever taught in the university, that none of these modules are considered part of the major requirement of said subjects.

For example:
PH2218 Business and Ethics (God knows that all businessmen ought to have more of the latter. SMU, for instance, has a small module on ethics that is part of their requirement, but it’s pretty much corporate lip service towards ethical conduct of business)
PH2220 Social Philosophy and Policy (Why is this not part of Sociology’s curriculum?)
PH2221 Medical Ethics (For obvious reasons)
PH2223 Introduction to Philosophy of Technology (For computing students)
PH3202 Philosophy of Law (Now, Law School has something called Introduction to Legal Theory, but it feels like they are simply paying lip service to legal philosophy as a whole)
PH3220 Philosophy of Culture (Essential for anthropologists, sociologists, political scientists, historians; just about every humanity subject is related to the subject of culture)
PH4201 Philosophy of Science (For obvious reasons)

It is remarkable that the philosophy department is as overlooked as it is. Certainly it is not necessary to know the philosophy behind the subject you are learning, what I can’t understand is why none of these modules are cross-listed as part of the modules endorsed by, say, med school for Medical Ethics? In fact, cultural studies are such a crucial part of humanities that it is remarkable that Philosophy of Culture is just a philosophy module, nothing more. Does this mean that the entirety of NUS has just ignored the philosophy department as a source of useful pedagogy that may potentially have enriched the learning of their students by far? That seems pretty much the case.

Is philosophy useful insofar as learning is concerned? Do scientists, for example, need to know the philosophy of science to graduate, and proceed to scientific stardom? I know for sure that the first time I had ever heard of Occam’s Razor was at KI class, and never at Physics; I am certainly confident that there exists students who have never heard of that concept even at graduation. Occam’s Razor is the basic of basics within the philosophy of science, and conceptual awareness of how science works (or how it ought to work) is definitely something that is crucial to a scientific education, but this appears to be assumed knowledge.

Similarly, humanities students do not need to know the philosophy of culture to study their subject, but an inevitable encounter with the problem of culture will reveal just how truly lacking their understanding of this abstract concept is. Sometimes, it is much simpler not to have to re-invent the wheel, and the curricula are not helping by their exclusion of the module.

Perhaps what is most useful about philosophy today is the value theory, and the age-old debates raging back and forth concerning ethics. However, subject specific philosophy is still a potent force that cannot be ignored because education will be poorer for the lack of understanding about the basic nature of the subject of study. There is a need to integrate philosophy into modern pedagogy, especially at universities where students are more active in dissecting ideas. Let the change happen soon.

Euthanasia

2010-07-15T09:16:00.001+08:00

The issue of euthanasia is one of the most controversial in the world, but I personally think that it is really quite simple.

Euthanasia is about freedom of choice. It is about unnecessarily prolonging life, causing pain and suffering to the patient. If the patient wishes to die, as long as the wish is justified by his suffering of a terminal and excruciating disease, it ought to be ok for him to undergo euthanasia.

Euthanasia is also about economics. In many countries, brain dead patients are taken as patients who are unable to express their opinions, and hence, euthanasia is not to be conducted. Who then foots the bill? They have life support and hospital care, so a brain dead patient can be very costly indeed, to the detriment of the family or the taxpayers. Are brain dead patients ever going to recover from their state? Once they are declared brain dead, they are as good as an empty shell, nothing more. Is it then meaningful for their lives to be prolonged artificially? I think not.

How is the use of euthanasia unethical? Doctors administering the procedure can be condemned as having “killed” someone, but as far as I am concerned, that is largely a religious and dogmatic argument that is out of step for the demands of modern times. Euthanasia can be abused, no doubt, but euthanasia can also do great good for patients, or for a patient’s family. In any case, there is such a thing as suicide tourism: the banning of euthanasia is pointless when anyone who wants to die can simply travel to Ireland, Cambodia and Switzerland for “assisted suicide”.

Nevertheless, euthanasia should only be used when the patient is as good as dead, or when the patient expressed a wish to die while suffering a terminal and painful disease. As long as these guidelines for euthanasia are adhered to, I don’t see why it should be opposed.

Death's door

2010-05-11T23:19:00.001+08:00

I have been told far too often that I think very far ahead in terms of time, but this is done with good reason. How I think, how I conduct myself, how I make my choices, all these boil down to very simple yet poignant sentiments that I maintain as convictions.

The image that burns most deeply in my inner imaginations is the image of my gravestone. I always wonder what people will say in memorandum, or what will be written on the grave as a flourishing touch upon my life? Will I want them to talk about me as an upholder of justice, being a good father, a good son, a freedom fighter, a hero, a devil? The gravestone is the ultimate tabula rasa of the teenager; at an age where one thinks that he knows almost all there is to know, the only thing he cannot know regards the life he is now living: is this the life he wants to have lived? The inner conflict within is one that all teenagers face eventually when we come across choices, especially those choices that make a key impact, when all life has thus far remained a sheltered oasis for nurturing inner development.

Faced with a bewildering array of choices, it is with trepidation that we carefully select amongst the limited range which we see relevant for ourselves. For example, Junior college versus Polytechnic, which university courses to pick, which university to attend, local or overseas, these are some of the major decisions that Singaporeans at our age face. Our choices eventually are limited by several factors: circumstances (in this case, financial resources, results and records), convictions, and contemporary trends. Can anyone say for sure if the path picked will turn out more successful than the rest? For instance, will an MIT undergraduate claim with near certainty that he will succeed compared to someone who “merely” entered NUS? To answer this, we must look into individual definitions of success, as well as what society deems as success, since what society thinks usually affects our individual convictions far more than we will like to admit.

Success is a strange concept. It is too vague to define, yet it is concrete enough to visualise, so it is easy to set off after the spectre of success and find mirages at your destination. However, I do think that success depends very much on the imaginations of the individual. The aspirations, the dreams, the hopes and the drives; these are indicators as to what the individual conceives as success, and today, society agrees. Through the mass media, society has welcomed dreams with open arms, revealing the ecstasy and joy that one might indulge in with the luck and corresponding hard work, but way too often, the media also inspires these high hopes and smash them to pieces without so much of an afterthought. Such is society, within which the individual is little more than a cog in the machinery, or more accurately perhaps, a water molecule in a raging river. One may drown or one may break out into the bright sunlight, depending on the whims of the mighty river.

The vagueness of success and the flood of choices turn people off. They don’t know what they want, so they turn to external assistance to assist in re-defining their own definitions of success, and to give them purpose in life. These “externalities” are the major religions of the world. But this, in any case, is my own theory on why teenagers are so prone to religious conversions.

However, success depends less on individual aspirations of the current moment than it does on individual aspirations of an entire lifetime. A martyr gives away his life willingly, but certainly not ignorantly, because he knows what he wants to achieve with his life, which may only be attained through his own death. This is the very pinnacle of sublime self-sacrifice, the very epitome of heroism. For this reason, we cannot dismiss the rage of the Jihadists in Iraq offhand, as this very same act scrubs Joan of Arc out of the annals of history, Jesus from the churches, Gandhi and his civilly disobedient followers, the countless soldiers of modern war who died for comradeship, or past revolutionaries who march into acute danger, guided only by lofty and abstract principles. There are things worth dying for, as much as there are things not worth dying for. The difference between suicide and martyrdom is simply that one escapes from having to choose, while the other chooses and dies for his choice. The former is indelibly a failure; the latter is irrevocably sublime, the convergence of a lifetime worth of aspirations into the heroic victory of the moment, at the price of the worldly self.

Fortunately, there are very much less people looking at martyrdom than people looking at a peaceful death. The definitions of success changes very little both ways; it is still dependant on the aspiration of the lifetime, and I see the gravestone as the starting point for determining exactly how I define success. Hence do I look at death’s door, in order to set my foot upon the threshold of life; what I want is seen through the lens of who I want to be at my death. The image is so searing that it fuses itself into my mind’s eye and my subsequent choices revolves around this image as my final destination. It remains somewhat vague; there are a few images that I want, and greedily, I’m setting out to grab them all, or at least, until a few becomes less feasible than before.

The grave’s image reflects clearly what I believe in, and what my priorities are. There is nothing about family, nothing about wealth, nothing about worldly success. The most romantic image I have is of a wanderer who never settled (heh), but the more poignant one is about being an idealist, and never backing down from these ideals. Perhaps this image will evolve as new elements enter my life.

Having thought as far as my grave, thinking five to ten years into my future is not so difficult, given the availability of information to determine the likely route I will be taking. With the increase of time considered, many more choices come into play, some trivial, some life-changing. Thinking hard and thoroughly about the potential choices years and years in advance will certainly rescue anyone from a sticky situation of having to make a hasty decision, especially if it happens to be a major decision. I have had to plan the next several years of my life several times as things don’t happen as I expected, but this is part of the fun, together with a measure of security as you try to put things into perspective, to see if the plans still fit what you really want. While there is a danger of “over-planning”, with so many smaller decisions that has to be made daily, life remains as unpredictable as ever, and I doubt that there is such a thing as being overly cautious when planning out the next decade, with an eye fixed on death’s door.

I sometimes lament that very few are curious about figuring out what they want years in the future. For many people, the considerations and trivialities of the present are sufficient to hold their attention, while the goal of understanding themselves better takes the backburner. Such people are driven far more easily by society and its undercurrents and overlying trends. Just see how popular Business School is; ask potential Business School undergraduates about why they chose what they chose, and the likely answer is that they want flexibility, and they want to be pragmatic. If you were pragmatic, you will pick Science or Engineering or Computing for its technical skills, so that at the worst case scenario, there are always technical jobs to fall back on; as for flexibility, business degrees are too general, for instance, I can always get into business by studying Physics, on top of physics related jobs, but not the other way round. My opinion is some people use “flexibility” as an excuse to say that they really don’t know what they want, so they want to keep their options open until circumstances present them something they think they want. I’ve indeed met some that probably fit the above.

The image of the funeral is very moving. The image of a funeral of someone whom you can associate with is deeply disturbing. The image of a funeral of someone whom you love is painful. In all three cases, we see the ending of a life, the final strokes of the fading will of a man who once walked the earth. He shall walk the earth no more. With it goes the memories, the ideals, the triumphs and defeats, the life lived and the life not yet lived. It rocks the quiet inner world when we see in the gravestone a reflection of what our own lives may yet be, and as we reflect on the brevity of humankind, we wonder: is what is written on the grave really what the occupant wanted for himself? Perhaps, perhaps not.

Sublimity

2010-04-28T23:37:00.003+08:00

The speech of the dying is sublime. I read Les Miserables and chanced upon the dying speech of the old revolutionary, I found the spirit of the speech, if not the substance, remarkably parallel to that of Wilfred Owen's Strange Meeting.

One speaks of triumphs and noble pursuits, the other of regrets and resignation. Yet they are one and the same, with the profound similitude of people at the end of their lives. It is not without emotion that I contemplate and empathise with both the life lived fully, and the life ended early, but both of whose lives were nevertheless insufficient, one persecuted for the life he offered to the country, the other dead for the service rendered to his. How may we die, unregretful, fulfilled? This is always a question that remains in the foremost of my thoughts when I think of life, and it is undoubtedly the foremost question that each and everyone of us must confront, for the answer we offer in reply will inevitably be the blueprint of the road we are building for ourselves en route to judgement day.

-----

'My lord bishop, I have passed my life in meditation, study, and contemplation. I was sixty when my country summoned me to take part in her affairs. I obeyed the summons.

'There were abuses and I fought against them, tyrannies and I destroyed them, rights and principles and I asserted them. Our country was invaded and I defended it; France was threatened and I offered her my life. I was never rich; now I am poor. I was among the masters of the State, and the Treasury vaults were so filled with wealth that we had to buttress the walls lest they collapse under the weight of gold and silver; but I dined in Poverty Street at twenty-two sous a head. I succoured the oppressed and consoled the suffering... I have done my duty, and what good I could, so far as was in my power. And I have been hounded and persecuted, mocked and defamed, cursed and proscribed. I have long known that many people believe they have the right to despise me, and that for the ignorant crowd I wear the face of the damned. I have acceped the isolation of hatred, hating no one. Now at the age of eighty-six, I am on the point of death. What do you ask of me?'

'Your blessing,' said the bishop, and fell onto his knees.

-Victor Hugo, Les Miserables

-----

'Strange friend,' I said, 'here is no cause to mourn.'
'None,' said that other, 'save the undone years,
The hopelessness. Whatever hope is yours,
Was my life also; I went hunting wild
After the wildest beauty in the world,
Which lies not calm in eyes, or braided hair,
But mocks the steady running of the hour,
And if it grieves, grieves richlier than here.
For by my glee might many men have laughed,
And of my weeping something had been left,
Which must die now. I mean the truth untold,
The pity of war, the pity war distilled.
Now men will go content with what we spoiled,
Or, discontent, boil bloody, and be spilled.
They will be swift with swiftness of the tigress.
None will break ranks, though nations trek from progress.
Courage was mine, and I had mystery,
Wisdom was mine, and I had mastery:
To miss the march of this retreating world
Into vain citadels that are not walled.
Then, when much blood had clogged their chariot-wheels,
I would go up and wash them from sweet wells,
Even with truths that be too deep for taint.
I would have poured my spirit without stint
But not through wounds; not on the cess of war.
Foreheads of men have bled where no wounds were.'

-Wilfred Owen, Strange Meeting

Plato's Apology

2010-02-10T22:04:00.003+08:00

Plato’s Apology is perhaps the most accurate depiction of Socrates and his conduct in the ancient Grecian world. It is not intellectually taxing to read (unlike other manuscripts by Plato), and it contains therein the speech by Socrates at his trial, his ideology, his motivations, and an abstract biography of his long and driven life. The drama scenes we often see today depicting “one man against the world” heroism is already a pervading impression in this ancient text, with clear values of honour, virtue and wisdom personified within the protagonist. It is indeed a powerful text whose words rightly belong in the pinnacle of great literature and ancient philosophy.

Socrates’ Life

Socrates lives largely in poverty for much of his life, but in Apology, he related that he used to hold a public station as a senator of the Antiochis tribe, even presiding over the trial of the six generals who were executed in the aftermath of the battle of Arginusae. He was an idealist who believed in righteousness and virtue, and at that trial which he presided, he refused to allow the vote to pass due to the unconstitutional nature of the trial, in spite of threats of impeachment and arrest by fellow politicians. He also related an incident during the reign of the oligarchy of the Thirty, where he and four others were asked to bring Leon of Salaminian to be put to death. He slipped away, and escaped death only because the Thirty lost their powers shortly afterwards. He also mentioned that he was a soldier at Potidaea, Amphipolis and Delium, which perhaps occurred in his youth.

Apology contains its fair share of Gods and elements of Grecian mythology, but Plato relates only to one divine being in his retelling of the trial. At the beginning of the text, Socrates started off by describing to the Athenian jury the circumstances which gave rise to his evil reputation. Chaerephon, his brother, and Socrates went to Delphi and asked the oracle if “any one was wiser than (Socrates) was, and the Pythian prophetess answered, that there was no man wiser”. In an attempt to refute the God, Socrates then went to people who have the reputation of wisdom. Firstly, he examined the politicians, and concluded that they knew nothing, and think that they knew, whereas he himself neither know nor think that he knows. In the course of his examinations, he made enemies of the victim and the victim’s associates.

After that, he went next to the poets, and “knew that not by wisdom do poets write poetry, but by a sort of genius and inspiration; they are like diviners or soothsayers who also say many fine things, but do not understand the meaning of them”. He thus made enemies of the poets, observing that “upon the strength of their poetry they believed themselves to be the wisest of men in other things in which they were not wise”. Lastly, he went to the artisans, and unfortunately, also made enemies of this last group. Socrates concluded that their errors are similar to the poets’, who “because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters”. By this time, he has made enemies of people whom society viewed to be the wisest of men, and it is the representatives of these groups whom he later faced in the trial set in Apology, where he later lost his life. He lost by 30 votes in a jury made up of hundreds of Athenian citizens, despite his powerful speeches and obvious victory over the prosecution.

Socrates’ ideology

The quest he embarked upon formed the foundation of much of his later philosophy, and the nature of the quest established the Socratic method of debate via dialectics. It is through this quest that he realised “that God only is wise, and by his answer he intends to show that the wisdom of men is worth little or nothing”. Socrates truly believed that it was a holy mission to teach the world that all men are not wise as a “duty … imposed upon me by God”, that all they know is that they know nothing. In the later section of his plea, he claimed that “you may not sin against the God by condemning me, who am his gift to you”, and that “no greater good has ever happened in the state than my service to the God”. Somehow, this strikes me as either egoism or a prophetic complex akin to that of Jesus Christ or John the Baptist.

Socrates and Jesus share many similarities: both were both widely hated by the powerful; both teached in contrast to contemporary thought; both were poor but strongly idealistic, with circles of followers who later became wildly influential; both were eventually executed by their enemies despite their wide following. Socrates indeed conducted himself in a manner no less expected of a missionary: he spoke somewhat arrogantly while professing to be humble; he believed in his own righteousness and, more importantly, believed that he represented truth, even in the face of death.

In fact, he detailed the thought processes that led to the confidence that he was indeed carrying out the work of God by his work on cross-examination. Upon the realisation that men are not wise, he claimed that the oracle pointed himself out as the wisest as a form of illustration that “he is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing”. Socrates thus went around the world to vindicate the oracle by showing everyone how they are not wise through cross-examination, which was his idea of serving the God. He looked upon the act of vindicating the oracle as his duty. Socrates lived in poverty, accepting no coin for his teachings to others, and was eventually tried and executed by the enemies he made over the course of his “duty to God”.

In Apology, Socrates also elaborated on his ideas of death. In Grecian mythology (or at least, according to Socrates), there is apparently no conclusive indicator of the presence of an afterlife. He had repeatedly shown his utter lack of fear of death several times in the past, and in the trial, he said that a man who fears death suffers from a pretence of wisdom. Death is unknown; to fear death is to look upon death as evil rather than good, and thusly, to assume that death is something it may be not. Towards the end, he expounded further by saying that death can be either a state of nothingness or a true afterlife, which is a remarkably modern idea for his time.

As mentioned earlier in the brief biography, Socrates is an idealist who believes in righteousness. One of his teachings in Apology, in connection to his idea of death, is that the consideration of right and wrong takes precedence over considerations of living and dying. He also claimed to teach that “virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man”, that first and foremost amongst his teachings is to prioritise the improvement of the soul. Do note here that “virtue” can be better translated as “excellence”, in which the above quote makes much better sense than mere “values”.

Conclusion

Plato’s Apology can be read as a historical piece or as a philosophical piece; either way, they provide powerful insights into the workings of the Athenian society. Reading Apology puts all other dialogues into perspective: I had attempted reading Charmides and Theaetetus in the past, but it was quite slow going. One must understand the ideology of the protagonist or risk delving blinded into other dialogues of Plato, as the main character is, always, unmistakably, Socrates. However, the most noteworthy point I noticed was the tendency towards prophesying, in spite of the strength of his reasoning. What it does reflect is that even at the height of Greek intellect, religion played such a vital role in society that to be an atheist is actually a crime (which Socrates is alleged to be). Whether Socrates really did debate for a holy purpose, or out of a more worldly sense of duty, is an issue that remains to be speculated.

A bridge too far

2010-01-25T20:30:00.000+08:00

At which point do you accept that, after banging your head on the wall called "the Law", that nothing you do will bring you any further? That you have no choice but to accept that either you pursue what you believe to be justice, with potentially greater backlash, or to accept THEIR justice, and suffer the humiliation?

Exactly what is justice? Does the law fulfill its purpose in bringing justice to everyone? The law is ultimately a human invention, a tool to govern society. Ideally it ought to be just in its trials, fair to the public, but in practice, this is often not the case. Lawyers, if they are cunning enough, can argue their way out of just about anything by pulling all the strings of the law as they know how to. It is justice that the way society works today demands money, and that money can, and usually is, a major factor in who wins or loses? I don’t think so.

I am frustrated and angry that the law is ultimately so constrained by its pragmatic constraints that its founding ideals can be lost so easily. The law works insofar as it seeks to impose order on the society, but as far as I am aware, order is as far as it goes. The system remains a system within which people work, constrained by the bindings, but carrying on nevertheless because they cannot envisage anything better. It is a system that is not righteous, not necessarily ethical, but it does its job most of the time and people deem that “it works”. It is a system created by humans for humans, and suffers from its very human nature of its founding.

