[[How has been]]

Thursday, November 27, 2014

[[Re-reading smart]]

So I re-read the readings in my philo mod. And again this jumps out. The problem of evil.

I quote Smart and his co-author-that-nobody-cares-about-because-his-name-is-not-in-the-title-of-the-reading: "On the other hand for the theist evil is a big problem. If God is omniscient he knows how to prevent evil, if he is omnipotent he can prevent evil, and if he is benevolent he wants to prevent evil. The theist believes that God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. If the theist’s beliefs are correct, how then can there be evil?"

I dunno, maybe take a look at every theistic text there is and see what they say? Every theistic religion has an explanation for evil, usually in the form of sin. So just ignore this explanation and go to the definition of God right? Sounds understandable.

I would also like to note that nobody believes in the "Theistic God" as a standalone. It is either the God of Abraham, Jesus or like Brahman.

[[I wrote this at]]*|3:56 PM|

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

[[the rage]]

Hi,

I am exceedingly annoyed with how I have done in university. Basically I am super pissed off with my grades.

The pieces of work turned in thus far by me, I think, are all of substantial effort. I did not do a random piece of slipshod work at the deadline to submit. All these pieces were done way in advance of the deadline, reviewed by peers and even by the tutors themselves. Most of them have even gone through several drafts. And yet I still get a sub-par grade. And anyway I was quite proud of these works. The philo of religion essay in particular.

So of course, I reject that I am incapable of producing something of that standard. It does not make sense. Surely my ability cannot be lower than my peers. I shall leave this unjustified because yes.

So why do I still get a sub-par grade? There is no excuse of the whole cohort doing badly because everything in this school is bell-curved. Clearly I am doing worse than others. Why?

This philo of religion essay deserves particular mention. Philosophy in university, actually, deserves particular mention. I am highly disappointed by how philosophy is graded in university. I didn't give up the million and one other things I could be doing to come and learn a history of philosophy. Yes I understand that one has to learn what people have said in the past to be able to come up with new ideas but this whole new ideas part is sorely lacking.

Ive already written about the intro module having mcq. And now this essay. Hmmm. Maybe I shan't do philosophy after all.

It seems to me that the university concept of philosophy is not to come up with new ideas but to merely study and regurgitate what people have said in the past. Not even a rehashed version. This is not philosophy. This is not what I thought philosophy would be. This is substandard history of philosophy. Perhaps the problem is with what I thought philosophy would be then. How disappointing.

I was, perhaps, hoodwinked by the fact that the essay was on a topic of one's choice. I thought they were giving us the opportunity to, you know, exercise independent thought. My original idea that was posted like a few months ago was shot down for being too broad. Fine, I changed it to another simpler argument. But no. They seem to not want an argument. They want a critique of a premise. *Insert the most vulgar word possible here* that. If they wanted that they could have said that in the first * * place. I am so angry. Ok maybe they didnt want a critique of a premise in the argument. Lets not be too hasty. But until they reply I'm going to assume this.

And best part is they didn't even point out any freaking thing wrong in my essay. All the essays just had a shit grade with shit comments. If I were to mark the comments I would give it an F. But of course I am not in academia. Maybe I dont even have the aptitude to reach the level of pretentiousness that exists in academia. So much for critical and original thought. And expressing oneself.

Maybe the department just doesn't cut it. Or maybe this is an attack on academia as a whole. Maybe this is why philosophy is regarded as a joke major nowadays. Maybe.

Or perhaps I will feed them what they want and become like them. Or perhaps I will feed them what they want and shred my shit degree in the future. Perhaps.

Ok do take note that I am seething right now and my views probably will change. Nonetheless I think they ought to be recorded down, so i can laugh at myself in the future, good entertainment.

Anyway, I will be posting the essays mentioned here. If you think it's shit and can explain it to me I will be thankful. If you don't think its shit then you probably agree with this post.

[[I wrote this at]]*|2:24 PM|

Friday, November 21, 2014

[[On exams]]

So, I am approaching my first exams of my university life. And I am really unsettled.

I want to study. The societal and whatnot peer pressure helps with that but I dont know how to study. How does one study the arts? I am sure the whole point of arts is not to memorise facts (Unless you are history major or something) but to present certain views using certain concepts. It is terrifically frustrating.

For O levels and A levels, I just did papers. Like lots of past papers and what not. Just questions and questions upon more questions. But then I was sure I was studying for the exam. I wanted to score well in the exam. Now I don't. I want to learn. Doing heaps and heaps of papers isn't going to help learning. It is building muscle memory for the exam. It is such that one gets attuned to what question is going to come out, how to deal with in, the methods to use, so on and so forth.

Even if I wanted to do past papers now, they come without answers and anyway how does one create an answer key for an arts question?!?! IT BAFFLES THE MIND. There is no right answer.

So yes, I am in unfamiliar territory and feeling rather annoyed. (I seem to be always annoyed on this blog but no, I am not always annoyed in real life. Only annoyances are shared most of the time.)

So I read my textbook. And read lecture slides. And feel like I already know most of it. Honestly, is there a need for exams in arts? I really think assignments and whatnot could suffice. Previously I was a big supporter of exams because science and all that really exams differentiate well. Hmm, I guess exams differentiate well in arts also. But the point of studying for this exam is no. Amount of point is close to zero.

Im hungry.

