[[How has been]]

Friday, August 29, 2014

[[On merit?]]

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/02/27/purpose-work-love/

Hi guys, read the above.

If prestige and peer validation are as unimportant as they seem, why is the whole education system revolving around it?
How do you build people not concerned with prestige and peer validation if they are inoculated with it throughout their formative years?
As far as there is no God, the advice there is perhaps one of the leading viewpoints one can take.

I liked Alain de Botton's point about meritocracy. I shall elaborate it slightly further and with my own imputs.

A meritocratic society, I feel, is an extension from the socialist economic agenda. Side note: I am rather socialist, I think. What happens is that the country is maximising it's productive output by putting the best people in the appropriate jobs. It makes pure economic sense that the best person for the job ought to do the job, it will result in the country or the society as a whole producing a larger output due to better productivity at the human resources level.

I personally contend that it doesn't matter whether a person is from a more privileged background or not, whether that person is tremendously lucky or not. As long as that person is one with the best skills at the moment (of course, including attitude and whatnot), that person ought to be given the job (or otherwise known as the most reward.) (though that is kinda lame, how can a job be a reward lol.) Jokes aside, what I am saying is that it doesnt matter if some poor kid is smarter than our prime minister but because he lacked an education he cannot be the prime minister. Case remains that the prime minister is better than the poor kid for the prime minister job and he ought to have it. Similarly it doesn't matter that a person, if he had known about a particular job, would be better suited for it compared to the person currently holding that job.

What is important is that of the people applying for that job the best one is selected. Luck and chance are too pervasive to root out or even attempt to root out (though perhaps one can invest in education for the masses and like, advertise more for the job opportunity). I strongly believe that luck is integral yet we ought to just go with the flow (since nothing can be changed anyway).

However, a meritocratic system might lead to people thinking that they are there on their own doing. This is toxic. I mean, de Botton noted that previously people thought of God as the one that allocated people their fate but in today's godless humanist individualist culture, meritocracy leads to people believing that they and they alone are the cause for their position. Doing such means that one fails to recognise the large large part that one has nothing to do with namely luck. (I lump upbringing and genetics under luck too).

Why is this toxic? Clearly anything deviating from the truth is toxic (XD). Those that do well think they are the cause (instead of giving thanks to God?) and that breeds pride. Those that do mediocre think that they are mediocre and those that do poorly blame themselves. While their position in life cannot be changed, I think the perspective can be.

Ok, my new conclusion is that we ought to understand that even in a meritocratic society, one's success and failure can be attributed towards other factors that one has no control over. Of course one has control over oneself which is also a factor, a key factor, just not the sole factor.

Of course I am not saying that just because you have been dealt a bad hand (or you think you have been dealt a bad hand) you ought to roll over and curse the heavens. Of course you ought to game the factor that you have control over namely yourself. Just don't blame yourself entirely for the failure.

[[I wrote this at]]*|8:25 PM|

Sunday, August 24, 2014

[[]]

Freud, Darwin and Marx are so dangerous. The whole naturalistic current is slightly mad. The church's response is also slightly mad.

I think, at each turn they challenge Christianity's basic grounding. This has left Christianity devoid of much of it's intellectual backbone. It's logical backbone is undermined. I think Christianity should challenge their assertions. Hold to the bible but not in the fluffy 'blind faith manner'. I think Christianity has produced a logical defense of it's worldview that is scientifically sound. More work should be done here. I shall develop this further someday.

Im not sure if I have said this before but fat unbeautiful people calling themselves beautiful are seriously just kidding themselves. When I say beautiful I mean in the societal way of viewing beauty, what with all that real woman have curves and whatnot. Society sees beauty as not fat. Hence, fat people are not beautiful by societal standards. If you are saying that fat people are beautiful just because they are a creation of God and God's creations are beautiful then yes, that is fine. That is an innate worth nothing to do with figure or looks but with being. Anyway, if one is able to grasp that understanding that they are beautiful as a creation of God I doubt one will need to proclaim to the world that they are beautiful for it is not the world's approval they are looking for.