It is in many aspects a human failing, when we deeply examine what fails in the law. Judges claim to be impartial and fair; knowledgeable they indeed are, but humans judge at first appearances, which can go a long way towards determining the outcome of the conflict. Lawyers twist the law to their own means, and while the law is meant to minimise this problem, ethical considerations in their profession is often nil. Law practitioners are funny people. They sit there, munching on their ham and cheese sandwiches and consuming cups of coffee, and their primary job is to analyse. Reading a man’s “profile”, the jury is expected to peer into the depths of the character in question and see him for exactly who he is. The judges can potentially hold the power of life and death in their hands, never understanding the nature and potential of the person they have in their grasp before passing sentence, perhaps for a massacre, perhaps for a mistake.

Just who do you think you are, to judge others and conclude “thou art good” or “thou art evil”? Art thou God?

Snow and ice

2009-11-18T22:50:00.000+08:00

I sometimes feel as though my dream travel destination reflects my ideal mental landscape. Someone once wrote that traveling is an act of fulfilling a long held fantasy; how true is that?

My ideal landscape consists of sparse snow and an abundance of rocks stretching out desolately as far as the eye can see, bordered by a cloudless blue sky above. Would be psychologists, do take some time to interpret my mental state.

Environmentalism issues

2009-11-18T22:11:00.000+08:00

When it comes to environmentalism, statistics are extremely telling about how the state of the world will be like a couple of centuries into the future.

In 2006, USA consumed about 12,924 kWh per capita, with a total population of 299 million people. In the same year, China did in 2,179 kWh per capita, and they had a population of 1,312 million people then. Therefore, for China to increase their energy output to the equivalent of USA consumption per capita, they will need to generate 4.39 times the energy of USA, and this means increasing their current energy output by 5.93 times current generation.

In the same year, India, with a population of 1,110 million people, consumed 466 kWh per capita. Assuming if they will be similarly ‘modernised’, they will have to generate 27.7 times the amount of energy they are currently consuming, which is 3.71 times USA energy output.

This is not even taking into account the development of Africa and Southeast Asia infrastructures, as well as the inevitable 2 to 4 % increase every five years in emissions (in other words, in energy consumption) for almost all developed countries including the USA and EU. Looking at things this way, it is hard to see how we might actually survive to witness the onset of the third millennium, should the global warming theorem actually be correct.

At the current rate of consumptions (and rate of increase in consumptions), we will run out of gasoline in maybe 2 centuries, coal in 3 centuries, uranium in 3 and natural gas in about 5 centuries or so. When that time comes, it doesn’t matter how good our technology is; everything will shut down. There is no fuel discovered yet, synthetic or natural, that remotely equals the energy density and inexpensiveness of fossil fuels.

Solar energy is currently too expensive: there is no way to mass produce solar cells, so essentially it is like purchasing home-made clothing versus factory produce. Moreover, without a way to store solar generated electricity, much of the electricity will be wasted in the day time and none will be produced at night, when it is more likely needed. Today, despite the growing popularity of solar power in the West, it makes up only 1% of the US energy market, simply because fossil fuel usage increases far more rapidly.

Nuclear power is the best alternative to fossil fuel, and even though uranium is scheduled to run out in 300 years’ time, there are alternatives to using uranium isotopes, such as strontium. Nuclear generates no carbon and is clean, and it can produce high levels of electricity on a regular basis for prolonged periods of time. The problem comes with warfare: targeting of nuclear installations make for extremely destructive results, often to the detriment of the countryside and its rural inhabitants. There is also a powerful negative sentiment against nuclear fuel, propagated by fears of the nuclear bomb, so politically it will be hard to move opinions towards the uptake of nuclear energy.

When oil finally goes, our computer servers will go down with it, and down goes much of the internet. Vehicles will be restricted to rich people; the rest will go either on foot, bicycles, or slow moving public transportation. Oil will indeed be kept in reserve, but only for military purposes so that when the time comes, it will be a tactical and strategic trump card for victory. Not forgetting trade, air flight will be completely decimated as an industry, and ships will return to the age of sail and wind. It is a powerfully primitive, yet powerfully futuristic and fantasy-like setting, perfect for a potential sci-fi story. This is, assuming, that no one has yet found a fuel source sufficiently powerful and abundant enough to replace fossil fuels, and that we all have not yet died from the effects of global warming.

Finally, global warming: I wonder if global warming is really real, or is it mostly just rhetoric? We read so much about global warming in the newspapers, that excessive electricity usage will one day come back to poke us in the arse, that trees are essential to our survival but forests continue going down… We are being indoctrinated by the media and the governments into taking global warming as a cornerstone of our scientific “truths”, which is, at the very least, being abused politically as a tool to induce fear. I have yet to see a scientific proof of global warming, but I can think of an experiment that can prove it, if only someone were willing to execute it:

In the past, Kristian Birkeland used a magnetised anode globe called terrella and directed cathode rays at it in an attempt to create a theory on how the Northern Lights work. The terrella can today be used in a spherical vacuum within which different gas concentrations can be pumped; infra-red radiation can be directed at the terrella in a controlled environment to test the heat trapping capabilities of the gases. This can provide a platform in which one can measure just how significant the increase in carbon dioxide is in trapping heat from the sun, or if methane is the culprit, along with a whole lot of other gases involved.

The best experiment that I have found thus far simply uses a measure of pure carbon dioxide versus normal air, with both containers placed under lamps. Obviously, pure carbon dioxide shows a marked increase in temperature, but only of four degrees! Can today’s carbon levels alone account for global warming? I think not.

There are currently experiments that claim that variances in the level of cosmic ray emissions from the sun are the reason for global warming and for the ice ages of the past. This path seems more promising especially since the sun, as the sole energy source in the solar system, is the most likely cause of temperature changes on earth. This hypothesis can also be tested by simply placing the terrella sphere in a vacuum box, filling the terrella sphere with air, and bombarding it with protons.

Personally, I believe that global warming rhetoric on saving electricity is pretty much pointless: economics provide a much more powerful psychological factor than the fear of some apocalyptic future that no one will ever live to see. I have no qualms leaving my computer sitting idle for hours, downloading stuff, and wasting power. To all those green wannabes out there, you got to prove global warming to me first, and find scientists confident enough to claim that global warming is 100% true (as opposed to 90% today). Moreover, scientists in general have been proven to be wrong in the past: remember the ether theory? Feed them the wrong paradigms, and you naturally get stunted results that can only be painfully and forcibly interpreted as a partial proof of hypotheses.

The coming end of the oil era is likely to create much more turmoil and worries than does the onset of global warming, simply because oil plays too big a part of our lives. Oil is also proven to be limited as a resource. How civilisation reacts to the coming oil crisis in 200 years’ time will perhaps be the most interesting spectacle for the next millennium or so.

Optimism

2009-10-19T20:59:00.002+08:00

When we are on top, we can only look down.
When we are at the bottom, we can only look up.

Looking up is the source of aspiration,
of dreams and goals and hopes.

It is the source of life.

Think again, if you think you are on top.
The ceiling's much higher than you think.

Do you hear the people sing?

2009-10-13T19:59:00.006+08:00

This is why I hate Singapore. Farcical civil liberties and an extraordinary volume of laws combine to produce an oppressed country that only looks open and free on the outside. We sometimes even get to delude ourselves into thinking that Singapore is a free country.

The below report is courtesy of Freedom House, http://www.freedomhouse.org/. Open thy eyes!

Freedom in the World - Singapore (2009)

Political Rights Score: 5*
Civil Liberties Score: 4*
Status: Partly Free

Trend Arrow
Singapore received a downward trend arrow due to the politically motivated handling of defamation cases, which cast doubt on judicial independence.

Overview
As part of a broader legal crackdown on government critics in 2008, opposition politician Chee Soon Juan was ordered to pay roughly US$400,000 in defamation damages to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew. Another vocal critic of the government, Gopalan Nair, received a three-month jail sentence for insulting two judges on his blog.

Singapore was established as a British trading center in 1819 and became a separate British colony. It obtained home rule in 1959, entered the Malaysian Federation in 1963, and gained full independence in 1965. Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) transformed the port city into a regional financial center and exporter of high-technology goods but restricted individual freedoms and stunted political development in the process.

Lee transferred the premiership to Goh Chok Tong in 1990 but stayed on as “senior minister,” and the PAP retained its dominance. The party captured 82 of Parliament’s 84 seats in the 2001 elections, with opposition parties contesting only 29 seats. Lee’s son, Lee Hsien Loong, became prime minister in August 2004; the elder Lee assumed the title of “minister mentor.” In September 2005, President Sellapan Ramanathan began a second term as the largely ceremonial head of state.

Despite his expressed desire for a “more open society,” Lee Hsien Loong did little to change the authoritarian political climate. He called elections in May 2006, a year early, to secure a mandate for his economic reform agenda. With a nine-day campaign period and defamation lawsuits hampering opposition candidates, the polls resembled past elections in serving more as a referendum on the prime minister’s popularity than as an actual contest for power. The PAP retained its 82 seats with 66 percent of the vote, although the opposition contested a greater number of seats and secured a larger percentage of the vote than in previous years; the opposition Workers’ Party and Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) each won a single seat despite receiving 16.3 percent and 13 percent of the vote, respectively.

In 2007 and 2008, Lee continued to pursue his economic agenda while using the legal system and other tools to keep the opposition in check. The government also maintained that racial sensitivities and the threat of Islamist terrorism justified draconian restrictions on freedoms of speech and assembly. Such rules were repeatedly used to silence criticism of the authorities.

In September 2007, Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) leader Chee Soon Juan was convicted for trying to travel to a 2006 World Movement for Democracy conference without a permit. He stood trial again in October 2008, marking his eighth trial since 1992, this time for defamation and allegedly participating in an illegal gathering. Chee, a lawyer by training, represented himself due to the absence of lawyers willing to take his case. The High Court subsequently ordered Chee, his sister, and his political party to pay S$610,000 (US$420,000) in defamation damages to the prime minister and his father. The ruling appeared likely to force the SDP into bankruptcy. Chee had already been forced into bankruptcy in 2006 by a US$300,000 ruling against him for defaming former prime ministers Goh and Lee.

Separately, longtime opposition politician J. B. Jeyaretnam died in September. He had been disqualified from Parliament in 2001 after being ordered to pay libel damages for criticizing PAP officials and had refused to pay until June 2007. He had subsequently initiated plans to form a new Democratic Reform Party.

Political Rights and Civil Liberties
Singapore is not an electoral democracy. The country is governed through a parliamentary system, and elections are free from irregularities and vote rigging, but the ruling PAP dominates the political process. The prime minister retains control over the Elections Department, and the country lacks a structurally independent election authority. Opposition campaigns are hamstrung by a ban on political films and television programs, the threat of libel suits, strict regulations on political associations, and the PAP’s influence on the media and the courts.

The largely ceremonial president is elected by popular vote for six-year terms, and a special committee is empowered to vet candidates. The prime minister and cabinet are appointed by the president. Singapore has had only three prime ministers since it gained independence in 1965. Of the unicameral legislature’s 84 members, 9 are elected from single-member constituencies, while 75 are elected in Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs), a mechanism intended to foster minority representation. The winner-take-all nature of the system, however, limits the extent to which GRCs actually facilitate minority representation and, in effect, helps perpetuate the return of incumbents. Up to nine additional, nonpartisan members can be appointed by the president, and up to three members can be appointed to ensure a minimum of opposition representation.

Singapore has traditionally been lauded for its relative lack of corruption. There is no special legislation facilitating access to information, however, and management of state funds came under question for the first time in 2007. Critics lamented the state’s secret investment of national reserves, and investigations into the state investment arm, Temasek Holdings, were launched by Indonesian and Thai watchdog agencies. Singapore was ranked 4 out of 180 countries surveyed in Transparency International’s 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index.

Singapore’s media market remains tightly constrained. All newspapers, radio stations, and television channels are owned by government-linked companies. Although editorials and news coverage generally support state policies, newspapers occasionally publish critical pieces. Self-censorship is common among journalists as a result of PAP pressure. The Sedition Act, in effect since the colonial period, outlaws seditious speech, the distribution of seditious materials, and acts with “seditious tendency.” Media including videos, music, and books are sometimes censored, typically for sex, violence, or drug references.

Foreign broadcasters and periodicals can be restricted for engaging in domestic politics, and new regulations in 2006 required all foreign publications to appoint legal representatives and provide significant financial deposits. Still facing civil defamation claims for the July 2006 article that presumably prompted the new regulations, the Far Eastern Economic Review lost an appeal in February 2007. In June of that year, the Singapore High Court rejected the magazine’s application for a Queen’s Counsel from Britain to represent it. Distribution of the Review remained banned, but it was available online. The PAP regularly uses defamation suits and the revoking of licenses to silence critical (especially foreign) media. In October 2007, the Financial Times published an apology and agreed to pay damages to the Lee family for a September article suggesting that the family had engaged in nepotism.

The government continued its efforts to impose licensing restrictions on the internet, including the blogosphere, in 2008. Blogger Gopalan Nair was charged in June for posting insults aimed at a High Court judge on his blog and another judge in an email. Nair was subsequently sentenced to three months in jail under the Miscellaneous Offences, Public Order, and Nuisance Act.

The constitution guarantees freedom of religion as long as its practice does not violate any other regulations, and most groups worship freely. However, religious actions perceived as threats to racial or religious harmony are not tolerated, and unconventional groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Unification Church are banned. All religious groups are required to register with the government under the 1966 Societies Act.

All public universities and political research institutions have direct government links that bear at least some influence. Academics engage in political debate, but their publications rarely deviate from the government line on matters related to Singapore.

The Societies Act restricts freedom of association by requiring most organizations of more than 10 people to register with the government, and only registered parties and associations may engage in organized political activity. Public assemblies of more than five people and all political speeches must be approved by police. Permits are no longer needed for private, indoor gatherings as long as the topic of discussion is not race or religion. In March 2008, a group of 17 people protested recent price hikes near the Parliament House; two of them were subsequently fined for participating in an illegal procession.

Unions are granted fairly broad rights under the Trade Unions Act, though restrictions include a ban on government employees joining unions. A 2004 amendment to the law prohibits union members from voting on collective agreements negotiated by union representatives and employers. Strikes are legal for all except utility workers, but they must be approved by a majority of a union’s members as opposed to the internationally accepted standard of at least 50 percent of the members who vote. In practice, many restrictions are not applied. All but 5 of the country’s 64 unions are affiliated with the National Trade Union Congress, which is openly allied with the PAP. Singapore’s 160,000 domestic workers are excluded from the Employment Act and regularly exploited. A 2006 standard contract for migrant domestic workers addresses food deprivation and entitles replaced workers to seek other employment in Singapore, but it fails to provide other basic protections, such as rest days.

The government’s overwhelming success in court cases raises questions about judicial independence, particularly because lawsuits against opposition politicians and parties often drive them into bankruptcy. Many judges have ties to PAP leaders, but it is unclear whether the government pressures judges or simply appoints those who share its conservative philosophy. The judiciary is efficient, and defendants in criminal cases enjoy most due process rights.

The government generally respects citizens’ right to privacy, but the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Criminal Law Act (CLA) permit the authorities to conduct warrantless searches and arrests to preserve national security, order, and the public interest. The ISA, previously aimed at Communist threats, is now used against suspected Islamist terrorists.Suspects can be detained without charge or trial for an unlimited number of two-year periods. A 1989 constitutional amendment prohibits judicial review of the substantive grounds for detention under the ISA and of the constitutionality of the law itself. The CLA is mainly used to detain organized crime suspects; it allows preventive detention for an extendable one-year period. The Misuse of Drugs Act empowers authorities to commit suspected drug users, without trial, to rehabilitation centers for up to three years.

Security forces are not known to commit serious abuses. The government has in recent years jailed police officers convicted of mistreating detainees. The penal code mandates caning, in addition to imprisonment, for about 30 offenses; it is discretionary for certain other crimes involving the use of force. Caning is reportedly common in practice.

There is no legal discrimination, and the government actively promotes racial harmony and equity. Despite government efforts, ethnic Malays have not on average reached the schooling and income levels of ethnic Chinese or ethnic Indians,and they reportedly face discrimination in private-sector employment.

Citizens enjoy freedom of movement, although the government occasionally enforces its policy of ethnic balance in public housing, in which most Singaporeans live, and opposition politicians have been denied the right to travel.Women enjoy the same legal rights as men in most areas, and many are well-educated professionals, though relatively few women hold top positions in government and the private sector. There are currently 19 female members of Parliament, including 17 of the 84 elected members (all from the PAP) and 2 of the appointed members. In 2007, the government decided to uphold a ban on sex between men, and Parliament voted to maintain provisions of the Penal Code that make acts of “gross indecency” between men punishable by up to two years in prison.

*Countries are ranked on a scale of 1-7, with 1 representing the highest level of freedom and 7 representing the lowest level of freedom. Click here for a full explanation of Freedom in the World methodology.

Life and life

2009-10-02T22:02:00.002+08:00

Once in a long while, there comes a speech or book or film that underscores the importance of doing the important things in life. The best books are those that best state what you already know, and this is the kind of speech that states what we already largely know about life, in such a compelling oratory that makes its mark on the readers.

This is Adrian Tan’s speech at the convocation of students at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information (NTU).
Adrian Tan is a litigation partner at Drew & Napier LLC.

LIFE AND HOW TO SURVIVE IT

I must say thank you to the faculty and staff of the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information for inviting me to give your convocation address.
It’s a wonderful honour and a privilege for me to speak here for ten minutes without fear of contradiction, defamation or retaliation.
I say this as a Singaporean and more so as a husband.

My wife is a wonderful person and perfect in every way except one.
She is the editor of a magazine. She corrects people for a living.
She has honed her expert skills over a quarter of a century, mostly by practising at home during conversations between her and me.

On the other hand, I am a litigator.
Essentially, I spend my day telling people how wrong they are.
I make my living being disagreeable.

Nevertheless, there is perfect harmony in our matrimonial home.
That is because when an editor and a litigator have an argument, the one who triumphs is always the wife.

And so I want to start by giving one piece of advice to the men:
when you’ve already won her heart, you don’t need to win every argument.

Marriage is considered one milestone of life.
Some of you may already be married.
Some of you may never be married.
Some of you will be married.
Some of you will enjoy the experience so much, you will be married many, many times. Good for you.

The next big milestone in your life is today: your graduation. The end of education. You’re done learning.

You’ve probably been told the big lie that “Learning is a lifelong process”
and that therefore you will continue studying and taking masters’ degrees and doctorates and professorships and so on.
You know the sort of people who tell you that? Teachers.
Don’t you think there is some measure of conflict of interest?
They are in the business of learning, after all.
Where would they be without you? They need you to be repeat customers.

The good news is that they’re wrong.

The bad news is that you don’t need further education because your entire life is over. It is gone.
That may come as a shock to some of you. You’re in your teens or early twenties.
People may tell you that you will live to be 70, 80, 90 years old. That is your life expectancy.

I love that term: life expectancy. We all understand the term to mean the average life span of a group of people.
But I’m here to talk about a bigger idea, which is what you expect from your life.

You may be very happy to know that Singapore is currently ranked as the country with the third highest life expectancy.
We are behind Andorra and Japan, and tied with San Marino. It seems quite clear why people in those countries, and ours, live so long.
We share one thing in common: our football teams are all hopeless.
There’s very little danger of any of our citizens having their pulses raised by watching us play in the World Cup.
Spectators are more likely to be lulled into a gentle and restful nap.

Singaporeans have a life expectancy of 81.8 years.
Singapore men live to an average of 79.21 years, while Singapore women live more than five years longer, probably to take into account the additional time they need to spend in the bathroom.

So here you are, in your twenties, thinking that you’ll have another 40 years to go.
Four decades in which to live long and prosper.

Bad news. Read the papers. There are people dropping dead when they’re 50, 40, 30 years old.
Or quite possibly just after finishing their convocation.
They would be very disappointed that they didn’t meet their life expectancy.

I’m here to tell you this.
Forget about your life expectancy.

After all, it’s calculated based on an average.
And you never, ever want to expect being average.

Revisit those expectations. You might be looking forward to working, falling in love, marrying, raising a family.
You are told that, as graduates,
you should expect to find a job paying so much, where your hours are so much, where your responsibilities are so much.

That is what is expected of you.
And if you live up to it, it will be an awful waste.

If you expect that, you will be limiting yourself. You will be living your life according to boundaries set by average people.
I have nothing against average people. But no one should aspire to be them.

And you don’t need years of education by the best minds in Singapore to prepare you to be average.

What you should prepare for is mess. Life’s a mess. You are not entitled to expect anything from it.
Life is not fair. Everything does not balance out in the end. Life happens, and you have no control over it.
Good and bad things happen to you day by day, hour by hour, moment by moment.
Your degree is a poor armour against fate.

Don’t expect anything. Erase all life expectancies.
Just live. Your life is over as of today.
At this point in time, you have grown as tall as you will ever be, you are physically the fittest you will ever be in your entire life and you are probably looking the best that you will ever look.
This is as good as it gets. It is all downhill from here. Or up. No one knows.

What does this mean for you?
It is good that your life is over.

Since your life is over, you are free.
Let me tell you the many wonderful things that you can do when you are free.

The most important is this: do not work.

Work is anything that you are compelled to do.
By its very nature, it is undesirable.

Work kills.
The Japanese have a term “Karoshi”, which means death from overwork.
That’s the most dramatic form of how work can kill. But it can also kill you in more subtle ways.
If you work, then day by day, bit by bit, your soul is chipped away, disintegrating until there’s nothing left.
A rock has been ground into sand and dust.

There’s a common misconception that work is necessary.
You will meet people working at miserable jobs.
They tell you they are “making a living”. No, they’re not.
They’re dying, frittering away their fast-extinguishing lives doing things which are, at best, meaningless and, at worst, harmful.

People will tell you that work ennobles you, that work lends you a certain dignity. Work makes you free.
The slogan “Arbeit macht frei” was placed at the entrances to a number of Nazi concentration camps.
Utter nonsense.

Do not waste the vast majority of your life doing something you hate so that you can spend the small remainder sliver of your life in modest comfort.
You may never reach that end anyway.

Resist the temptation to get a job. Instead, play.
Find something you enjoy doing. Do it. Over and over again.
You will become good at it for two reasons: you like it, and you do it often.
Soon, that will have value in itself.

I like arguing, and I love language. So, I became a litigator.
I enjoy it and I would do it for free.
If I didn’t do that, I would’ve been in some other type of work that still involved writing fiction – probably a sports journalist.

So what should you do?
You will find your own niche. I don’t imagine you will need to look very hard.
By this time in your life, you will have a very good idea of what you will want to do.
In fact, I’ll go further and say the ideal situation would be that you will not be able to stop yourself pursuing your passions.
By this time you should know what your obsessions are.
If you enjoy showing off your knowledge and feeling superior, you might become a teacher.

Find that pursuit that will energise you, consume you, become an obsession.

Each day, you must rise with a restless enthusiasm.
If you don’t, you are working.

Most of you will end up in activities which involve communication.
To those of you I have a second message: be wary of the truth.
I’m not asking you to speak it, or write it, for there are times when it is dangerous or impossible to do those things.
The truth has a great capacity to offend and injure, and you will find that the closer you are to someone, the more care you must take to disguise or even conceal the truth.
Often, there is great virtue in being evasive, or equivocating.
There is also great skill.
Any child can blurt out the truth, without thought to the consequences.
It takes great maturity to appreciate the value of silence.

In order to be wary of the truth, you must first know it.
That requires great frankness to yourself. Never fool the person in the mirror.

I have told you that your life is over, that you should not work, and that you should avoid telling the truth.
I now say this to you: be hated.

It’s not as easy as it sounds. Do you know anyone who hates you?
Yet every great figure who has contributed to the human race has been hated, not just by one person, but often by a great many.
That hatred is so strong it has caused those great figures to be shunned, abused, murdered and in one famous instance, nailed to a cross.

One does not have to be evil to be hated.
In fact, it’s often the case that one is hated precisely because one is trying to do right by one’s own convictions.
It is far too easy to be liked, one merely has to be accommodating and hold no strong convictions.
Then one will gravitate towards the centre and settle into the average.
That cannot be your role.
There are a great many bad people in the world, and if you are not offending them, you must be bad yourself.
Popularity is a sure sign that you are doing something wrong.

The other side of the coin is this: fall in love.

I didn’t say “be loved”.
That requires too much compromise.
If one changes one’s looks, personality and values, one can be loved by anyone.

Rather, I exhort you to love another human being.
It may seem odd for me to tell you this.
You may expect it to happen naturally, without deliberation. That is false.

Modern society is anti-love. We’ve taken a microscope to everyone to bring out their flaws and shortcomings.
It far easier to find a reason not to love someone, than otherwise.
Rejection requires only one reason. Love requires complete acceptance.
It is hard work – the only kind of work that I find palatable.

Loving someone has great benefits.
There is admiration, learning, attraction and something which, for the want of a better word, we call happiness.
In loving someone, we become inspired to better ourselves in every way.
We learn the truth worthlessness of material things.
We celebrate being human.
Loving is good for the soul.

Loving someone is therefore very important, and it is also important to choose the right person.
Despite popular culture, love doesn’t happen by chance, at first sight, across a crowded dance floor.
It grows slowly, sinking roots first before branching and blossoming.
It is not a silly weed, but a mighty tree that weathers every storm.

You will find, that when you have someone to love, that the face is less important than the brain, and the body is less important than the heart.

You will also find that it is no great tragedy if your love is not reciprocated.
You are not doing it to be loved back.
Its value is to inspire you.

Finally, you will find that there is no half-measure when it comes to loving someone.
You either don’t, or you do with every cell in your body, completely and utterly, without reservation or apology.
It consumes you, and you are reborn, all the better for it.

Don’t work. Avoid telling the truth. Be hated. Love someone.

You’re going to have a busy life.
Thank goodness there’s no life expectancy.

People Power

2009-09-09T21:11:00.002+08:00

In ancient Greece, 500 juries sat in court in the trial that condemned Socrates to his death (Apology, Plato). Today, in most legal institutions, there are only 12. What does this show?

Let us face the facts: Greek democracy is arguably more democratic than that of the modern world. In Athens, citizens share a unique form of direct democracy, allowing each and every one of them to vote on any issue of their choice. Unlike today, there was no representative of the people, conferring all power into the hands of the people. This is what liberals meant by freedom; it was the unattainable ideal which has continually driven idealists of the recent past. Despite the aspirations of many modern thinkers like John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx towards participative democracy, which is not unlike Athenian democracy, these aspirations have been sadly disappointed time and again. While American democracy has often been decried as a lousy political system, it has also often been said that it is nevertheless the best political system available.

It is troubling to see that we have conformed so much to the system that we are unable to think beyond it, to see how it can be improved by transforming the entire concept, rather than merely its implementation.

In “The Politics Of Everyday Life”, Paul Ginsborg talked about deliberative democracy as an evolution of present day democracy, the ideas within which I agree with quite wholesomely. The idea is to bring in the people into the democratic process while maintaining the representative system to get the best of both worlds.

In the present system, using representatives is the only form of democracy available. There are various problems associated with it including shady deals and political bickering that you often read and hear about in the news; as well as corruption and broken promises. Representation means a surrendering of people power to a single person, who may or may not fulfill their trust based on his own individualistic desires. On the other hand, participative democracy suffers from potential paralysis of the decision making process due to inability to obtain majorities, exponentially increasing demands on the participants, and the tendency of the state to move towards obligatory participation.

By combining the two, the picture of the new democratic system may appear as follows: A parliament of representatives may begin a meeting, but sitting in with them is a crowd of citizens. The session begins, with the representatives going through each item on the agenda, and on each item, various reps will begin to speak, throwing back and fro arguments for and against the motion. Eventually, the chairperson will cease discussion on the table and request for any contribution from the floor, limited to a limited first-come-first-serve basis. Here, the people get the chance to express their views on the issue, after which voting starts, with one significant change: all members in the chamber will be allowed to vote. The motion is passed by the majority of both representative and citizen votes.

This is one workable scenario of political decision making in “restricted participative democracy”. While conferring all power on the people, depending on how many shows up, it restricts most of the discussion to the political representatives but still allowing a selected few to air their views. By such an implementation, we may avoid the pitfalls of the two democratic modes by turning them into mutually supportive forms.

A powerful aspect of the scenario is that the people are given the sole power to influence decisions, but it is limited to those who are active enough to actually show up and listen to the arguments. At the same time, because people actually show up, politicians are forced to avoid shady dealings and cater openly to the wishes of the masses, thus guaranteeing transparency. The participation of the people will also lower political apathy, and if participation becomes widespread, this encourages political awareness and education. It also reducing the politician-citizen divide, ensuring we will never require something like a meet-the-people session again. Secondly, by limiting discussion to only representatives, it neatens the procedure and length of debate as well as ensuring the quality of content. Imagine if everyone wanted a piece of the pie, clamoring to be the one to speak to the chamber!

This is not an idealistic goal; it is a pragmatic one. The change may be small, but the step from voting through representation to voting through participation is a large and revolutionary step, although it is certainly not unheard of. If major states in the world can implement something like this system of “restricted participative democracy”, it will be a new step towards the liberal goal of individual power and freedom.

Level ground

2009-08-18T22:00:00.001+08:00

I have expressed distaste in the past regarding the direction of education that MOE is taking towards the schools. This veiled vehemence is no less intense after two years outside Singapore’s widely acclaimed education. The thing about schools today that irritates me most is the widespread proliferation of specialisation programs that is often geared towards the encouragement of early bloomers. Moreover, MOE’s policy of allowing schools to run themselves like businesses doubly encourages the creation of such programs, and now you see them popping out all over like mushrooms after rain.

The nice thing about the old system of PSLE, O-Levels and A-Levels is that even though one may bemoan the loss of valuable time and stress endured studying for such major examinations, these standardised tests are geared towards providing everyone an equal platform on which to perform and excel. An old dissenting example was that of a student who unwillingly enters a vicious cycle: doing badly in PSLE puts you in a poor school, with weak support for excelling at O-Levels, and subsequently, in even worse position to undertake the A-Levels. However, the bottom line remains that when facing the crunch, everyone has the same do or die opportunity in which they literally pit years of accumulated study and skills to the test.

IP programs, when initially realised back in 2003, broke the trend and set it apart by providing a golden opportunity for students to escape the dreaded O-Levels. Response was enthusiastic, perhaps too enthusiastic. Many welcomed the through-train, allowing them to escape a major examination, and as a bonus, exposing them to the more mature JC culture, new syllabus, and more time arising from the now-defunct need to study intensively. At such a young age of 14, it is hard to imagine that the government (and NJC) actually believes that the students will make rational decisions in choosing the IP program, a decision of which the outcome will determine the next four years of their future, and perhaps the rest of their lives. The only explanation is that MOE believes that the IP program is beneficial to all students, mainly due to the benefits of the extra half-year of non-examination. This explains their subsequent policy in encouraging all major JCs, and even some secondary schools, to enact similar IP programs.

Admittedly, having the extra half-year is invaluable. Instead of struggling through mundane homework and repetitive questions, students now get the opportunity to engage in activities like research or extra co-curricular activities without unnecessary worry for school results. Schools themselves are able to fit in lessons that are more experimental in nature, rather than be compelled to schedule remedial lessons for poor performers and leave less time and focus for other educational sectors that may be of genuine concern.

However, these advantages come at a price for the rest of the normal schooling population. When places at elite schools become reserved for privileged students, which leaves fewer seats to compete for, and less chances for practitioners of hard work to claim their just rewards. It is especially damaging for the late bloomers whose talents only emerge in their teens. This is also true for sport schools, where talents are recognised early on and consolidated in a competitive environment which pushes their sporting capacity to the maximum possible. Missing out on such opportunities is not only detrimental to a person’s development, but also spells devastation to their future, and missing out is not so much of luck and innate talent than one might be led to believe.

A study of USA youth national team players by scientists have discovered that an overwhelming majority of them are born in the earlier half of the year (January to June). In an age group or a level, students of the same age will display their physical prowess based on how well developed their bodies are, and chances are that the earlier you are born, the more relatively powerful you are physically in your youth. These ‘talents’ are recognised and developed, so those who fail to shine are cast aside, led to a vicious cycle of failure as the original set of ‘talents’ are trained to perform far better. Genetics play an important role in the growth of an individual; mental development has also been proven to grow at different rates, individually attaining maturity at differing stages of physical age. Applying this to schooling systems where streaming is done at youth, children whose mental growth are comparatively retarded suffer so much more when they end up being judged from a young age.

And judging is indeed what happens when you select students for a school. How can RJC maintain such a high standard of academia and sporting excellence? They judge you based on your academic and non-academic portfolio, all those accumulated achievements that you have gained since your introduction into the education system. They compare these records with the rest, and only select the best of the best to continue honing their reputation of excellence. When they do this comparison, they judge you from young. In such a system, hard work is not a guarantee for success as genetics is inevitably involved.

Yet, how will we be able to improve on such a system? Alternatives are few, as the nation demands and require a substantial pool of talent from which to draw from, and building such a talent pool will logically require you to categorise students in terms of ability, genetics and character, leading to the formation of elite schools. The IP program may be considered by the current ministers to be an unavoidable step of our education evolution, and the creation of science and sports schools allow talents in such areas to be nurtured and developed at a much faster rate than normal. It is all about priorities: Singapore ministers are predictably and dogmatically pragmatic, and MOE simply acted out the wishes of the authorities by implementing the system that will yield the highest economic return in the future, when the nurtured talents finally step into society. The poorer JC/polytechnic students will form the undistinguished middle class, and the ITE students will become the technical backbone for the economy.

Me, I prioritise fair competition and equal chances for all. Meritocracy is what Singapore has preached about, and enforcing the taking of a standardised examination across entire levels provides just that: fair competition. It is not fair that a DSA student way below the grade requirements of a school gets in based on sporting merits, with the dual results of unfair level of talent for top tier schools and the rejection of an otherwise qualified student from the school’s ranks. It is also not fair when students with only agreeable PSLE grades enter JC and stroll to A-Levels without too much of academic concerns, whereas other students struggle to clinch a cherished spot even for polytechnic.

I come from a background in which I was deemed an average student at best, a poor student at worst, for much of my secondary school life. Only in JC did I flourish, but by then, it was already difficult trying to play catch up to those who have had opportunities to engage in rare activities like research. The direction that MOE is taking is promising to worsen that situation. What used to be difficult may now be impossible, with schools like RJC, HCI, and NUS High School hogging all the best research slots. The same goes for sports and musical talents, and academically excellent students. A lack of a fair playing field may appear advantageous to the nation in a macro-scale, but the same view from the grassroots may be intimidating to the uninitiated, demoralising to the unprepared, and a constant struggle for the untutored.

Fair play, please.

Divergence

2009-08-16T20:46:00.002+08:00

I have created a new blog whose purpose is completely different from the current one. While this blog specialises almost completely in the world of ideas, the other shall be a more conventional one, although it will still have a focal point, which will be on cycling. Hopefully this will give me more incentive to write a little more often.

Link here.

Justice is partial

2009-08-07T00:21:00.000+08:00

As much as people like to complain these days that science is not done in a vacuum, the atmosphere of science is certainly thinner than that of law. Law is perhaps the most political vocation, second only to politics, and with that unenviable association, one must question how impartial the system of law is in asserting the vices of fellow men, and punishing them.

People do work, scientists study their fields of sciences, and thinkers theorise, but only in medicine and law do you find doctors and lawyers making a claim on practicing their respective craft. Why practice?

Law is structure of power, subjecting each and every one of us towards what the social leviathan expects, for society is, at its very base, an exclusive society which outlaws undesirables and welcomes only those that conforms to its vision of the ideal citizen. One can point to the constitution of Singapore which delineates the fundamental liberties of a person, such as the right to freedom of speech and movement, the right to practice religion and the equal protection clause, and claim that such a constitution implies that a person who, for example, harbours racial intolerance against a certain group, is someone whom the Singapore society is not going to be tolerant of. As this example shows, the power to exclude is not necessarily a bad thing if one prioritises social harmony and welcomes the propagation of what you personally deem good and evil. Law is the framework of the society, welcoming those who conforms and rejects those who refuse, the rejection of which condemns them into a vicious cycle in the dreg pits of society. It is by law that you can knit a comfortable society, for the people surrounding you are all products of the same system, bearing the same characteristic trademarks of having ‘passed’ the test of the law. We lucky ones who have been deemed acceptable by society share a certain kinship that doubly discriminates against those whom society condemns.

We may theorise that lawyers practice because their craft is that of interpretation of law into resolving conflicting issues amongst otherwise demure citizens. It is about the perfection of an art which attempts time and again to draw everyone back into the fold of idealism, forging the ideal society by hammering each supplicant into the form of the ideal citizen. At the same time, it also attempts to perfect the law by continually subjecting it to examination and interpretation; by trying cases of differing natures and forms, each case helps the law extend its reach into all niches of a society, while the law retains the vision of its originators by reference to a central Constitution of the country.

The current practice of the law centers on the concept of an impartial judge who, after listening to the gist of arguments of opposing views of a conflict, decides upon a reasoned outcome to the satisfaction of both parties. Of course, the present state of the law is much more complex than this, but stripped of its pomp and glamour, courts of law are basically an advanced form of the ancient method whereby an authority peacefully mediates the resolution of a conflict. However, as I mentioned as a precursor to the entire essay, law is not practiced in a vacuum. The concept of impartiality of a judge is just that: a concept. It is an ideal that is impractical due to the close-knit law society in which a lawyer is likely to have at least heard of his opponent before, and in which it is not unheard of for lawyers and judges to sup together before attending a hearing the very next day. Politics plays a huge part in the game. Having a judge as a friend makes a decision in your favour so much more likely than having an antagonistic judge, or worse, a judge who has external political motives that is apathetic to your cause. In this sense, the very fact that politics is allowed to taint the practice of law defeats the very basis of the system around which law is built. It underscores the impartiality of a judge to decide reasonably (or morally) who is right or wrong, but no one appears to notice or care, or maybe no one knows what other method they can possibly utilise as a viable alternative.

In an ideal scenario, the usage of the impartial judge, much like the use of an ideal judge in art, is to evaluate the moral value of a situation and decide upon its resolution. Why do I say that, when the employment of a judge is usually to decide upon the strength of arguments used by the lawyers on both sides? Is not the judge supposed to judge based on reason? It is an unfortunate truth that decisions are often made before the reasons are construed to support them. There are people who decide based on the strength of reasonability, but in real life, more often than not, decisions that we have to make are not value-neutral. Reasoning only works well in a value-neutral environment, e.g. mathematics and economics scenarios, where morals do not come into play, but when it comes to a moral or value judgment, we often rely on feelings or intuition to decide. In a court of law, it is morality that is at stake. The reasoning based on law and its many acts and sections are merely convenient tools to be used to uphold that judgment and convince the public about the validity of the decision.

It is because judges must sometimes rely on feelings that an impartial judge is an oxymoron, and this problem is worsened by the fact that they are in touch with the politics of the country. The more politically fraught a case is, the less likely a judge is able to decide impartially, for they will be influenced by pressures from their contemporaries, from the government, from the public and media. Votes and opinions can be won over by political maneuverings. In such an environment, it can be difficult to mete out true justice, however well checked the law system is.

Naturally, because the current system of law is the result of centuries of evolution from ancient mediation to present day courtrooms, it is inevitable that such problems surface. Impartial mediation by a neutral party has become an outdated means of conflict resolution the moment the impartiality is tainted by external politics. However, with no other systems of such scale available, there remains no choice but to continue with the present method. I wonder though, even if a better method is indeed proposed, will people switch over? Law has become an immense industry built around mountains of paperwork, and it remains an extremely lucrative career choice. Ultimately, this social norm might be here to stay, perhaps permanently unless a crisis surfaces that threatens the survivability of the system, as it has built up too much inertia that imposing a new system of law may be impossible.

Fear

2009-07-13T23:28:00.001+08:00

What is your True Fear? Your Result: Commitment Even though it may not always seem like it, deep down you are afraid of being committed to anything serious. You love the feeling of being carefree and not having anything tying you down. You're afraid that someone or something that may tie you down in life, will keep you from reaching other goals. You may also be afraid of getting hurt. You need to open yourself up more to possibilities and realize that sometimes it's good to be committed to something that you really care about. Just because you're an independent, free-spirited person doesn't mean that being committed to anything is going to change who you are.
Where Your life is Going
Death
Looked down on
Being Alone
Losing Someone
Disappointment
What is your True Fear? Quiz Created on GoToQuiz

Free-thinking

2009-06-06T23:12:00.000+08:00

Some days back, I blurted out that being free-thinkers is an insult to mankind.

By definition, free-thinkers do not care about the existence of God. They are indifferent to the possible existence of a higher being, and through having no opinion of their own about such an issue, claim neutrality.