No, those that claim they are beautiful want societal approval. Which I feel they should not seek. They are not beautiful in society's eyes and being not beautiful in society's eyes is ok. What is with this obsessive want of being recognised as beautiful.

How then ought one live a Christian life?
That is the eternal life question is it not.

[[I wrote this at]]*|10:21 PM|

Sunday, August 17, 2014

[[]]

Being right in the end is pointless. I told you so has no effect. Except for religion.

What is the point if someone, say Al Gore, is right that global warming indeed devastates the low lying places on earth. Sea levels rise and world land area shrinks 10% somewhere in the 2020s and millions of people lose their livelihood and their property. (They have not actually lost it, just that it is flooded, perpetually.) Then what? So what? The people of Mauritius would have lost their country despite being right. While the USA and China which probably account for more than half of the effect would suffer comparatively minimal damage despite being wrong. Is there even any value in being right?

Another example, a mother warns her daughter not to go to a party. Her daughter tells her not to worry and goes off anyway. She is killed at the party. As such, the mother is vindicated and grieved in the same stroke. Ugh, I think I think too much about writing after that journalism seminar. I shan't care too much about effective communication here eh. Fluff reigns here. So back to the point, rightness is as useful as a fortune teller in an asylum.

Of course here we have to draw the distinction. There is the ethical right and wrong which we are not discussing. That has been discussed much in previous posts and will probably be covered extensively in the future. Here is the right and wrong that can be, in a way, verified (okay, you can argue that the ethical right and wrong can be verified after you die, but that will run into the problem that is currently being discussed. lol). Paradoxically the verification of the rightness and wrongness renders being right (or wrong) instantly meaningless for one cannot place a bet on a race that is over.

So now the action that one can take (E.g placing a bet) seems to be the only purpose of being right. In cases such as that of Al Gore, he made a nice powerpoint slide and presented to important people his view (he also won a nobel prize for that but yeah.) Lets say that he also sold all his beachside bungalows and bought prime property on some mountain range. And global warming happens. Does anything change? Does the fact that he tried his best change anything? To him personally maybe he can live with a clear conscience and a justified I told you so. Haven't I just asserted I told you so has no effect in the first line lol.

Why do a certain group of atheists think that religious people are illogical? And religiously think thus. I mean, thinking other people are illogical really means that the person thinking such is perfectly assured of his own thinking or has lost his ability to reflect.

[[I wrote this at]]*|3:40 PM|

Thursday, August 7, 2014

[[]]

The increasing polarisation of society is undoing some of the thinking spirit the renaissance has bought us.
Bigots on both sides without thinking, each accusing the other of not thinking. You cant speak, you cant teach unthinking people. The only way out is a sad self-implosion but it is inevitable perhaps.

Yesterday while I was hanging out with my arts oweek people for the second and last time, there was this uncle that came to us. They were doing flag, meaning collecting donations from people for organisations, mostly loose change.

Then there was this rather elderly man that came to us and started saying we shouldnt approach people for donations. Perhaps using the word 'saying' is being too nice on him, he was pseudo lecturing. He was saying things about how we are being made use of by teachers to collect money. How we were wasting our time, not spending time on our parents. How the government has plenty of money to give gst vouchers that the government should take care of the needy. How what we are doing is not enough, there are too many needy people.

He talked to 4 of us, somewhat separately. And each of us raised the obvious points. But talking to some people is like talking to the wall. And he said he that we are educated and he is uneducated yet he can see such things.

Well, introspection and self-evaluation apparently aren't 'things' that he can see. I feel somewhat sad for him, but as I probably shall not cross path with him again, I guess thats that.