Whether they realise it or not, through indifference towards the issue of God, they are claiming that they do not care about living. The existence of God and the nature of God are issues that will fundamentally affect the way we live. To be an atheist and to be a Christian and to be an agnostic, all these are very different modes of living based on widely different principles.

Calling yourself a free-thinker is no escape from the consideration of such important issues; by not considering God, you basically declare that you refuse to examine how life ought to be lived. You are saying that you are stupid about your own life, euphemistically shirking responsibility in the crucial task of self-examination.

Well, if that is how you want to live, so be it. To me, however, it remains an insult to mankind’s ability to think, for people out there to not think about the things that matter most. Then again, maybe they just cannot discern what matters most.

Art

2009-05-25T19:12:00.002+08:00

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.

Negative liberty

2009-05-23T23:19:00.002+08:00

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

Honour

2009-05-23T23:06:00.000+08:00

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.

On smoking

2009-05-15T22:13:00.001+08:00

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.

Needs and wants

2009-05-09T10:24:00.001+08:00

(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.

Heart and science

2009-05-03T21:54:00.002+08:00

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…

Worth

2009-04-26T21:07:00.000+08:00

Life should be about finding out what we can do, and doing what we can. Sadly, the average Joe only knows what he wants to do, and does what he wants. Worse still, sometimes he doesn’t even know what he wants, whereby he does nothing worthwhile.

How true is this? If using this life model, then the ideal life scenario would be to find out what we can do, discovering that what we want to do coincides nicely with our capabilities, and getting the best of both worlds. The world is crappy because almost everyone does only what they want, and those caught in between the onslaught are manipulated into doing what others what them to do. The worst scenario is to find that what we can do and what we want to do are polar opposites. I should think that doing nothing is a safely neutral option, but to live in such boredom kind of defeats the point of living in the first place.

Fortunately, I should think that most people are able to do what they want. The problem is that often people want too much, and are unable to do as desired. The resulting frustration is echoed by millions everyday. People frustrated with school, people frustrated at work, others frustrated with families, friends, maybe a few frustrated at the state of society and at the state of humankind. What we want and what we can do often don’t quite match up.

Sometimes, finding satisfaction is merely a matter of changing our own expectations. How often have we heard this? Easy to say, but not so easy to practice. It is all in the mind, but changing your mental prejudices are like trying to lift yourself off the ground. It cannot be done consciously. It is something I have given up trying ages ago.

So, what do I want? I want to experience, to travel the world on my bike and observe the distances pass by under the wheels. I want to study, to learn, to understand. I want to achieve something that has meaning to me within this lifetime. But above all… I would like to love again.

Amnesia

2009-04-19T20:32:00.002+08:00

“If (IQ tests) were true, the emotional and worldly satisfactions in store for the intelligence tester would be very great. If he were really measuring intelligence, and if intelligence were a fixed hereditary quantity, it would be for him to say not only where to place each child in school, but also which children should go to high school, which to college, which into the professions, which into the manual trades and common labor. If the tester would make good his claim, he would soon occupy a position of power which no intellectual has held since the collapse of theocracy. The vista is enchanting, and even a little of the vista is intoxicating enough.”

-Walter Lippmann

After having nearly lost this quote, along with all knowledge of its origins, I think it might help if I were to write book reviews on this blog. Anything that can help crystallise the scraps of important knowledge floating around is very much welcome to me right now.

Weaving threads

2009-04-19T20:29:00.001+08:00

“… I was worried that either or both of us had changed so much that we would not be able to get along as well as before.

“But my deeper fear was the opposite scenario: that neither of us had become very different, and still there would be nothing to say.

“There would be nothing to say because our friendship was not as strong as we thought - that it was largely contextual, a product of the time and circumstances we were in.”

This is a quote from a Straits Times author, written some months ago in relation to Facebook as a useful social networking tool. It summed up the emotions I was feeling at that time, the fear that close friends I used to know have drifted so far that I didn’t know how to reach out to them anymore.

Now I look at it and another meaning comes to mind: aren’t all friendships contextual? They originate in the coincidence of time and space and circumstances and character, separate, and come together again. Friendship is not an entity in itself, it is a pattern laced by the four factors, and collapses if one is absent. The comings and goings of friendships, while lamentable, is not one we can do much about apart from attempts to pivot circumstances to our advantage.

Twilight

2009-04-18T21:35:00.000+08:00

There are times when I think all this time we spend living is all about finding out more about ourselves. We experience, and both shape and discover our inner self at the same time. We hunger for experience due to our lack thereof, meaningful experiences hinged by the beliefs we stand so strongly by. So many things in this world are mysterious and unknown, and the fire of youth burns fiercely in its passion to learn. Eventually, there comes a time when this fire burns out, when unknown things are no longer so mysteriously important, when we look upon ourselves and all appears well and right. We will one day hunger no longer; the eyes which once had dwelled upon the earth with curiosity and desire, these eyes will then stare out instead, in indifference and weariness.

That is my idea of what death ought to be like. It shall be a death of life fulfilled not by purpose or satisfaction, but by the quenching of incomplete dreams and fantasies. It shall be a death of life that tires of life. A life completed finally by apathy.

History

2009-04-06T21:53:00.000+08:00

The more I read C.S. Lewis, the more disgusted I become with his snobbish attitude with his past. In his autobiography, he kept impressing upon the reader how lowly and childish his past was compared to the present in terms of beliefs and decisions and so on. It was as though his theological present is high and mighty compared to his atheistic past, and if he was an intellectual prig in middle school, he certainly appeared to be a chronological prig at the time of the writing.

I don’t know about other people. Myself, I greatly value my past wholesomely, both the mistakes and the successes. These are the key components of my present self, without which I would not be who I am today. While I may have been able to better myself without those regretful moments, it is exactly those moments that I have undergone that forged me, more so than the happy times. Oscar Wilde was spot on when he said that the only things one never regrets are one’s mistakes. It is essential that we glorify our past, or we will be defiling our present.

I have to admit that I am living in the past. The present is usually hateful and confounding, the future is always hopeful but transient, and only the past is concrete and comforting. People who claim to live wholly in the present for its pleasures are merely immersing themselves in an illusion that the present is all nice and pleasing, without the troubling ugliness. They see the silver lining but are blind to the clouds. Maybe I am just unlucky or my outlook is too pessimistic, for we can always claim that it is because of the clouds that we have a silver lining to behold. Many a times, I do see that silver, but its getting quite infrequent, for the storm is often too potent for its quiet contemplation.

I envy people who are still schooling. They have a safe, controlled environment where reality is kept at bay. When you finally come into contact with the real world, your illusions about the present will be shattered. Perhaps you can create illusions upon illusions to preserve those illusions about the present. That is how some survive anyway, that is how some find meaning in their lives. Living it out in illusions.

Life's highway

2009-03-28T12:45:00.002+08:00

"(A life of happiness and a life of meaning are) two very different paths. To be truly happy, a man must live absolutely in the present, with no thought of what's gone before, and no thought of what lies ahead. But, for a life of meaning, a man is condemned to wallow in the past, and obssess about the future."

-Mr Linderman, Heroes season 1

Speculation

2009-03-24T20:08:00.001+08:00

Simple truth: The happiness and pleasure we derive from things increase in proportion to the intensity of suffering we are undergoing.

This may be the science behind the psychology of a masochist. He deliberately suffers more to inflate his sense of pleasure.

Past and present

2009-03-22T02:29:00.000+08:00

I had just read some of my old MSN conversations, and I’m quite shocked.

What has happened to me?

Two years, and I have become a completely different person. I’m a stranger to my past. The past me lived in the present; the present me live in the past.

IT Club outing last week revived my old self for a few short hours. Thereafter, I’m back. Back where? Back to the past, or to the present?

I lost that belief somewhere. That spark of confidence. Snuffed out.

Things have changed. But I cannot bring myself to move on.

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

I cannot quite believe I still feel this way.

It has been more than two long years, two long and lonely years by my lonesome in this wilderness. It is a feeling that can grow overwhelming too easily, like how it is happening now. Loneliness is like a creeping darkness that slowly and steadily takes over the soul, subjugating it to suffocation.

I just want you to know that I still think of you. But I don’t know how to bring it across. Fear holds me back.

42

2009-03-12T11:00:00.003+08:00

I plan my future obsessively. At the moment, I have already detailed what I will be doing in five years' time, and planned sketchily to nine years' time. The details may change with time, but here is the overall plan:

-Extend ORD date until August, utilising all my leave at the end so that I can attend university camps and orientation.
-Attain First Class Honors in Physics, maybe do a research project if possible.
-Train and cycle competitively, with the goal of finishing a stage race by 2013.
-Work part time in NUS as research assistant or the like.
-Meanwhile, read lots of books.
-After NUS, I plan to go overseas and attain my PHD in top universities, ideally MIT or UC Berkeley.

Sometimes, I have doubts about such planning, it is like you are systematically bashing out a trail through the forest of the future. Life becomes so focused and purposeful that it is scary, there is nothing left that is unexpected, and consequently, nothing that is truly exciting. You can see nothing but the trail, a winding trail that inevitably stops at death. So what if you achieve so much but fail to live?

The question that I had left unanswered 18 months before has once again returned to haunt me. What is the purpose of life? Happiness? Serving God, or Humanity? Duty, to others or yourself? Or is there no purpose to begin with, no meaning in continued existence? How the hell do we know? All these metaphysics crop up, and many, bewildered by the complexities they confront, simply sidestep the issue. Many others believe in an ideal, be it in relationships, or God. We all live on, with answers we think are right.

What happens, then, when we find out that we were wrong? I shudder to think of the result.

I doubt anyone of us have the confidence to claim to have right answers about life, unless you are religious. For the non-religious, it take courage to live, to stumble so often in the dark. That is why I plan so much, I think, for it makes finding your way in the dark so much easier when you have a path to follow. But there are many times when the trail ends in a ditch, and you got to reorientate yourself to bash out another trail: this requires great courage too. You got to know where you want to go, but as I mentioned earlier, what makes you so sure the destination is correct? Unless you get that right, you are stuck. Lost. Nothing but faith to guide you along.

The feeling of being lost in the jungle is fearsome. That sensation of hopelessness. Despair. Those who have never experienced it can never understand how it eats away at your mind, how it gnaws at the hearts and burns in the lungs.

Faith and despair are perhaps direct emotional opposites. None of us can survive without a little bit of faith to counteract the despair of being lost, and submission to the latter is as good as digging your own grave prematurely. To live, we need not a reason, but to live well, we damn well do. We need to believe in this reason wholesomely and construct our lives around this core belief, and our subsequent history will be the reflection of this faith.

If so, you can say that my faith lies in my capacity to achieve.

Beliefs and foundations

2009-03-07T16:24:00.002+08:00

There are ideas that really shape the way you think. These are defining ideas that will form the foundation of the beliefs and subsequent behavior and lifestyle. Our present character can be seen as the culmination of ideas upon ideas upon ideas, the very basic of which have become unquestioned facts rather than possibilities.

I can perhaps name several that really caught my imagination and affected my life (in chronological order):

-We can do anything that we want enough. (Scouts)

-Emotions clouds our actions. (Wheel of Time)

-We ought to be the best we can possibly be.

-There is no God.

-There are things we cannot do even if we want to. (Council)

-Good ideas occur rarely, but if they do, they ought to be written down. (Einstein)

-Reasoning should be the determinant of our actions.

-Life has no inherent meaning.

-I will never die for my beliefs for I may be wrong. (Bertrand Russell)

-Life should be lived for the goal of happiness.

-God can never be proven for or against.

-Life should be lived wholesomely, not exclusively rationally, nor emotionally. (Point Counter Point)

-Our beliefs are determined by our feelings, and reason acts only to reinforce them.

-Intuition is usually more trustworthy than reason.

-Life should be lived striving towards personal excellence. (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance)

Maybe given a complete list of such influential ideas of a person's life, one may painstakingly construct a portrait of his lifestyle, a reflection of reality that may correspond closely. It can be done. However, many of them are lost in the fogs of memory. When thinking up this list, I can't recall any major ideas that influenced me before Sec 3. Even within the list of recent memory, there are strikingly obvious contradictions of beliefs.

If what I had written earlier was true, that base ideas become unquestioned facts governing your life, then how would new beliefs that contradict these foundations fit in? It is practically inevitable for such collisions of ideas to occur within oneself, but I think we only get affected by them if we become consciously aware of the dilemma. When that happens, how do we determine whether the new or old idea wins and displace the other? Which is more likely? Perhaps the best answer is that whichever fits more readily into the pattern of beliefs would triumph. But should the foundation collapse...

“Madness is defined by the rejection of the mythos.” - M. Pirsig. I agree.

Oblivion

2009-02-02T01:06:00.001+08:00

I’m kind of in a down period right now. Ok, it was obvious since Thailand, after all those exercises ended. That’s two weeks worth of depression and self imposed solitude, the former which I mind, the latter which I don’t.

I had peer appraisal earlier this week, for which I received comments that deemed me anti-social and self-centered. At first, I felt rather hurt; whatever happened to all those times when I sacrificed time and effort for the sake of others? But the more I pondered about it, the more I realised that it was simply a misunderstanding of the introverted nature which I fiercely propagated for the past two weeks. Some people are taking my need for solitude as a rejection of camaraderie. I have become the outcast in their eyes, to be scorned at their leisure.

More keenly than ever before, I now sense the extrovert-introvert divide, and the deep lack of understanding between. Maybe it’s more of the lack of understanding on the extrovert side of the divide. For them, energy and camaraderie and active lifestyles are signs of a normal person. For them, reading books and being alone all day is a sign of social paranoia. Maybe so, but in an environment where the same 120 people surround you all day and all night, how else can an introvert like me maintain his sanity? We have to reject camaraderie not because we want to, but because we have to: it leaves us exhausted and drained, and after sleep deprivation for nine days, it doesn’t really help my state of mind to be forcibly sociable.

I think the last straw was the end-of-frame dinner at the end of Crescendo, where we ate terrible food and watched terrible dancing and singing. Parties were springing up spontaneously and the few crazier ones were dancing on stage and it was all a little too much, too much. They went crazy, all crazy, jumping to the beat of Bon Jovi, and it just appeared to me to be a mass emotional orgy of crowd movement which drew everyone else like a high voltage magnet. I had remained unmoved, defying the crowd, and now am learning more about the social consequences of such defiance.

In time, the down period will end, and I will be active once more. That was how it always worked for me, an oscillation between solitude and activity that revolves around attaining equilibrium. However, people just don’t understand that. And when they asked me why, why do you seem depressed, how was I supposed to explain? That it’s because I’m an introvert? That sounded stupid. It still sounds shallow and woefully insufficient now. I can probably attempt to explain all day and they still will not get it. I simply shrugged my shoulders and avoid the bullet. Maybe I ought to bite it and spit it back one day, or the matter will never be resolved.

Or I can always bury it. On this tabula rasa I ink the trouble and shelf it in the dredges of time. I just feel like running far, far away, to a place where roads stretch endlessly across a grassy plain with mountains in the distance, and the sun shines softly and the wind blows gently.

Moving on

2008-12-31T20:53:00.000+08:00

There was a time long ago when, whenever I made an embarrassing or horrendous mistake, I would wish that time could turn head over heels, erasing that dreadful smear.

I guess I grew up, no longer thinking so naively about schemes that will never come to fruition. Innocence has passed me by, those accumulated smears and smudges, mistakes and flops, staining the pearly white Tabula Rasa of childhood.

Yet, some things don’t change at all. I still wonder how things would be different if time indeed turned back for me. These are tendrils of regrets from the past still stubbornly clinging on.

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

I still remember the most moving statement I heard in the entire JCC, with vivid emotional clarity.

“I won’t ever again say that my mom’s cooking was bad.”

The two of us had broken down, tearing quietly in the steadily encroaching darkness, watching the forlorn raindrops fall from the makeshift roof of the structure.

Counting chickens

2008-12-20T03:08:00.002+08:00

If I were in an RPG, this would probably be a rather accurate portrayal of my stats…

Chua Yi, Jonathan
Human

Strength - 13
Dexterity - 11
Constitution - 15
Intelligence - 14
Wisdom - 18
Charisma - 7

If this were true, I ought to be a Cleric.

This is what happens when you play too much Baldur’s Gate II. Damn addictive.

Nine days

2008-12-16T17:00:00.003+08:00

Jungle Confidence Course certainly is a once-in-a-lifetime experience, one that you never want to repeat again. Nine days of navigation and survival application in the hostile jungle environment, with only 1.5 days worth of food: this certainly paints a preliminarily sketchy yet powerful picture of the endurance required to successfully circumvent the journey. Nevertheless, no one was able to convey just how difficult it truly was before we started off; I guess no one is able to understand just how difficult it truly is until they actually experienced it. It goes beyond the hunger and physical aches and weariness; it reaches deep into the heart and strikes at the flickering hope within, choking the mind in darkness.

How do you encapsulate the experience of undergoing so much hardship and pain of those nine days into mere paragraphs? How can anyone read this and comprehend the emotions, the hopelessness, that pervades the self, as we sit blindly in the night, rain splattering through the useless thatched shelters of the A-frame, the stupefying cold chilling the marrow of the bones, and worse still, believing in the impossibility of all those many tasks that remain to be done, failing which the entire journey would have been an exercise of futility? To me, JCC was not a test of endurance, as many would have expected; JCC plunges its participants into despair, and examines the mettle of these subjects through the ultimate trial by fire. The burning scars on both the physique and the mind are equally ugly, and for the latter, permanent. We wore them like badges of honour, the marks of our triumph.

My team was one that ran the most, rested the least, pushing all limits of physical endurance, so much so that we burned out completely on the last day. We went through thick and thin together. We gloried in the success of Exercise Nomad, where we obtained full marks despite the rollercoaster ride that nearly led to our failure; the next exercise, we were lost, bashing our way through the hostile jungle for five hours; the very next day, we were down and out, trapped in a ravine 1km away from our destination with an hour left on the clock. We had done our best to obtain that historic second perfect score, but our best was still not enough: the disappointment was crippling. Powerful experiences, powerful memories, powerful emotions. What mattered was that we passed. What mattered more was that we survived. And what mattered most was that we gave it our best shot, and returned with pride in our hearts. We did it.

It was when we passed the finish line that I understood what it was like to break down in happiness, in relief, in having undergone so much pain and seen so much darkness as to be overwhelmed by the sublimity of familiar surroundings, familiar faces. I still remember with great vividness the pungent taste of those combat rations we stuffed ourselves with, especially after all those days of constant, debilitating hunger, the encouraging words of our instructors congratulating our success, and the beautiful, beautiful view of the camp we had become so acquainted with. It was with equal vividness, perhaps more so, that I recall the journey of the past nine days, each moment having seared themselves into the depths of my memories. Perhaps in the future, I can draw strength from the memory of having fought tooth and nail with despair, and having survived.

And so it is that I now sit comfortably in front of the computer, content merely to have a full stomach and idle days, watching the time fly by.

Harmony

2008-11-17T01:12:00.004+08:00

I was reminded, quite timely, why I love cycling with my heart and soul.

Flying down towards Neo Tiew Road at 10.30pm. Wide stretches of water extending to my left and right, the black liquid masterfully concealing its mysteries. To the far left, beyond the reservoir, lay the exotic silhouette of nature and its forests; above, red points of light shone from metallic broadcasting structures, like so many fireflies. To the far right, human civilisation beckoned, the bright lights of urbanisation organised into an orderly, alluring formation of beauty. Beyond lies a long, long stretch of dimly lit road. No cars, nothing, just me, my bike, and the gushing 35kmh wind.

The harmony with nature. The feeling of unity, as though the machine, or, indeed, everything, is part of you. Or you are part of everything. That sense of invincibility as the adrenaline flows in the blood, as the muscles pumped effortlessly onto the pedals.

How often do we see such sights and uncover such experiences? There are things to be discovered on a bike that cannot be found elsewhere.

The Serenity Prayer

2008-11-15T21:27:00.002+08:00

Please grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change the things I can,
and wisdom to tell the difference.

The greatest compliment

2008-09-28T15:52:00.003+08:00

2008/9/26 Jonathan Chua Yi

I just did a bit of speed reading of "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel, and at the moment, he appears to have quite a strong case for the gospels to be true and reliable. I recommend that you give it a shot, despite any possible misgivings. Closer inspection may reveal logical fallacies eventually, but if so, these fallacies would be quite minor, in no way intruding into the main issue altogether.

As an agnostic, I should think that if the book indeed succeeds in fielding a powerful argument for the bible, while we will not be compelled to all convert into Christians just like that, at the least, we should analyse just what implications this meant for religion, or rather, for Christianity in particular. And what implications this has for the atheist cause. In any case, this would be an interesting discussion in a direction that I rarely, if ever, heard in theological discussions.

Assuming God can be proven to exist rationally (aka through the bible, and the bible proven to be true), that means that contrary to our contemporary arguments, lack of evidence is a nonissue. Agnosticism has just become irrelevant. The main question becomes the following: not whether God exists or not, but whether to believe or not. Whether to submit or not. And while you may think belief follows naturally after the proof, I will beg to differ otherwise. The highly increased possibility that God exists does not inch me towards religion one iota. On the contrary, I prefer the freedom of creating my own system of beliefs, of being independent of others, and of simply being a rebel. If this sends me down to hell, so be it; I daresay I already live a more Christian life than other so-called Christians whom I know of. I will still take Pascal's Wager on the atheist's side, despite the odds.

From my point of view, you guys may notice I react based on my emotions, not the rationals. Rationality would say you become theist. My current opinion is that life is more about the emotions, less of reason; rationalism is the "why", emotions is the "what" and "where". Following reason leads you nowhere, for reason alone is static; emotions is the key to living. If my feelings point against God, then I shall go against God, no matter the foolhardiness involved. Also, one cannot force beliefs, so there is essentially no point trying without the emotional willingness to commit.

Hope to see your opinions on the topic =)

2008/9/27 Dennis Oh

I applaud Jonathan for his honest and crystal clear presentation of his position. Using rationality, I'll admit that the arguments for and against the existence for God can go either, all depending on which set of foundational assumptions you make. The assumption is whether or not there is a god. There is no line of reasoning that comes prior to making that first decision. The decision is made based on how you interpret your idea of happiness. Although theists use "classical" arguments for God's existence, they were never intended to "prove" the existence of God to anyone, but only to show that theism can be reasonably argued. What Jonathan has done is to be perfectly honest with what's going on existentially and volitionally within him. He has a pure indifference to whether or not God exists. His underlying principle for why he rejects religion is because he wants to be free to do what he wants without the external constraint of commandments and religious obligations. He is willing to receive whatever punishment may ensue in the event that he is wrong and he doesn't care one way or another. He will not give in because he does not WANT to. Period. In my opinion, this is authentic humanism, self-actualisation, authentic volitional rejection without the need to hear any more 'rational arguments.'

I've heard very few agnostics expose their position with such honesty and humility, and I commend that. Most atheists have rationalism as their banner, while at the same time, not missing any opportunity to smuggle in their emotional reactions at God's character, or the problem of evil, or religious extremism whenever they can in order to bolster the argument. I suspect that deep down, most hard line atheists are allergic to religious for the very same reason; Jonathan may not be so unique in this respect. It boils down to a simple refusal to "pick" a god and bow down in worship in submission. One minor comment about the living "more of a Christian life than other so-called Christians." I know what you're getting at - using "Christian" as a synonym for moral, upright behaviour. While this is flattering to Christianity and, in fact, Christians ought to be morally upright, we recognize that we are sinners saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. It is faith in Christ that makes us Christian, all of our righteous acts are as filthy rags.

For a fellow atheist to come down hard on Jonathan for arriving at his views through emotion makes no sense at all. What does it matter that he chose to ride on the tracks of emotion and volition, rather than dry rationalism? It's not as if rationality is the ONLY way that one ought to arrive at atheism. Besides, even after one has analyzed all arguments, one still needs to make a volitional choice anyway. In a world without God, without constraints, without moral obligations to any higher powers besides the government, without obligations to any written dogma, who really cares what the next guy believes and how he got there? I thought the whole point is to maximize selfishness for the sake of surviving and passing on your genes. The same can be said for those who witnessed the resurrection of Christ and yet did not believe. It's recorded in the Bible as well (how honest a testimony is that?) The facts and figures are essentially irrelevant. They must be interpreted and the conclusion must be accepted with emotional commitment. This is how it is with ALL knowledge.

anyway, thanks for your post Jon.

Dennis.

Identity

2008-06-20T21:34:00.000+08:00

There are many forms of me:

Jonathan as the thinker;
as the student;
as the scientist;
as the atheist;
as the cyclist;
as so much more.

Jonathan as seen by others;
as seen by himself;
as seen by within;
as seen by without;
as seen yesterday;
as seen tomorrow.

We are the superposition of the many constituents of our many identities, each being the mirror of our personal being. They say that one of the keys to life is to understand yourself; I say that anyone who understands himself is a liar. We view each other, including our own being, through the reflection of a distorted mirror, warped by the cloudiness of our beliefs and prejudices. Change the mirror, change the perspective, change the angle; the view changes, you see yet another side of the man, yet what you see is merely a shadow, a ghost, a person who was never there to begin with.

Me as a cyclist is someone few people close to me have ever seen: fiery, determined to win at whatever costs, masochistic, and emotional, emotionally driven. Me as a thinker is the façade oft presented: calculative, cold, patient, logical, unemotional, and rationally driven. The two “me” cannot be more different; yet they are the same man, inseparably so.

All the qualities ever possessed by man in the world can be used to describe any one person - peer into their minds, peer into their inner desires, their souls. We are humans, and as humans, at the basest of our very nature, we are one and the same. We are many, yet we are one.

At the same time, I am many, yet I am one.

Field command

2008-06-20T10:08:00.001+08:00

Comd SAF BMTC wishes you all the best in your future posting.

Your Posting Order is listed below:

1. You are posted to OCS (ARMY WING).
2. Your vocation is OFFICER CADET (CBT).
3. Your are to report to: SAFTI Military Institute, Warrior's Hall.

True colours

2008-06-15T22:19:00.002+08:00

There is, perhaps, a secret admiration which all of us harbour deep down towards organisations seemingly effused with efficiency, spirit, success and discipline. We scorn regimentation, yet are inspired by such disciplined regiments all the same, ironically, paradoxically.

Our hearts soar at the sight of high-flying achievements, impressive sights of military displays and equipment, majestic scenes of neatly lined platoons of soldiers, yet we unconsciously advert our eyes from seeing the sacrifices made in the process. Or perhaps it is about acknowledging the sacrifices, but seeing them as a necessary evil towards some greater goal. We take in the propaganda about nationalism, taking up arms with the call for loyalty, perhaps with reluctance, but without truly questioning the necessity to do so. Offerings of incentives, pay and prominence attracts potential recipients like cow dung attracts flies; until today, I still do not understand why people sign up to the army, willingly eating the dung for the rest of their lives.

Unfortunately, behind that tough military façade lies the inevitable threat of war, of conflict with enemy forces. “Kill or be killed,” the army is the personification of that ancient philosophy.

It is overwhelmingly queer that we actually romanticise the purpose of an army, turning their representatives into inspirational role models of the nation. Indeed, its true colours remain as an exasperatingly efficient community set up with the sole aim of slaughtering all others. If only everyone actually understood the machinery of terror which lies in waiting behind this cover of roses...

Without a façade, an army will never be successful - without a good public image, an army is practically non-existent, lacking willing uptakers of arms. The revolting purpose of the army would never be attractive: like rotting meat, no takes would be willingly found. By roasting, smoking or salting, one may improve its appeal, yet once its true nature has been revealed, the sour aftertaste shall remain within for a long time to come.

The Revived Atheist

2008-06-15T21:48:00.004+08:00

I once thought all was certain
and closed my mind, like curtains,
basking in the enclosed darkness,
carelessly denouncing all religion.

But O! the sun shone o'er the horizon,
revealing colours, shapes and patterns;
astonished I was indeed
at the spotchiness of my ignorance.

Curiosity shall be my guidance,
the map to this world of wonderment,
sceptical though I shall remain
to the truthfulness of my perception.

Acronyms

2008-06-12T22:55:00.005+08:00

POP (Passing Out Parade) for BMTC period occurred a mere 54 hours ago, and with the advent of the 11 days block leave, a bald-headed Jonathan, bumming about the house, will become a more common sight indeed. A brief phenomenon, just like sakura flowers in full bloom.

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

As to a not-so-brief update on my education status, I have currently been accepted into NUS Science, together with the USP (University Scholars Programme), and have been offered a bondless NUS Faculty Award scholarship. While the Award was somewhat disappointing (expected the richer Faculty Scholarship brethren), it is still monetary support nevertheless, ensuring I will never need to pay a cent for my undergraduate studies.

Below is the USP essay that I wrote, in response to the question:

Write an essay that explains why you’ve been intrigued by an idea, concept, or theory you have encountered. This idea can come from either a traditional academic discipline -- such as history, science, philosophy, or mathematics -- or from fields such as film, engineering, art, or politics.

---

Mention “fate”, and more often than not, you will hear jeers from the intellectuals. “Fate,” they will declaim, “is a mere myth; like God, it is used to explain events that appear to be beyond human understanding.” Indeed, the postulation of fate as an explanation of events flouts Occam’s Razor, a theory used by scientists which deems the simplest hypothesis to be much more probable. Yet, by no means does its improbability lessen its impact on our thinking, and subsequent conduct in reality.

Fate is ancient concept, and is undoubtedly an intriguing one for me, a fanatic for all things fictional. The bible itself euphemistically portrays fate in the form of prophecy, and an exploration of fictional novels authored over the centuries would reveal its many permutations within their pages. Fate is the idea that events and outcomes are inevitable, as though our lives are divinely decreed to occur in certain manners. While distasteful to some, fate offers interesting perspectives on how the world works.

There is a saying that “it is not our abilities, but our choices, that define who we truly are”. Postulating the existence of fate means that even our choices are pre-determined for us. Our character, personalities, abilities, lives and future are all set in stone. It is, indeed, a fearsome prospect; the existence of fate implies that personal individuality is manufactured by some external entity, and that there is, in fact, no such thing as free will.

When born as children, all of us are exposed to various circumstances and events which eventually shape our character. Even as adults, we are malleable through our experiences. For example, somebody who experienced war would be distinctly different from the same person in the pre-war past. Theoretically, given sufficient insights on psychology and social science, we can formulate laws, allowing for deterministic predictions on the character of a person, based on knowledge of his circumstances. In the future, we can probably manipulate events to shape children to eventually become, say, a devious thief, or a noble minister. Such artificial actualisation of fate, while currently residing only in science fiction, may eventually become reality.

However, fate retains its ethereal might, even without artificial intervention. Supposing that the same person is born in America or Africa, into rich or poor families, times of war or times of peace; we would expect all these instances of the same man to grow up very differently, with distinctly different ideals. People have their character wrought by the environment of their upbringing, which in turns determines their reactions to subsequent events, hence deciding the outcomes. Indeed, our lives are “fated” by the circumstances of our birth. By viewing fate in this manner, it is difficult to deny its role, however illogical or superfluous it appears.

Whether fate exists or not, we remain hapless victims of our individual circumstances. A terrorist is no more responsible for their murderous actions than a phone is to be blamed for ringing. If anything is to be responsible, it would be fate: the nature of his birth. For that reason alone, it is ridiculous to criticise people for doing things the way they do, no matter how ignoble or perverse their actions may be. Given the same upbringing, experiences and underlying motivation, anyone may make similar choices. All of us are distorted images of each other; even denouncing a rapist who murdered ten women is hypocritical. We have no right to criticise the actions of our fellow men, for it is not wholly their responsibilities after all.

My outlook in life was certainly influenced by this realisation, actively promoting tolerance and understanding in my conduct, no matter how exasperating interaction may be with other people. Such a unique window into the machinery of the universe is very much rewarding; despite fate’s controversial power, the gleaning of knowledge from its exploration is unexpectedly worthwhile, much like discovering diamonds while digging in abandoned mines.

---

It was only recently that I realised how similar these ideas were to Taoist ideas, and its resonance with Buddhist teachings, which sparked off some interest in Eastern philosophy (and religions). And as I have found thus far, Eastern philosophy isn't as wayward as most tend to think, it is just very practically oriented and very much less abstract than Western philosophy. That's the observable trend for now, in any case...

Dark and light

2008-03-10T22:50:00.000+08:00

“For the family, one may be sacrificed; for the village, a family may be sacrificed; for the country, a village may be sacrificed; for oneself, the world may be sacrificed.”

There is a distinct streak of ego-centrism ethics about the last phrase that I find resoundingly appealing within my personal belief system. It delineates the merciless pursue of goals for the ultimate benefit of oneself, the cold, selfish focus towards self-improvement at the sacrifice of any unnecessary bonds. Perhaps it is after the establishment of my nihilistic belief that all things are insignificant (including me), that I tend to regard materialistic and humanistic concepts as nonessential (perhaps this word is somewhat mild).

Indeed, perhaps what differentiates me from the nihilists would be my high regard towards knowledge: I believe in its value in enabling us to understand the world, extending our comprehension of the universe before making judgement towards the uselessness of our existence. In that sense, I am quite similar with Friedrich Nietzsche, who, according to Wikipedia, came to similar conclusions after his own brush with nihilism.

If there were light and dark sides in the world, I would belong to the dark.

Upcoming

2008-03-04T18:35:00.000+08:00

Over the next few days, I shall be writing a series of articles on ideals, and how they govern almost every aspect of our lives. Hopefully I won’t get bored and give up halfway through, as I did for so many other would-be posts before.

On more mundane matters, I recently completed my first biathlon (Singapore Biathlon, 1.5km swim, 10km run) last Saturday, 1st March, clocking 1:36:00, missing my target by 6 minutes. Fortunately, I was still placed 523 out of 1105, top 50% of all participants, which is a rather favourable result in itself.

The very next day, I got involved in my first biking accident with a car, ramming into the side of the car door at 25kmh. I was very fortunate to get away with nothing more serious than glass cuts all over my right arm, and sprains in the wrist and left thigh. It was a truly tumultuous day, with me having to enter Tan Tock Seng Hospital with blood all over my body, riding an ambulance, and making statements at the Traffic Police headquarters. Memorable indeed, although it was something I very much would not like to repeat again.

Now, to repair that bike...

Food for thought

2008-02-17T23:05:00.000+08:00

Personal hypothesis:

People all undertake rational actions; they only seem irrational if you fail to rationalise their primary motivations, the driving force for such an undertaking.

QnA

2008-02-14T23:42:00.001+08:00

I love those moments when it feels as though everything clicked together within my head: Eureka moments. You may be thinking about one thing, and suddenly unrelated stuff leaps up out of nowhere, giving you answers to problems that you may have almost given up on, sometimes, problems that you were not even thinking about in the first place.

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

Theoretical definition of arts and science based on the mindset of the practitioner:

- Art is reason applied without limits, geared towards an ideal and guided by the practical.

- Science is reason applied within a framework, geared towards the practical and guided by an ideal.

Why? Both art and science do involve the use of reason. In science, it is intuitively understandable by any respectable science student. The commonplace usage of Occam’s Razor, used to eliminate unlikely propositions, that alone probably shows how much science depends on reason.

In art, reason is also required: the conceptualisation and application of an idea or a theme towards any medium of art demands both reasoned judgement towards appropriateness in the fulfilment of the idea/theme. For example, if you are going to create a painting on the Last Supper, it is illogical to include scenes of warfare or modern technology that simply is not in line with the theme. If you are painting an abstract art themed around sadness, it is only appropriate to utilise dark colours that is more suited towards the mood. Reason has an inevitable and intrinsic involvement in the creation of an art work.

Reason is used without limits, allowing practitioners to work from the limits set by themselves, rather than defined externally (by nature) as in science. In terms of content, artists can work from first principles, from assumptions, or from actual reality: almost anything in terms of content can be subject to changes, without much bearing on the quality of the art work itself. The Harry Potter universe, for example, is built around the assumed premise that the practice of magic truly exists. Working from this first principle, everything else is built up into a believable framework in which the story is constructed, ultimately becoming one of the most creative stories of modern times.

Art is geared towards an ideal, towards the attainment of perfection. All art is begun with some idea in mind, and bringing this idea across to viewers in the right manner in the goal of the artist. Yet because of practical application of the artist’s vision in reality, art is always limited by the medium of the art, even though the vision itself has no such limits. For example, I can imagine creating the perfect sphere mentally, and set out sculpturing it, yet despite all the best tools I can bring to bear, the sphere will probably never be as perfect as what I originally envisioned it to be. Practical aspects thus guide how artistic talent is applied in reality.

Science, on the other hand, is geared towards the exploration of the practical. In both experimental and theoretical science, you aim to discover a practical aspect of the universe; your data, experiments and ideas are all oriented as such, defined by the framework set by nature’s laws. However, ultimately, the experiment or theory attempts to attain an ideal in accuracy, either in experimental data or law formulation, a goal of almost every practitioner of science. Science is therefore guided by this mindset of idealism, despite its practical nature.

As with all definitions of art and science, I suspect mine is flawed in some manner: please kindly leave a comment if you can find any counter-examples.

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

Consider this paradox:

- My purpose in life is to find purpose

Obviously, this paradox reveals two key possibilities: either there is no purpose in life, or there is a purpose in life known to everyone. Since the latter is quite false, and by Occam’s Razor, we would have crossed it out as a possibility anyway, it is very much likely that the former is correct. There is no purpose in life, which means Creationism is wrong, for to create something requires a reason for the creation. It also means life is inherently meaningless, to the chagrin of the human race who likes to deceive themselves otherwise.

Imperfect perfection

2008-01-28T01:19:00.000+08:00

“Good! Great! Perfect!”

These words, and others with similar meanings, ought to be scrapped out of the dictionary.

The idea that something, anything, is perfect, is inevitably false. By stating that, for example, a system is good, is like saying that the system is idealised, no longer with any further room for improvement. By instilling the idea that the system is perfect, we temper the need to continually critique the system, and to constantly modify it towards further improvements.

Take for example, this conversation I heard over the radio, where some important guest claimed that “the education system in Singapore is world class”, in response to questions of dismal performances by students taking the ‘O’ Levels. People just don’t know how to appreciate the system! So he implies.

Nonsense.

Everything has room for improvement. From the watches on our hands, to the pollution level of the air, if we look hard enough, there is always something to criticise, something to point to and declare, “Aha! Imperfection!” Never is anything perfect; they can only be adequate to the purpose. Indeed, they are all flawed. Perfection, in the world of today, is watered down; a word that simply means an idea is better received than all its closest competitors.

There have been many ideas gracing the world, originating from the brainstorming of many an intellectual; yet for every idea, there are countless more critics, sceptics who cannot help but point out flaws. Each idea, if better than its predecessor, is one further step on the never-ending quest for perfection. Each idea, to be better than its predecessor, must be critiqued, allowing us to better understand its weaknesses, to improve upon them.

Claims of perfection can be likened towards conservatism. “The current system is good enough, stick to it!” Unfortunately, change is always required, for we live in a changing reality. Conservatism, by holding on to an unchanging past, will never adapt for the future. Hence, conservatism inevitably causes stagnation. A static innovation will always be obsolete.

Science is one field where humans work tirelessly towards perfection, in spite of the fact that perfection renders science itself obsolete. Religion, however, is one field where humans work tirelessly in pursuit of conservatism. There is no way that religion and science do not contradict each other, for their very motivations are polar opposites.

Whenever anyone says an idea is good, judge that statement with suspicion. Whenever anyone says that something is perfect, begin the search for imperfection. The cup is half empty, never half full. Scepticism, however decried it is by its sceptics (how paradoxical), is a necessary evil.

“Real boats rock,” writes Frank Herbert. The appearance of perfection is merely a performance of covering up a smear of mistakes. I agree completely.

Embrace the half empty cup.

Negated feelings

2008-01-26T12:03:00.001+08:00

Friends of mine know that I attempt to rationalise everything and anything; closer friends would know that I favour reason to the extent of rejecting emotions.

There was a philosopher who defined emotions aptly in its purest essence: “Passion (emotions) is the capacity to obscure reason”. Emotions are something that dominates our psyche, a powerful force that originates from ancient instincts. And instincts, obviously, are animalistic guides towards survival.

The connection between emotions and instincts cannot be ignored. Instincts are what drove organisms from ancient times to present days. They are an organism’s survival reactions, the inner voice that helps them distinguish predator from prey, mate from competitor, and danger from safety. Instincts are what drive salmons to seek breeding places in appropriate places, birds to utilise updrafts to soar in the air, spiders to spin webs for food and shelter, or humans to flinch from contact with pain. Without instincts, there can be no survival. Without instincts, there can be no life.