[[I wrote this at]]*|8:13 PM|

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

[[]]

To carry on from the previous post,

Socialism presupposes that good of everyone is good. I guess it also presupposes the equality of each man's 'goodness onto him'. For something good to me is not worth twice as much as something good for you. Each man's happiness is equal ( I HATE TO USE HAPPINESS as a gauge but I think socialism uses it. Amirite?). It also assumes that people want happiness/goodness most. How about I use the word goodness to denote whatever it is that ought to be wanted most. It supposes that society as a whole is more important than the individual, meaning societal goodness is prioritised over individual goodness. It also assumes that the individual is the basic unit of society (I think.). For example, if there is a family of 9 and a family of 4 and one father had to be conscripted, the burden will be on the family of 4 assuming equal sadness or ungoodness to each member of the family. I think voting based on family ought to be considered (though I am not advocating it).

Each of these sentences, by the way, can be challenged.

Communism (in the pure theory form, I can't be bothered with practicalities yet.) presupposes that people want to be equal. (come on, nobody wants to be equal other than those that are worse off the median. REVELATION! after typing out that communism presupposes that people want to be equal I am amazed.) Wow I keep re-realising that every statement I say has certain assumptions to it. For example, if I say communism assumes that society is best off when everyone is happy it would bring along every part of socialism. Actually communism is socialism right, except for the first sentence in this paragraph.

Now, for some input, I think all humans are equal in their humanness. Nobody is less human, it is the way we are created (woohoo, inducting God. Everything is so fluffy without God seriously). Even though we are all equal in humanness, meaning I am as human as you are, we are certainly different in our characteristics. Therefore how much should be equal based on intrinsic humanness should not overextend. The basis of human rights is clearly the intrinsic humanness. Hence it is human rights, and not, citizen rights or whatnot. The only prerequisite is being human. Yet when human rights begin to campaign for equal opportunity, equal whatnot, do these supposed rights come along from just being human? Being human, in itself is already being different from other humans. You are not a clone.

Ok perhaps some other day.

[[I wrote this at]]*|10:51 PM|

Saturday, August 2, 2014

[[What are the inherent ideas behind the political systems? + Review on camps thus far]]

Ok, just a quick post before I go for Oweek. To be honest I am super scared of Oweek. By right I should be at Oweek now. Perhaps lets do some quick digression into my life before I go back to thoughts on the idea behind political systems.

Attended 3 camps thus far, VCF, scholars and my residential college. I have to say, I enjoyed the first 2 significantly more. Though I had kind of chose these 3 due to the fact that they would be the least 'dirty'. The residential college camp i was really tired when I went into it, and I guess I didnt put in enough effort for the group. I regret sleeping during almost all of the night sessions. (I wouldn't know, perhaps I might be pissed off if i fell sick after staying up late all the time. Energy is limited and I guard it jealously man.) Hais, I would apologise to my OG. But the less enjoyable was not due to my OG. I think they are genuinely good people although perhaps we are on slightly different wavelengths. There was a pathetic attempt by the organising committee to act intellectual that backfired spectacularly. For one I hate acting, meaning an attempt to be what one isn't. For two, they just made themselves look stupid. Really, the whole thing was a joke to all involved, especially to the freshmen that probably had high hopes of this college that they would be attending. But still, I am rather certain the college is better than what the camp and the failed activity in particular made it up to be. Perhaps I am harping too much on it, but I had high expectations. Perhaps. Oh and they had a marvelous idea to give each idea a vote. EACH IDEA IS WORTH A VOTE GUYS. Can i have an idea that pink elephants should be the only form of currency and have a vote for that? Ok enough.

Anyway, that brings us nicely to the inherent ideas behind the political systems. Wow, I got annoyed so much that I no longer feel like writing about this.

Democracy presupposes that each individual's choice is equal. It presupposes that the choice the majority make is right. Requires an informed electorate of course. Argh im lazy. ill touch up on this someday.

[[I wrote this at]]*|10:19 PM|