Emotions and instinct are intrinsically intertwined. Their relation can be easily seen by love: humans experience that compulsive attraction towards the opposite sex, towards friends and family members. Love is necessary for procreation, and hence, for the continuity of mankind. Love is also the binding force in the creation of lasting companionship and community, havens in which the troubles of the world may be forgotten, creating that comforting feeling of safety. In ancient times, safety comes in numbers: love is one of those relics from our ancient past, undoubtedly emotional, and undoubtedly originating from instinct.

Sometimes we feel anger. We feel it when a stranger encroaches on our territory without permission, when someone insults our religion, or when an idiot calls you an idiot. Anger, an emotion motivated by instinctive self-defence, whether in physical, mental, or emotional terms (respectively to the above examples).

At other times, we feel fear. Fear of the dark. Fear of being lonely. Fear of that precious laptop being accidentally dropped on the floor. Fear is the emotion that pulses at us, sending warning signals against what we feel we must avoid. Fear is also an instinctive response that drives us towards self-preservation, like when a robber points a gun at you. You cower and grovel, signals of submission and servitude, making yourself look insignificant, hoping the robber points the gun elsewhere. It is survival instinct creating the feeling of fear, igniting responses that we call instinctive.

From above examples (and many others), I am led to conclude that emotions are based on instincts. “So what?” you say. Basing our actions on instincts may be good for survival; yet, survival may not be the primary motivation in our cultivated lives of present days. Romantics may idealise emotions, yet rationally, setting emotional appreciation as an ideal is like embracing the idea that the world is flat all over again. By embracing emotions, and hence, instincts, we are returning to our animalistic roots. To put it crudely, these are barbaric roots, another reality where the law is “kill or be killed”, and survival is the only form of victory. To what purpose do we do so? Are instincts relevant in these changing times?

Reason used to be a survival tool; a tool sharpened through contemporary pressures driving the species. Many animals have some form of reasoning; humans are the only species to have perfected reasoning to such masterful levels. Today, reason is our primary method by which we comprehend the world, and organise things into a logical perspective. If instincts are what allow us to survive, reason is what allows us to excel. If survival is not an issue, why should we utilise emotions? In such a non survival-oriented society, emotions are becoming relegated and increasingly obsolete in our lives.

Another issue to consider is the well-known problem of emotions clouding effective usage of reason. Given sufficient data, everything can be rationalised, and if so, reason will indeed become the most powerful tool anyone may have. Such an idea is outlined within the proverb: “The pen is mightier than the sword”. Irrational actions have been seen to have disastrous consequences upon this world. Stupid wars would have been prevented, radicalism and fanaticism curbed, countless lives saved, if only emotions have not intervened. The most recent example of a stupid war started by emotions would be America’s invasion of Iraq, when public opinion was stirred against the denizens of Middle East, and even now, the actual perpetrator of 9/11 has not yet been found.

Politics and religion, in fact, are two facets in contemporary societies where emotions reign. Public opinion often sways because of emotional issues: threats to national security, foreign talent invasion, etc. From the government’s perspective, the easiest way to manipulate the masses is to keep them under the illusion of a threat, and keep them on their toes. The idea that the current government will be the source of security can instil public faith in them. The same applies to organised religion: keep them threatened by the devils, by the faithless, by the fear of sinning, fear of offending the God. Manipulate and shape this fear towards the purposes the Church intends. What could be easier? However good the intentions, they make the act no less digestible.

Emotions are also transient in nature. Without solid justification, emotional goals waver. Emotions themselves cannot be sustained, making quests like “I live for happiness” utter bullshit. If such happiness is inevitably temporary, to what purpose do we seek it for?

True, without emotions, we lose some portion of our humanity. We lose the reason for existence, love, inherent sentimentality, and more. I have not proposed that we ignore emotions altogether, but that emotions be controlled by rational beliefs in all cases where survival is not the essential issue. In this aspect, I have succeeded several times, proving beyond doubt that emotions can indeed be rationalised: once, I was suicidal, emotionally dead. Yet, I was able to reason out a motivation for continuing my life, which is my current quest for answers. If motivation, an emotional drive, can be reasoned and instilled by rationalising, so can all other emotions. Reason should never be controlled, and I reject emotions as the controller of my life.

Crossing words

2008-01-20T01:34:00.000+08:00

Evangelists these days appear to enjoy attacking atheists and agnostics with a particular challenge that make it seem very disadvantageous for us to answer. The challenge goes like this: “I dare you to pray; if you are willing to do so, you might just sense God’s touch on this world.”

Seriously, such an attempt to incite us is quite disgusting, as though we are not brave enough to do so. It is like asking a Muslim to eat pork. It is because of the stance of our beliefs that we refuse to take up such a dare, yet it looks as though we are not open-minded enough when we turn down the challenge. How about such a response: I refuse this challenge because I have evolved past the need to do so, freed from the basic need for a higher purpose that believers depend on.

Instead of challenging us, how about I challenge believers to think like an atheist for even a day?

From the godless perspective, certain beliefs must inevitably be embraced. Life was started on the whim of probability and our universe came to be what it is today, simply by pure luck. We humans live meaningless existence, with acts that shall soon be forgotten, touching lives that will soon die anyway, leaving no lasting trace of ourselves in the passage of time. Indeed, against the infinite universe, our finite acts inevitably make no more than a ripple in the ocean. Oblivion awaits us, a gaping, endless darkness promising nothing except the delineation of our consciousness.

Naturally, human instinct dictates that such beliefs should be rejected. We refuse to live futile lives, or rather, to even believe life is futile. After all, isn’t it so comforting to believe that there is a heavenly father up there, watching you, loving you, guaranteeing that your acts here may secure you eternal happiness? Even the most ardent of believers have a common motive: to be vindicated and awarded a place in heaven. In the face of such extremes, who would want to head back to reality believing that there is no inherent value in life? “I want life to be purposeful! I do not want a futile existence!” Of course, we all prefer that, but reality usually neither matches our narrow-minded understanding, nor our narrow-minded faiths.

Occam’s Razor has already ruled that God, a complex being, is never likely to be an explanation for any occurrence in this world, however miraculous they seem. For almost every amazing event (save Creation, the final mystery), science or statistical explanations usually suffice. The mere possibility of there being simple explanations for all “godly” acts simply undermines the possible existence of God, or his “touch” on this world. Yet people actually insist on God being the be-all-and-end-all explanation. How self-deceptive.

Let’s face it; God is, more likely than not, non-existent. Yet despite the range of evidences and conventional wisdom, you still want to believe in him. Does that belief originate from reason, or from emotions? More likely the latter, isn’t it?

It is very difficult to accept life as an atheist. You get to stand alone in this world, unsupported, uncertain of life’s purpose, facing the odds of the world without guarantees.

So, then, believers all:

Are you brave enough to challenge the odds, to believe in a meaningless life, and yet attempt to live it to the fullest, struggling in futile in search of justified answers?

Are you brave enough to reject what appeals to the emotions, and to embrace beliefs that are founded more solidly, and only, on cold reason?

Are you brave enough to embrace the idea that existence is a fluke? That life may not be very worth living? That the guarantees and love the God promised to shower on you is merely an illusion?

Don’t try to challenge us agnostics and atheists to try praying, as though we are not brave enough, or accepted all this uncertainty in our lives. You have no right to do so if you cannot free your mind from the deceptive beliefs of security, or to accept that we humans are simply not evolved enough to easily accept living without commitment to a higher purpose/being, however illusionary.

No right at all.

Faith in reason

2008-01-15T23:19:00.000+08:00

After meditating for half a month on an epistemology problem, I am glad to say that I finally solved it =) Below is the summary of the initial problem:

We cannot explain why reason works. Reason is therefore unjustified in how it works, and this means our use of reason is faith driven.

In essence:

We cannot justify why we believe in reason, therefore we have faith in reason.

This argument is wrong because reason is the underlying method for any form of justification to take place. We recognise that something is considered sufficient justification through the use of reason itself. For example, we justify that something is red in colour through the use of perception, which is logically correct as the hypothesis corresponds to the evidence. Note that in relating evidence to a proposition, we demand the use of logic, and reason is obviously involved, no matter the material or source by which the content of justification originates. Hence, reason is the key towards justification; without reason, there can be no justification.

Now, looking back at the statement, we can now see the problem. By arguing that our belief in methods of reason is unjustified, the argument is utilising reason itself to create the paradox in the first place. If reason is unjustified, and if that were true, the statement itself has to be unjustified, which creates a paradox and renders the statement invalid.

Another way of creating the paradox is that if reason is unjustified, and since justification requires the use of reason, this means that all justification would be unjustified, which is obviously ridiculous.

Hence, the problem must lie with an underlying assumption or inherent error made in the argument itself, and reason, as we have seen, has nothing to do with faith at all.

Kudos to Cheryl for proof-reading the solution =)

Mirror image

2008-01-14T20:22:00.000+08:00

There are three places (ok, technically, four) to go to practically know everything there is to know about me:

Astrology sign – Virgo

MBTI type – INTJ here, and here

PersonalDNA – Reserved Inventor (facebook required)

I never fail to be amused at how accurate some of these tests are at reflecting my personality. Especially stunning is the Virgo prediction, as I never thought that I could ever get an accurate character description merely from star sign alone.

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

I am wondering what distinguishes character and behaviour... it is not as simple as it seems. If anyone cares to assist, you shall be very much welcome.

Skyline of the rising sun

2008-01-06T21:28:00.000+08:00

I witnessed one of the most amazing views of the sky this morning.

The deep darkness of the navy blue night appeared to oppress the turquoise light of the eastern sky. Bright was the line defining the horizon, setting the stage for the rising sun of latter hours.

Above the clumps of flats dotting the landscape as far as the eye could traverse, the crescent moon peered out of the turquoise wilderness, looking as elegant as it looked fragile. Its thin, razor sharp body delineated its darker body, whose lonely shadow dominated the emptiness.

Among the surroundings, jewelled stars flickered, once again marking their eternal presence in the celestial parchment. One, especially, shone like a torch; a diamond indeed, strutting its beauty through delightful illumination.

Such was the sight that took my breath away.

Agnosticism II

2008-01-02T21:35:00.000+08:00

After Zhuang Mao literally issued a challege here, I shall respond in kind. (No hard feelings, I hope =) Let this be merely another of our friendly debates.)

The argument is fundamentally flawed in several areas:

Firstly, the usage of faith is not well defined in the passage regarding the determination of truth. Faith is literally belief without sufficient justification; yet many “real-life” examples put forth in the passage do not point to the use of faith. Rather, almost all of them are based on induction, or empiric reasoning. An example of the use of induction is that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west: since birth, such an occurrence has remained a cornerstone of the observation of our world, and we do not doubt that it will rise and set in the same direction the next day, or even next year. Induction utilises reason, and is not faith, as the argument claims. It is because the rising of the sun has always occurred, which is exactly why we have no reason to claim otherwise, as all evidences point to the sun rising when morning comes. Faith, unlike what the argument claims, is not widely used in real life at all.

Secondly, the passage attempts to argue that it is through faith and reasonable certainty that we know whether something is true. Philosophically, knowledge constitutes three major components of justification, truth and belief. Truth is something that is either true or false, and is a constant in knowledge. Belief is subjective in terms of the individual, which leaves us with justification as the only remaining pointer that can indicate truth, either indirectly, or rigidly. Justification can be obtained through five possible sources: reason, perception, testimony, consciousness and memory. It is unfortunate that faith does not justify, but merely commits. Reason merely makes up one of the five possibilities.

Thirdly, unlike the claim of the argument, it is true that we are used to having certainty in our lives. In fact, we demand to have certainty in our lives, we demand for proof of all claims of truth, and we definitely do the same to religion. Undoubtedly, even the staunchest of believers would have wavered at some point or another, but never do we lose faith that 1+1=2 becomes a wrong statement in the world of tomorrow. We demand for rigid proofs in the mathematics and sciences for the reason that the claims made can never be doubted. By declaring that we should not do the same to religion, what does argument imply? That Christianity, by representing divinity, will never be doubted, because the truth within is intuitively obvious to all? Explain to me then, why that 5 billion people on this world remain non-Christian, why that the proportion of atheists is steadily rising, and why that even God’s existence can be easily subjected to philosophical doubt?

Lastly, the uncertainty principle, as mentioned, does indeed work both ways. Yet, it is because it works both ways that the ideas put forth by Christianity are to be subjected to doubt. It is because I have reason to doubt Christianity, that I have reason to dig deeper into the underlying truth or falsehood that belies the faith, before I commit myself to the religion. However, those who believe blindly have set their beliefs in stone, whether or not the justification is sufficient or even presented accurately. It is the beliefs of Christian that colours their world, and events ranging from pure coincidences to unexplainable “miracles” that consistently “prove” that their God exists, despite a myriad of other alternatives. In science, we call this Occam’s Razor, the idea that the simplest hypothesis is most likely true; a simple, realistic reason is always much more likely than the argument that things occur because of God.

Most importantly, if God is exactly as the Bible depicts God to be, I fear for my time in the afterlife. Who would want to put faith in the benevolence of one who would destroy nearly the entire world population, without letting any one of these “guilty” ignorant beings understand what is it that they were doing wrong? (Noah’s Ark) What kind of “father” would want to sacrifice his own son? (Jesus) There are other, similarly horrendous situations in the Bible where God does not seem as benevolent as he claims to be. Once again, I shall end off with a quote.

“I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” - Susan B. Anthony

Agnosticism

2007-12-09T21:51:00.000+08:00

Ever since young, Christianity has always seemed somewhat wrong, as though there were some important components of it that are missing. I used to be extremely engrossed with Bible stories, and very active in Church sessions. I loved those songs that praised God, and soaked up theological lessons like water on the desert sand.

Not anymore. I have gone from Christian to free-thinker to agnosticism, with heavy inclinations towards atheism. Currently, I identify myself as an agnostic, and I may modify my stance when I complete the reading of “God is not great” by Christopher Hitchens, and “The God delusion” by Richard Dawkins.

I will go straight to the root of my theological stance, which should explain much of my beliefs.

I have always wondered why humans conceive of God, stating things about him as though they knew God so well. Christians claim certain things about God, for example, that God is a good God. Rebuking such statements is a ridiculously easy task. How are they to know what God is like? Even if the bible were true, even if the Son of God did come to earth and died for us, and all those countless miracles happened, what gives us the right to claim anything about the nature of God at all?

The Bible is frivolous in the sense that it makes it sound as though humans are in the centre of attention; as though God thinks that we are beings who deserved attention at all. What arrogance! The arrogance of the Christians bemuses me. If God were as powerful as claimed, why would he give a damn about humans who are, at most, a heartbeat compared to the flow of time? I find it much more reasonable to think that God is somewhat like a bored scientist conducting an experiment, and we are the rats in the experiment of his. We exist merely as mundane amusement to this almighty being, rather than as a terrible burden and responsibility to him that the Bible appears to depict. There is no way for you to discount such a possibility, and it only goes to show how enigmatic God is.

This proves that we have no way of claiming anything about God with certainty. Even if all of Christianity were proven true, we still have more than enough reason to doubt God’s nature, and it means that agnosticism is inevitable.

As finite and imperfect beings, we have no way of envisaging the nature of an infinite and perfect being, and are limited to speculating about his characteristics. That lies on the assumption that this being exists at all. A sceptical nature, together with the use of rationality, would have led one naturally towards agnosticism, as I have shown in the above analysis. It is no coincidence that the majority of philosophers were atheist, and that atheism grows in popularity with the integration of scientific thinking into education.

You may ask “If such a conclusion were so logically obvious, why is the majority of people in this world still Christian?” In response, I shall quote a passage adapted from the Dune series, “Do not attempt to reason with those whose beliefs are set in stone.”

Price for your life

2007-12-06T18:37:00.000+08:00

I remembered back when I was involved with the Super Teens programme in Secondary Two, as participants of the camp, we were posted a question by Ernest Wong. The gist of it is based around a scenario. Supposing there was a man who wanted to buy your organs, and somehow, you have no choice but to sell them at a monetary value (without an option to refuse), name your price for each organ.

Arms. Legs. Eyeballs. Kidneys. Liver. Lungs. Heart. Go ahead. Name a mandatory monetary value for each organ independent of each other. You are not allowed to sell for free, or put the price at ridiculous amounts (e.g. infinity).

It sounds easy.

It sounds really easy.

However, once you try it, you find just how hard it is. One thousand seems too little, while a hundred thousand seems too much, yet at the same time, not enough. You do not even know if the sold items are to be donated to charity, or sold to illegal organisations, or even if they are to see the light of day again, considering the suspicious setup of the scenario. You are basically trading physical defects or even death in return for cash, without a choice in the matter. So, name the price, for as they say, money can buy everything; you just need to determine the right price.

I find this a very unfair question. It acts upon human selfishness and instinct for self-preservation, forcing you against these barriers if you had taken the question seriously, and threatening to crush you against the walls. This is a “money or life” threat question that forces you to pick the money in your desired quantities, when most sane men would have chosen otherwise.

Of course, a bit of analysis would have revealed that the learning point of the scenario is to show how valuable each of our lives are, a method to boost your self-esteem and appreciation for our physical state. However, paradoxically, I personally interpret it as a form of proof for the finite value of our individual lives and bodies. Predictably, almost everyone would place extravagant prices on each item, as though saying that your personal suffering caused can be covered by the material benefits received through the money, but you are also admitting that your own life may be quantified into a finite worth. That is, if you are able to confidently name your price at all, and back then, I certainly was not able to.

As beings of finite worth, we are merely some of the billions of faces on this Earth, existing only during this short period of around seventy years. Thereafter, time goes on, and your existence will slowly be forgotten, no matter how influential you used to be. As beings of finite worth, we are only capable of exerting impact of a finite magnitude while on this planet. Thereafter, time goes on, and your existence will slowly be forgotten, no matter what achievements and material progress you have attained in your lifetime. What we have been, or will be doing, is inconsequential; even now, what we have done may have already been rendered inconsequential. Continued existence, therefore, seems hopelessly meaningless.

This means that the goal to find meaning in life is ill-defined. Meaning in life can be found, but only when we look upon the passage of time with the narrowest of scopes and refuse to look through the broader perspective. However, such an approach does not do justice to intellect, and is like preparing to run a marathon by tying your feet together. That is assuming we have some chance of completing the marathon in the first place.

Guide to religion establishment

2007-12-03T00:14:00.000+08:00

It is really easy to set up an entire religion if you are motivated enough to do so, although the label of madman may become heavily associated with your name.

Firstly, one must understand that humans have insecurities, ranging from a fear of the dark to having no true direction in their lives. A religion must be able to account for all these fears, and to be able to reassure followers of their self-worth and value, giving them incentives to renew their devotion. In order to do so, a set of rules by which their lives should be lived must be drawn up, in accordance to the basic principles set by the religion. While acting as an incentive for followers, these rules allow you to dictate their lifestyles, and certainly is extra bang for the buck!

Secondly, there are many religions already existing in this world. Obviously, it is not a difficult task to execute a cut and paste job, bringing in a bit of everything. Some essential items a religion needs are a symbol, a figurehead and “physical evidence” of God’s commandments. Symbols should be plain, simple and easily recognisable. Regarding figureheads, it is always easier to bring in popular personalities in public culture, rather than create one from scratch. As usual, messianic figures hailing from those many fiction books may work (e.g. Jesus-like), while a wise old man for a God is never a bad idea (e.g. Zeus-like). Naturally, the notions of heaven and hell can be easily incorporated, given how readily accepted they are within society! It provides the all important leverage you need to scare the converts into upholding their faith, lest God’s curses fall upon their souls.

Thirdly, as stated earlier, “physical evidence” of God’s commandments are, without doubt, of crucial importance. This physical evidence will be the basis by which scholars, philosophers, skeptics, scientists and other heretical bastards criticise you. By ensuring that these critics get as few bullets as possible, you benefit by strengthening the faith of the ignorant followers. In ancient times, a work of fiction can move the mindsets of the masses; however, in present days, it is probably much more difficult. No worries! If you cannot create a genuine “ancient and holy” manuscript that proves God’s will, you can always put up a farce and become the prophet yourself!

Now, as a prophet, it is essential to act out your role to the point that people will believe in your sincerity. Naturally, you must act as a conduit between God and man, and perform some form of miracles that men will deem as proof of your holiness. The easiest way to do so will be as an oracle, by predicting the future. Such methods of doing so without discrediting yourself is rather simple once you get the hang of it; all one needs to do is to speak in cryptic sentences, such that they do not refer to any one event, yet in the future, there remains a probability that a major event will occur that fits these predictions perfectly. Based on Justified True Belief definition of knowledge, the only distinction between predictions becoming actual knowledge is the recognition of the event as the predicted one; hence there are few who can face your “righteous” aura without doubts.

Last, but not least, as a religion, defining right from wrong is part of the basic framework. As an earlier point had previously emphasised, a newly founded religion, indeed, any religion must appeal to the masses, thus bringing about social acceptance. Moral codes set by the religion must appeal to the common man, upholding widely accepted views of contemporary times regarding what is “correct”. For example, a religion that promotes rape is never going to become popular among the women, meaning you have just lost the support of half the population of possible converts. Bad idea indeed!

In conclusion, I present to you all, the guide to setting up religions for dummies only! However, be warned: these advices contained therein are experimental ideas, and the author of this guide will not be held responsible for any damages, physical or mental, throughout the duration of its practice. Have a fun-filled learning journey, but be sure to fasten the seatbelts!

Tragedy and statistics

2007-11-29T20:54:00.000+08:00

The Straits Times was recently inundated regarding news of the death of several Singaporean canoeists, one of which was an NJC teacher. Unfortunately, I have remained indifferent to their passing, but tend towards scorn while observing how the media handled the situation.

So they died. I understand that much, and while I did not really read the news of their circumstances, I find it inexplicable why it warrants as much newspaper space as it does. The first thought to my mind was “big deal”. They died. So what? Do you expect me to feel compassion for them, to be in any way interested?

If five men’s deaths are such big news, I find it inexplicable how the sad situation the poor and hungry in other countries are in is able to pass by unreported. I find it incomprehensible why such trivial reports can be blown into such mind-boggling proportions, to the extent that it has retained places in the headlines for three consecutive days. Once again, I rediscovered the utter redundancy with which the news media work; redundant triviality in the face of daily affairs of the world.

In situations like the tsunami in Indonesia, not much attention paid to the suffering the victims have to undergo. Even today, in Iraq, with so many deaths everyday, it seems as though such issues are forgotten, dismissed with the encroachment of present problems. In Nepal, the Maoists retain the threat of continuing the civil war against the government; in Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tigers are indeed continuing the civil war; in Africa, Chad and Sudan remain in perpetual pseudo war against each other. There are so many deaths everyday around the globe. Certainly, the death of five men is of no consequence compared to these.

I shall quote a saying: “The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of many is a statistic”. How fitting it is with regards to our reaction to the circumstances.

Futile happiness?

2007-11-24T15:22:00.000+08:00

People are never satisfied with what they have, always demanding for more, whether intentionally or not. It is human nature, I suppose, to be perfectionist to some extent, and when we do not get what we expect, we remain unhappy. Simply put, we expect too much, and when the scenario does not turn out well, dissatisfaction ensues.

I guess that the problem lies with what our idea of the world is. Since young, we are fed so many fairy tales about how great the world can be, notions that are half-truths at best and existing only in fiction. If everyone can be the hero of a story, then who will be the victims? When we finally go out to face reality, the mind suffers when results do not conform to the best case scenario, and we suffer disappointment of greater frequency than we experience vindication.

Theoretically, one would be happiest when the results are beyond your wildest expectations. Hence, if you want to be happy, set your expectations to the minimum possible. To find what is great about this world, assume the world to be a cruel, hellish pit; when you discover that what you experience about the world is not as hellish as imagined, naturally you are euphoric; when you see cases when hell is a literal description of a situation, it is within your expectation, and you suffer no disappointment. Of course, all this is in theory, actually attempting to idealise the world as a hell is probably impossible. Similarly, setting expectations to the minimum may be futile, like how people would intuitively feel that an ‘A’ is possible for their exams given the ease with which they blasted through. There is simply little to no reason for them to believe that they may fail.

That is why to always believe in a worst case scenario is impossible, and that is why we will always be disappointed one way or another. Perhaps that simply reveals the futility of pursuing happiness in life, for there will always be things that will make you unhappy. Happiness is like water cupped in the palm; it slips out as quickly as it is scooped, and with much less effort.

It is somewhat ironic that our beliefs complement each other such that we do not remain in perpetual internal conflict, allowing us to find peace instead, yet it is by our beliefs that we are made unhappy. Perhaps that is why humans are so entertaining, for we are paradoxical.

Goals

2007-11-23T20:07:00.000+08:00

I can understand why people, after their exams are over, feel so lost, as though something dear has been taken away from them. After the initial euphoria over the end of exams is over, rather than the happiness they expect, they feel rather empty instead. My hypothesis is that they no longer have a goal: without the goal (working for academic success during ‘A’ Levels), they lost what purpose they used to have.

A boat without a rudder cannot steer towards land. Purpose and goals are what motivates us, without which we are like lost souls, lacking motivation. Religion is founded on this problem, as most humans feel the need to have some higher motivation and direction in our lives in other to feel at peace. We may all have great latent potential lying within us, but unless we put it to some use, it may simply remain inside, never brought out to its full potential.

Speaking of goals, I have a whole bunch of ideas as to what to do after exams are over (which they are), and I’ll just outline them out:

1. Master classical physics.
Like St. Augustine would say, to reach the sky, you must build the foundations. It’s something useful to learn anyway, considering how JC teaches us nothing about vector applications, which comes into use so often in mathematical physics. The JC syllabus is really over simplified. In other words, it is time to relearn everything again.

2. Blog more.
Considering how much time I will have, rather than waste them all on anime and manga, I must force myself to write more. A lot more. Ok, I shall target to post at least once every four days. That should be reasonable enough.

3. Physical fitness training.
Cycling shall take up a large proportion of my holiday time, as I train myself for NS. Even before I began my hiatus, I could not keep up with the main bunch of Joyriders, which is quite pathetic; it will be even worse now. Well, the imagined humiliation should be motivation enough to force me to train =)

4. Enjoy life.
It is holidays, after all.

Hand of fate

2007-11-20T15:45:00.000+08:00

Fate is what many people may refer to as an illogical belief, a mythical dimensionless entity that simply does not exist. While it is popular in contemporary fiction, few would think that it actually permeates reality, and should be something limited to the realms of imagination and fantasy.

Let’s think of this scenario: supposing you are to be reborn into the world at a particular instance. Statistics show that for each second, a classroom size of children is born, so you have roughly 1/30 chance of being reborn as any one of these children. Newborns obviously do not have matured and shaped beliefs of their older counterparts; they are subject to religious influences, parental teachings and societal pressures, depending on where they are born in the world.

If each of these children is born into a different section of the world, then it is clear that you would have different lives as any one of these children: you may grow up in Iraq, living through the aftermath of the Iraq War; die of hunger and disease in the African wilderness; struggle under neo-Maoist oppression in the Nepal backwaters; you may also live a comfortable life in USA. For each of these possibilities, you will end up living completely different lives, presented with different choices, and certainly shaped with different beliefs, even though you may retain similar character. Sure, your choices may vary, and there may exist many possible instances of your future, yet few of these possibilities will ever materialise into overlapping circumstances. In a given scenario, the scope of your future, while large, will be ultimately limited.

Fate certainly exists, though not in the strict sense that it is always portrayed. By our mere existence in, say, Singapore, we are brought up in a comfortable childhood; this early influence will become a compass to our scope of possible futures. If, on the other hand, we are stranded in Africa, chances are that we will grow up hungry and die hungry. At least, the probability of that occurring is far higher than dying as a rich and successful politician.

However, just because fate exists does not mean that fate cannot be changed. The problem with it is that it takes a great deal of effort for it to happen, or an occurrence bordering miraculous, or a crisis that completely reshaped your character (since character is the most solid denominator for the choices made in your life). By miraculous, it is like events where a rich businessman decided to choose a random boy off the street to become his apprentice, which naturally involves a whole pot of luck. Such an action will change the fate of the boy (assuming he is poor), delineating a new set of possible futures with higher probability of having a good life.

For most of us, together with our endless quest for success, we can’t depend of miracles to change our fate for the better, but we can make the best possible choices, ending with the best future possible within the pre-defined possibilities. Our fates are determinant; our futures not quite so.

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

I finally realised that staying at home for several days in a row is a one-way route towards unproductiveness.

Boundaries of power

2007-11-15T20:43:00.000+08:00

A hierarchy and system of power certainly exists in the world, as well as in Nature. I’m not talking about governments, or CEOs or others of these so called “positions of power”, but… well, I’ll spell out my opinions soon enough.

Who exactly is a person who has power? A man with a gun has some form of destructive power, and a man with a tank even more so. A man with money also has power, and so does a man who simply knows how to charm others with his words. As you can see, power comes in many forms and shapes (and sizes). Everyone has power, and the only difference is its magnitude and its usage.

Power can be used in many ways; we have all heard about cases whereby power is misused as well as cases where power is used correctly, but the former exist in much greater quantity. It leads to the further question of why it is so often misused, but that is another issue altogether.

When a robber enters a bank and threatens its occupants, subsequent events are determined by his actions, as well as the actions of the police (or whoever is responsible for defusing the situation). The bankers, customers, and your everyday shopper waiting in the queue would not play a major role, and can be considered powerless. The robber, on the other hand, has a gun and holds the lives of others at his mercy, therefore holding the reins of power; in other words, the situation revolves around him.

In a war, civilians rarely, if ever, play a major role in determining its outcome. That is the job belonging to the two armed forces involved in the conflict, and civilians are at best, merely observers of the battles. In such a situation, the holder of the reins of power is easily determined: whoever has more troops and uses better strategies are the ones who have the best chance of winning. Those who act, rather than those who react, are the ones who are more likely to force events to conform to their actions, hence the saying that it is always more difficult to defend (in a war, defending sides are disadvantaged in having to react to attacking strategies).

From the above examples, I can hypothesis that power is the means to make events revolve around an action. This is easily demonstrated in other areas like politics. A careless comment by Lee Kuan Yew some nine years ago soured Singapore’s relations with Indonesia – just like that. I believe that some CEO of an oil company nearly caused a minor economic depression with another careless comment earlier this year, but I can’t remember who. In any case, wielders of power are more often than not the cause of an effect, rather than reacting to the actions of others.

In nature, we have a physical manifestation of such a relation of power, and it is sitting right in the stars. The Earth revolves around the Sun, and the moon revolves around Earth, and neither Earth nor the moon can do much to change its course; it was determined by the proximity of the larger body. The Sun, in turn, revolves around what scientists claim to be a black hole, and certainly, the galaxies will all affect the courses of one another due to gravity, however weak their effects may be. The moon, being such a small body compared to its larger beings, can’t help but be pulled and tugged, while exerting little to no change to, say, the Earth and the Sun. A black hole, on the other hand, can easily swallow the moon and disintegrate its structure into radiation without breaking a sweat, a demonstration of the difference in strength between the influential and the weak.

We can do nothing without power – that is certain. Without it, the world (i.e. human society) will carry on when we die, oblivious to our passing; indeed, even when we are alive, the world will remain oblivious to our presence. For those of us who wish to change the world for the better, well, the course of action that must be taken is obvious.

However, even though seizing power is so enticing, would you really want to do so? A black hole is powerful, yet no one dares to approach it; for to be overwhelmingly powerful often means to be feared, and few are those in power who do not live in solitude.

Quantum fascination

2007-11-09T21:53:00.000+08:00

I think I am in love...

...with Quantum Mechanics. Since the ‘A’ Level is not yet over, I might as give in to my academic inclinations and spill out the secrets I have recently discovered. Mind you, this is going to be a long post on Quantum Physics, but I will attempt to put it all into layman’s terms.

The origin of quantum mechanics lies within the mystery called the Young’s Double Slit experiment. This should sound familiar to all students of college physics. Basically, in this experiment, we find that light from a source (say, a monochromatic lamp) is diffracted by a narrow slit. The diffracted light is then further diffracted by two narrow slits at equidistance from the first slit, such that these slits act like point sources of light, resulting in superposition and interference on a screen. The result will be a pattern of bright and dark fringes formed on the screen, caused by constructive and destructive interference of the light waves at those points. The double slit experiment thus acts as a showcase of the wave property of light, as that is the only commonsensical interpretation of diffraction possible.

Most of us also know the other property of light, which is its particle nature, demonstrated by Einstein’s Photoelectric Effect. What happens here is that light quanta (energy packets) can hit a metal, and by chance, may be absorbed by the electrons of the metal. The light quanta passes its energy to these electrons, which become “excited” and may break free of its parent atoms, travelling at a speed determined by the energy of the light absorbed. Here, light acts as a particle, for its encounter and subsequent absorption by the electron is proof that the energy of a light is centred at a point.

Light has an enigmatic nature, for it can be both a particle and a wave at the same time, a property dubbed as the wave-particle duality. Strangely enough, this property extends to all quantum entities (e.g. electrons, photons, atoms). It is even theoretically possible to perform the Double Slit experiment using atoms, with a gold foil acting as the slits, and to get the same interference pattern as we do for light. Hence, the mystery of light’s conflicting properties extends to all entities of a sufficiently small size.

In the 1900s, scientists were able to come up with a standard interpretation of quantum laws, known as the Copenhagen Interpretation, largely developed by Niels Bohr. The first concept indicated by this interpretation is the collapse of the wave function. For example, an electron travels as a wave, but if we were to look for it with an electron detector, its wave function collapses to a particle. In other words, if we are able to determine where the electron is, it will exist as a particle, ceasing its wave property. Hence, there is no longer any uncertainty regarding its position, but the moment we stop looking, its probability of being in another position increases as its wave function moves on.

More importantly, the “wave” indicated by the wave property is not a material wave as we know it. Sound is a mechanical wave that uses vibrations of air particles; water waves use the vibration of water molecules. However, an electron wave is a probability wave. As I understand it, the wave outlined by the motion of the electron defines the chance whereby we can find the electron at a point. I find it easier to think of it as a normal distribution curve; a wave function is simply the materialisation of the distribution curve that indicates the probability of an electron’s exact position at a point.

Since we are only able to observe either its wave nature or particle nature at the same time, we can only determine its location or its movement (a wave must be in motion, hence observation of a wave helps determine an entity’s momentum). This gives rise to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which, obviously, is not as simple a concept as college textbooks make it out to be.

The second concept is the non-locality nature of quantum entities. In other to illustrate this idea, let us return to the double slit experiment again.

If we were to use electrons for the double slit experiment (for the sake of being able to determine its position), it will form an interference pattern on the detecting screen. Supposing we were to send only one electron at a time, why would it still form an interference pattern? The electron will travel to either slit with 50% probability, where it will deflect towards the bright fringes. However, when one slit is covered, the same electron will move to the other slit and the pattern disappears; it will no longer travel to the central bright fringe with the greatest probability, as it previously does. It is as though it knows when the slit is open or close, or when there is one slit or two, or when to form an interference pattern and when not to. Spookily enough, it is aware of more than just its local surroundings; it appears to have knowledge of the experiment setup itself, and how it is supposed to act, and where to move, etc.

One of the weird consequences of the Copenhagen Interpretation is that for this experiment, it is possible for the electrons to pass through the double slits and not interfere at all! Subsequently, it will just move as though it originated from an electron gun, which is a result of wave function collapsing. This is done by placing electron detectors at each slit and detecting its position as each electron passes through the slit. By this act of observation, the electron collapses into a particle, so diffraction does not occur; this causes the electrons to gather in blobs in the detecting screen, rather than creating an interference pattern.

Adding to the chaos, Bohr states that what truly matters in quantum mechanics is not just the behaviour of individual entities and the experimental setup, but also the human observer. Without the human observer, it will be impossible to determine the state of an electron; hence, if an electron is in an enclosed box that is partitioned into two, it will exist simultaneously in both partitions, until a human observer takes action to determine its exact location. It appears to say that an electron is like a ghostly entity, made real only by the act of observation, which sounds absurd. Nevertheless, an observer is a necessary requirement for the wave function of an entity to collapse, thus enabling its position to be determined. This presents a huge problem regarding the acceptability of the interpretation, for it brings in many implications, but such matters do not fall within the scope of this discussion; as such, I will end it with the mere introduction of basic quantum concepts.

Do not be surprised if you find the concepts here hard to comprehend; I was left thinking about the consequences of these rules for some time, like exactly what does “human observers” really mean. For additional detail, feel free to consult “Schrodinger’s Kittens and the Search for Reality” by John Gibbins. Brilliant author he truly is.

An afterlife thesis

2007-11-04T22:58:00.000+08:00

I think that the afterlife is a concept meant to deceive gullible individuals who were innocent enough to belief in it; I would rather believe in a state of oblivion after death, whereby I can finally lay to rest my weary mind from the toils of life. I shall explain my position, as well as my own theory regarding heaven and hell, which I think is an exaggerated idea.

Most religions provide several common possibilities that face us in the afterlife. Christians believe in an afterlife where men will be split into regions of polar opposites, based on their deeds in life, after being judged by God; this particular scenario is mirrored in the Egyptian, Norse and Greek cultures, revealing its popularity in the Western world. The other prospect is to be reincarnated continuously, which acts as the main theme in Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism and most other Eastern religions. However, it is obvious that, even in the cycle of reincarnation, that there is an inherent system of reward and punishment: for the deeds dealt in a lifetime, you reincarnate in a situation of severity in proportion to the punishment you deserve for your sins. Ultimately, reincarnation is simply another permutation of a system of reward and punishment, and heaven and hell, and such systems are prevalent in perhaps all prominent religions in the world.

When people think about heaven and hell, with a basic understanding of the concept, most, if not everyone, will share nearly the same idea as to what the words signify. Heaven can be agreed upon as the place where you experience happiness, whereas hell, as its polar opposite, is the place where you experience unhappiness. The extremities dictated by individual religions regarding physical discomfort and anguish vary, and as such, will not be considered; it is enough to understand the basis upon which the idea was founded, for to reward involves the receiving of happiness, and to punish involves input of unhappiness. Thus, when reduced to its essentials, this is what the two concepts represent: the two extremities of a human’s mental states.

From such a perception of heaven and hell, we can observe that the physical actualisation of the two realms involve the ascribing of equivalent activities related to these mental states. Heaven is assigned all that appears pleasant: beauty, marble and silver palaces, pleasure, eternal life, etc; everything desirous can be thought of and related to it. Hell, on the other hand, involves pain, suffering, fire, torture, ugliness, etc; everything we shun, despise and fear. The step from its delineation to its actual recreation of these realms in religion is not hard to attempt. It follows that heaven and hell is perhaps not as distant as we may imagine. My hypothesis is that heaven refers to the state of mind whereby you experience absolute contentment, and hell is the experience of absolute unhappiness, and that the idea of the afterlife is simply a story that evolved into what we take to be actual divine realms.

Why do people believe in the notion of heaven? I think that there is an extremely selfish reason for it, which is that, deep down, they want some form of reward for having gone through life. The poor want to experience the riches that they see others possess, the rich want to retain their earthly gains and bask in its glory for eternity, and the sad want to have the assurance of a refuge of happiness after their death. There are always reasons for any one situation humans can conceive that will justify his belief in a heaven after death, one of which, in the modern context, is that “there is no harm believing in one”, which I think simply reveals the utter selfishness of human nature.

I still find it hard to understand why so many abhor the idea of oblivion. Science has defined death as the cessation of brain activity, which is the most obvious indication towards the fate that awaits us. It is enough for us to do what we can to attain our individual “heaven” while avoiding “hell”, living to our most for each day. In the end, I wish to cease my existence, for an eternal existence that most people conceive is horrifying for me. Death by torture is preferable to an eternal life; for the seemingly obvious choice here, in fact, between suffering physical or mental torture, and the wise would do well to avoid the latter. Oblivion, then, is the only possible alternative conceivable, and an alternative I would readily accept; the acceptance of this fate furthers my appreciation of the sanctity of life, bringing me to the realisation that we should not waste our lives in triviality.

In this post, I think I have outlined my reasons for stubbornly investing in agnosticism quite well (yes, I am agnostic, not atheist). Summing it up, each of us have our own conception of what heaven means, and while I deny its existence, I believe that we can attain its emotional equivalent, should we truly comprehend what we ourselves desire.

In defence of philosophy

2007-11-02T21:35:00.000+08:00

When I initially started philosophy, I did not understand why philosophy was so important. Now that I had my first look into the deeper recesses, and a better understanding of the wonders that are yet to be discovered, I cannot understand why people do not appreciate philosophy.

Perhaps one of the main reasons why it was avoided by people is due to its inaccessibility, and the high level of language involved, some of the many deterrents that people face in its uptake. Ironically, almost all of us humans inevitably partake in a little philosophy ourselves, like thinking about the existence of God, contemplating on the cruelties of life, and wondering about the nature of love; all these are philosophical topics, topics that have been tackled by the most brilliant minds available to mankind, and I find it astonishing that the public merely pay them lip service while taking no genuine notice of their ideas.

As I mentioned earlier, although the language barrier is a major disincentive, it remains a necessary one in view of placing ideas into words. Wittgenstein talked about how language command is a defining factor in what you know and what you don’t, and I find that it is very much relevant to our concept of what knowledge actually is, after all, you can’t say that you know something if you cannot put it into words, and hence, it is not possible for you to provide the justification. Language must always remain a key disposition for an intellectual, and philosophy, as a highly intellectual activity, is no exception to that rule. However, this is a problem that can be overcome – “When there’s a will, there’s a way”.

It disturbed me greatly yesterday to hear, since KI ‘A’ Level examinations were over, that some of my classmates were so eager to be rid of their notes. Although it really was an intellectual challenge to my grasp of concepts and command of language, I never had so much fun in my life (not to mention never having as low grades for any one subject), and it remains disappointing to see that KI was being treated as just a subject to be studied for two years in JC, thereafter to be thrown aside into the dust, rather than as a doorway that opens the eyes of brave souls to behold a whole new world of unexplored ideas. Unknowingly, we have tagged negative connotations that delineate the horrible experience we had with grades for the subject, and it will not surprise me to see that several years down the road, students may start avoiding taking KI for fear of poor grades. Such a phenomenon would simply highlight the rising materialism in our society and will be a tragedy indeed.

It is all the more shocking to me to find that the Americans have taken to dismissing the works of philosophers and intellectuals as relics of “dead white men”. It is extremely insulting to hear that they actually dare to maintain such a careless attitude, when almost all of them can’t even hold a candle to Thomas Aquinas. Perhaps they have their own beliefs and reasons for such regards, but I view the great works of the past with, I daresay, veneration. These past men have been crucial in shaping our thought processes today, without whom our world may have been very different (imagine how we would be living now if Newton or Plato were never born!). We act as to fulcrum bridging the past and the future; without proper appreciation of the past, our fullest potential will never be brought to bear, and the future will be left all the more wanting.

Like the Chinese proverb says, “Listen not to the old and wise, and you risk biting the dust.” Dismissing the usefulness of abstract subjects like philosophy without a shred of regret is perhaps the most regretful act I will ever observe; such people remain unenlightened, yet convinced they were otherwise, trapped in a world where their fallacious beliefs overrule all reason.

Knowledge gag

2007-10-30T19:35:00.000+08:00

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.

In search of truth

2007-10-23T19:42:00.000+08:00

"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.

Avoiding pitfalls in life

2007-10-23T01:08:00.000+08:00

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.

The easy way out

2007-10-18T04:00:00.000+08:00

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.

Paradox of power

2007-10-16T01:37:00.000+08:00

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.

Ironics of life

2007-10-10T19:55:00.000+08:00

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.

Appreciation

2007-09-19T21:05:00.000+08:00

Staring out of the bus window at the bright, orange setting sun, I marvelled at how the clouds drew in the light and glowed, orange against grey; at how the sky appears to have a horizon of its own, splitting blue emptiness from the orange brightness; at how the moon stood still, staring down at the world, isolated in its own semi-circle arena. Times like these makes you appreciate nature and the beauty it brings to the world. Sadly, few seem to even look at such scenery anymore; most are intent on their private conversations, books, or nodding off to their mp3s.

Many a time, I would walk the long, lonely path along the main gate of NJC, absentmindedly wondering how the leaves pulsed with colour in the way they did, how the sunlight came through and lit the area around. The wind blew; the trees shook gently, and leaves floated down, as though acting as the mark of the wind’s passing. The light shifted, never resting in a single spot, and soft shadows overlapped other shadows to produce a remarkable spectrum of colours on the ground. Sadly, the long road remained empty of human presence except mine; it seems that few wish to take the longer path, as though rushing home to study for a few extra hours makes the difference between life and death.

So, what exactly is the significance of these occurrences? That they are yet more prove about how easily humans tend to take things for granted? Perhaps they are. Yet, we must further question: why are they taking such things for granted?

Our human lives can be viewed as being excruciatingly short, or being excruciatingly long, depending on how torturous you find life to be. (Let’s hope it is not the latter.) In a short span of 18 years, how can we have forgotten about why certain things have baffled people for centuries? Ancient humans believed in a god residing in the moon, gods of fire, and gods of the trees; there seems to be gods for everything. While easily dismissed as primitive beliefs of ignorant humans, have we been too quick to dismiss the mysterious nature of such “gods” around us, the mysteriousness that led to the creation of gods in the first place? Just because we can now explain certain phenomena that humans previously could not, have we forgotten why such phenomena were mysterious in the first place?

Eighty years ago, cavity radiations presented baffling problems for physicists. Cavity radiations were the “in” thing to experiment on, and scientists like Einstein, Planck and De Broglie spent countless hours pondering how to explain this phenomenon in a satisfactory manner. When the Photoelectric Effect was finally solved, cavity radiations took its place in the history of science, soon to be forgotten as a mysterious phenomenon worth thinking about. Today, the “in” thing is quantum mechanics, and giant underground particle accelerators. Fifty years down the road, will particle accelerators end up thrown on the road side, abandoned and unattended, like how we tossed our pagan gods away, how we forgot about beautiful sunsets, or how cavity radiations became mere history?

The shape change that the moon undergoes throughout the entire month is yet another phenomenon that humans used to find a supernatural, mysterious process. We now know that the moon is round, that the moon is just another piece of rock, and that the shape changes because light from the sun is reflected from its surface to reach our eyes. Unfortunately, we take for granted that the phenomenon is as dictated by scientific explanations, and that the moon cannot be a real god of its own. We dismiss it to be something not worthy of notice. In Isaac Asimov’s book, I read that the moon is an object unique to Earth; a planet’s satellite of its size is not found anywhere else in the universe. Whether that is true or not, it reinforces the idea that just because we think we understand how things work, we have forgotten why they were an object of interest in the first place; as such, we have failed to appreciate what significance even the most common objects hold.

With understanding comes comprehension... or does it? Perhaps, if we were to retain that sense of curiosity towards the world around us, at the expense of our current understanding, would that be a good exchange? To find that there is something new to discover everyday, something interesting to explore and to savour the unique place everything potentially has in this world – such child-like curiosity has left us a long time ago, back when we were still green and ignorant. Perhaps it would be a fair trade to return to such ignorance, if we were to better appreciate the beauty and the mysteriousness of a sunset, apparently just another common scenery with no place in our hearts.

Self-confidence, friends and contentment

2007-08-23T21:19:00.000+08:00

It’s strange just how much a difference confidence can make. Confidence, aka self belief, is probably one of the most important parts of our character, and it really does make all the difference in the world.

When I first entered NJC, I admit that I was quite arrogant. I thought I could challenge the world and come out tops. Well, challenge it I did, but certainly not coming out for the better, at least back then. Naivety was a major shortcoming then, but the self-belief I had was rock hard. Well, you can’t exactly blame me for that when I entered NJC with HCI-level grades in my O Levels. Looking back, I find that I was probably missing a key component: humility. Well, look at where that dropped me off – at 25 percentile in grades and nowhere close to a H3.

Somewhere along the way, I lost that self-confidence. Those days of depression are not easy to face, and I really struggled, yet I guess that it was for the better. They say that it is through difficulties that you grow stronger; I shall whole-heartedly agree with them (whoever they are). The loss of self belief is something you will never want to experience – the feeling that you are inferior to everyone around, like a fish out of the water. You give up easily, avoid contact with others around you, think in a negative manner, etc... It takes a lot to reclaim that belief. Once gone, it seems to have disappeared forever, leaving you stranded in a sea of emptiness.

These days, I could feel that self-confidence again. It is like a warm glow, allowing you to bask in the knowledge that you can succeed at whatever you attempt. When you actually do set out to attempt a problem, and succeed at it, the feeling is incredible. It feels as though you have single-handedly knocked through a brick wall with bare hands, and found a treasure trove waiting behind. Never mind that it is only a simple mathematics problem, it gives you a huge boost nevertheless.

I guess that I have learnt to accept myself for who I am, my shortcomings, my strengths and my beliefs. I used to belittle myself for not being as good as others at grades, at portfolio filling, at sports, and at making friends. I believe I have come to terms with that. I no longer try to be someone I am not, but to be good at being who I am. What used to be an uphill struggle against everything from my own personality to my competitors suddenly became much easier, and the clouds have cleared from my mind.

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

I find that I am not as close to my former friends as I once was. What occurred back at Catholic High is repeating its history again, and the root of that problem is probably due to my personality and beliefs. Back then, I didn’t really see the value of having close friends except to have fun with, and today I still don’t.

During one of the Feedback Unit outings we had in council, I was asked to say something unique about myself. I answered, “I have less than 5 good friends in the world.” I wasn’t lying. I never liked having an outgoing lifestyle, hanging out with several friends day in, day out, keeping up with old contacts and stuff. Sociable, yes, but certainly not easy to become intimate friends with. I prefer a more private life, keeping to myself, and there are days when I avoid contact with anyone whenever possible. I would go up to the crest and sit there, watching the sky, or (given the upcoming exams) hide in some remote corner of the school to study by my lonesome. I seriously will not mind spending my life in the mountains, if I had the chance to do so.

Last year, I tried very hard to change this aspect of myself. I tried to be an extrovert, to make friends with people I came across with. I guess that the experience at least helped me become a more flexible person in terms of character, but in the end, it still didn’t really work out. What drove me to do so was probably admiration for people like Celine and Rachel Low, who had such large networks of good friends to count on. Too much anime that emphasized the importance of friendship probably made their mark on me as well.

Contrary to what those anime taught, I would say that most people need friends because they are incomplete; they need people whom they can relate to, to share troubles, joys and tears with, to do everything from shopping to mugging together, and they want to be understood so that they can, in turn, understand themselves. That is how they find contentment. Myself, I feel content to simply spend time with my thoughts. My enjoyment is derived from doing activities like computer gaming and reading. In short, I do not need friends to find contentment.

Neon Genesis Evangelion raised an issue with regards to contentment, with a heavy philosophical influence. It speculated that humans can only find true contentment as part of a greater whole, and envisioned a future where humanity evolved into a super-being containing the souls of all humans – that is the ideal future for us. No more hurt. No more emotional distress. The implication is, of course, the assumption that the ultimate goal of all human beings is to feel contentment, a statement that I can find no counter examples to. If anyone can think of one, please feel free to inform me =) In any case, everything we do is linked to an ultimate goal of experiencing a feeling, and everyone will unconsciously strive to achieve this goal, unless they are mentally ill.

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

Of course, I may simply be deluded in thinking this way. Perhaps this whole passage is simply a result of some horrible paradigm I have been living under, one that is as solid as a house of cards, and if that is the case, spare me the horrors of living under an illusion and inform me as soon as possible. Unlikely as I think it is.

Contentment is secondary

2007-08-14T00:09:00.000+08:00

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.”

– John Stuart Mill

Laws of Social Interaction

2007-08-12T11:59:00.000+08:00

As I walked down Orchard Road, I looked around me, at the countless numbers of humanoid figures scurrying around. From above, they probably looked no different from multi coloured ants, without the six legs. It makes you wonder why people move around the way they do... Observe! I walk down this road in order to get to a destination (which, by the way, is Kinokuniya); so do everyone else. But why this destination, why this objective, when there are countless other paths to pick?

From the outset, we can probably put reasons behind each action a person makes. Let us assume that Joe arrived at Orchard – the mere fact that he is at Orchard, and not elsewhere, hints at his objectives. Maybe he is there to hang out with friends, or to shop for something, or simply to gaze at the environment (not very likely). We see him approach a bunch of people of the same age group, who seem to acknowledge his presence – so he is there to hang out with friends! From that context, we can further discover other objectives of his: have fun? Socialise? Bond further with these friends of his? However the case, you will never reach this conclusion that he is doing something but without any reason for doing so. Meeting up with friends but without an aim in mind is simply illogical, however illogical the aim itself is in nature. Therefore, we can conclude that behind every human action, there is a reason. Let us take that as our First Law of Social Interactions.

Observe the many ants around you – perhaps they are but exact clones of Joes who live different lives. Let us assume that there is one world with numerous families who are exactly the same in every aspect. Joe will be born in every one of these families and grow up in these environments in a different manner, although differences may range from slight to extremely radical. As a result, 20 years down the road, we see countless Joes wandering the roads of Orchard, some going to the bookstores to mug for their upcoming tests; a few leaning against a lamppost, smoking and showing off their tattoos; two Joes speeding down the pavement on skateboards, evidently skilled in the intricacies of skateboarding tricks; one enjoying a romantic walk with a visually passable girl, who was clutching his arm; yet another sitting on the sidewalk, playing a harmonica in the hopes that a passer-by will donate enough for his dinner. Each of them represents a Joe, a possibility, an alternative lifestyle to what we currently lead. The question remains regarding why we turn out the way we do – what actually caused the difference that resulted in the Joe playing the harmonica, or the Joe smoking at the lamppost?

From birth, society shapes our character, which in turn directs our actions. At a young age, families are what impact us the most – if Joe’s father chose to invest in stocks and went bankrupt, committing suicide as a result, perhaps Joe may end up as the Joe playing the harmonica for a living. If Joe was neglected by his workaholic parents, who chose to prioritise work, he may be influenced to join a group of gangsters and end up as the guy smoking by the lamppost. Families, in turn are probably shaped by the society and social circumstances! The list of possibilities is endless; one event in the past may result in a million possible alternatives. This is called the Butterfly Effect, which derives its name from the myth that a butterfly in China may cause a flow of air, resulting in a hurricane in the USA, a radical but possible outcome. In such cases, we can see that our reality is the result of a mind-boggling number of choices taken from the beginning of human history. What we do, what we chose, what actions we took based on what reasons we thought were important, all these have the effect of creating the reality that we live in today. Let us call this our Second Law of Social Interactions – Actions have a cumulative effect.

Let us now look at the original Joe. Joe is just another boy who likes hanging out with his friends, going to the movies and having chit-chat sessions that are completely unproductive. Yet he likes it all the same. However, looking into his background, we find that Joe is a boy who has examinations just around the corner. Unlike most boys who will probably be studying hard at the local library, he is at Orchard hanging out with friends. What made him choose fun, rather than studies? Now, let us look into why we do things the way we do. Let us assume that we can attribute values to every action that we can take – fun value, dislike value, urgency value, etc, which we most probably can, although these “values” are simply relative to each other. In any case, we can determine which actions we find more fun than the other. For example, Joe dislikes studying intensely, attributing a low “like” value to it, while he likes having fun, in other words, hanging out with friends, so he attributes a high “like” value to that. Studying has a high “urgency” value while friends have a low “urgency” value. Somehow, he chose fun, which is why we observe him at Orchard Road rather than in Bishan Library. He thus prioritised “like” over “urgency”. Why? Well, we can try attributing values to these values – let us call it the “importance” value. By “importance” scale, Joe attributed a high value to “like” and a lower value to “urgency”, resulting in his prioritising of fun over study. While this attempt to quantify priorities may seem awkward, we can use it as a basis for further speculation.

As we can see from the above, importance value is assigned to various values that can potentially outline the underlying reasons for our actions. In other words, we do what we do because we prioritise taking that particular action over other potential actions. In fact, it is not so much as prioritising of actions as a prioritising of objectives – as seen from Joe’s case, he prioritised fun over urgency, which in turn led him to take that particular set of actions. Therefore, we can conclude that we act based on the objectives we prioritise. Let that conclusion be the Third Law of Social Interactions.

Ok, this was written when I was in a weird mood, at 0300 in the wee hours of the morning. It looks quite coherent though, although at times depreciating into abstraction. Maybe I should try checking one of those psychology books to see how spot-on my “Laws of Social Interactions” were.

Mindset of an event I/C

2007-07-31T21:43:00.000+08:00

During my council life, I have experienced many forms of leadership, exposed myself to mind-numbing trials by fire and undergone times where my body and soul hover near the edge of utter breakdown. Now, it was time for me to see things from the outside, to observe quietly from the sidelines as the new NDC committee took charge as mine had, seemingly a long, long time ago. Yet even today, the memories remain as fresh as though I was at the helm only yesterday.

Organising an event as I/C is a truly trying experience. The burden of responsibility forces you to mature before your time, to stress and worry when things do not go right, and to test the limits of your endurance. In fact, I am of the opinion that you are not a true leader unless you have once taken the role at the helm, facing the enormity of the task at hand. Being part of the organising committee will give you countless opportunities to slack without a driving force at hand; as I/C, you cannot afford to relax, and be self-motivated enough to motivate others to work towards your common goals.

In the past one and a half years in NJC, my event organising record consists of:

Orientation Two 2006 Cheering Committee A.I/C
National Day Celebrations 2006 I/C
NJCyberGames 2006/2007 Game Marshal
Council Elections 2007 Registration and Interviews Committee
Unofficially: National Day Celebrations 2007 Mentor

Quite a hefty load, and a hefty load of damage these commitments did to my poor grades =( But that aside, this period of time was probably the most meaningful and memorable times of my short life.

Being I/C is more than just taking charge of an ad hoc committee. It is about your readiness to sacrifice anything and everything for the sake of success, to ensure that what you envisioned is brought to reality. When you first start off, the first few decisions are probably the most important ones: deciding on themes and committee breakdown. During this time, you will slowly, painstakingly create your vision of what you want to create, and make sure everyone agrees on that one vision. You will need to ensure good communication between sub-committees, ensure that everyone gets a role to play, an opportunity to speak and a share of the stakes.

Eventually, as the event fleshes out, you begin to sacrifice a bit of yourself. At the start, maybe not much: one day’s night to complete the proposal, skipping an afternoon’s worth of homework to discuss stuff with your charges, or perhaps missing dinner to do a comprehensive proposal review. Later on, more demands are progressively heaped on you, and you will think that “Since I am the I/C, isn’t it my obligation to do what others have not? Isn’t it easier just doing some of uncompleted tasks by myself, rather than troubling others to do such a simple job?” However, stress accumulates, and eventually the tell-tale signs of jadedness and extreme fatigue soon appear.

How then, are you supposed to withstand such continued exertions of effort, while coping with the daily and considerable commitments of school at the same time? How does everyone survive this test of their sanity? One reason perhaps is passion. After all those late nights and daily meetings, somehow, your event gets integrated into you. It becomes part of you, and it haunts your thoughts day and night, in every waking moment. Recently I spoke to Jie Ying regarding how I/Cs usually show common characteristics in days leading to their events. We agreed on almost every point! During NDC’s crucial periods, there are times when after school, I will simply go to the council room and hang around, knowing that there is something that needs to be settled, knowing that there are people you need to talk to and to discuss important matter with. Usually, I will return home when the moon shines bright in the night sky, leaving only after everyone else has vacated the council room, still anxious because of more worries in the back of my mind, concerns that require urgent addressing. Yet, despite such tough circumstances, talking about NDC will be the only subject and topic that will shake off my weariness instantaneously, even though I had fallen asleep for every lesson throughout the day due to two days’ worth of no proper rest.

Make no mistake, being I/C is not an easy job, and it leaves a lot of personal demons behind as well. Post-event, you will feel as though you could have done so much better in so many other ways, if only... if only.... You feel a sense of loss after everything was said and done, a sense that something important to you has gone away forever. At the same time, bad experiences and regrets will haunt you for some time. I think that the reason why I joined the Elections committee is partly because I wanted to settle some of these demons once and for all, rather than leave them hanging around for life. Memories do not fade easily after all. Some say that completion of such stressful tasks will reward you with a sense of satisfaction; I never felt satisfied with NDC, but perhaps I am too ambitious in nature. Fortunately, , you will be able to take away something invaluable with you: your newfound experience and leadership skills, friends that have stuck by you thick and thin, the realisation of exactly where your limit lies, and confidence in your personal abilities.

Lastly, it is lonely being at the top. There are few you can turn to for advice, few that understand the situation you are in. It gets even harder if it was your first time organising a big event, with little experience whatsoever. However, do not be afraid to turn to those around you: parents, teachers and friends. They can be surprising sources of solace in the chaos and tangled mess you find yourself in.

All the best to NDC 2007 committee =) Watching them do stuff that I have experienced just one year ago brings back lots of memories. I daresay they may do a better job than mine had, and watching their little discussion around the canteen table this afternoon spurred me to write this essay... it really was something I had wanted to do for a long while but never really found the time to.