[[I wrote this at]]*|5:38 PM|

Sunday, November 16, 2014

[[]]

http://phyliciadelta.com/i-waited-until-my-wedding-to-lose-my-virginity-and-its-the-best-thing-i-ever-did/

Previously, I think a month back I covered the article this article responded to. I think this is an accurate response. It drives home the many misconceptions that people have about Christianity (even Christians).

[[I wrote this at]]*|11:53 PM|

[[On intro to philosophy]]

Hi all,

I am writing to record my annoyance at the ph1102 module (instead of putting it on the feedback lolol. I might still put it up there when I come around to doing it.)

I have no problems with the lecturer or the tutor. The lecturer is entertaining (though he repeats kinda straightforward stuff multiple times. In other words, rather slow pace.) and the tutor is hardworking and tries hard to interest people in the subject matter.

I find that intro to philo is teaching philosophy as history and not philosophy as philosophy. We are taught not to philosophise, but to memorise (for the exams) and to summarise (for the assignments). These two make up 90% of the grade with the last 10% being class participation.

The exams deserve special mention. How does one have a MCQ exam for philosophy. It just boggles the mind. You can have MCQ only for things with discrete choices, things we clear right or wrong answers such as mathematics or science. To have MCQ for an arts subject is queer. To have MCQ for an arts subject such as philosophy that in theory does not have absolute right and wrong. To be sure, one can perhaps argue that there is a 'right' way to philosophise but how much can you test on methodology without going into rote memorised content. The methodology is pretty simple is it not? True premises and valid arguments. How difficult is that?

One might think I am trying to fly without learning how to walk. That I need to know past work to build on past work. That will be true in the past. Now, we have google. If I can solve an exam question with google, I assert that it is a lousy as shit exam question. They should make exams open internet to mimic the real world scenario. There is no point memorising if it is easily accessible at one's fingertips. Especially in the world of philosophy, should be about thinking and coming out with something new, something original.

We should see how giants of the past did it and learn from them, certainly. I can even allow that some of it be examinable to ensure nobody sleeps during class or just smokes his way through entirely (though if he is able to smoke his way through I think there is an obvious question of whats the difference? that needs to be asked.) But the focus should be on philosophy, on thinking, no?

Perhaps all this is due to mismatched expectations. I choose to come to arts to do something novel that I couldn't do in science. To express myself, to dialogue and to create. At the end, to make a change, even if it were a perceived change. I did not come to memorise the works of others. I did not painstakingly shift out of more comfortable courses to further hone my mcq skills. If I wanted to do all these I could have remained in Bio Chem or anything related to that. Make my life much easier too- I would not need to try so hard to show interviewers that I can freaking think even though I have no background in philo and whatnot.

I am annoyed. Annoyed that I cannot second guess what stupid point is in the answer scheme for the summaries. I don't really give a shit whats in the answer scheme. In summarising an article did I leave out any critical point? Did I misunderstand something? Why does it make a difference that I choose to omit a certain part and include a different part. I would very much rather be marked down because my objection is invalid. (which did happen, lol). I would be exceedingly annoyed if someone googled and got better grades than I.

Add in some borderline elitist thought into the mix and doubt about the standard of arts, especially philosophy in NUS and some friends/family remarks and you have a very annoyed me. I am working on the parts that I can change.

Still, I think it is too early to pass judgement.

Firstly, I would need to pass judgement on myself. I say that grades are not important and yet I am still kicking up such a fuss over grades or grading at least. Such hypocrisy.

Secondly, I think this is only the intro module. Perhaps they made a mistake in dumbing it down to cater to the masses. Perhaps the other modules will be much better. Perhaps.

Thirdly, I think i might be unfair to NUS philo as I have no freaking clue whether all universities do it like this. Perhaps they do. Perhaps they are all teaching history of philo in intro to philo. Regardless, what I am saying is that I have no practical comparative. I merely have my expectations to compare against.

ANYWAY, I quite like it in NUS nonetheless. Let's see where this goes. I always have the option of quitting. I am free.

[[I wrote this at]]*|12:05 AM|

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

[[On helping others.]]

I read somewhere that starvation kills way more people than ebola. But that is not a concern, because rich people cannot die of hunger.

Well, it is certainly true that we care most about things we have a personal stake in. I personally care more about my grandfather dying from lung cancer than the kidnapping of 200 girls in Nigeria. That is the harsh truth of life. But perhaps classifying it as truth might be a little too hasty.

I think we have to go back to the fundamental question of 'who am I?'. The modern western world sees the individual as a discrete entity. One that is autonomous and independent. An entity in and of itself. It bears personal responsibility, has personal freedom, personal choice, personal whims, personal whatnot.

But perhaps we are not as individual as it seems. Assuming that all humanity had a common ancestor, meaning that there was a first man and a first woman, What separates an individual from its parent (s)? Think about bacteria. After the bacteria undergoes binary fission, it forms two 'daughter' bacteria. But both are essentially it. Maybe all bacteria of the same kind can be classed as one organism.

For multi-cellular organisms, we know that twins stem from the same cell. What makes them two, other than they are physically and temporally separated? If I were to cut my hand off now, you would still say that is my hand and not a new organism. Does having a separate brain make a new individual? We were once all a clump of cells. Perhaps this idea of identity is man-made. Perhaps there is no individual and all of us are part of a larger human race which is a part of the greater cosmic scheme of things.

Why I am I saying all these. Well, obviously if you view those in Nigeria as your kin, and they are your kin, you would naturally have more empathy for them. Almost as much as my own grandfather. Why should 'further removed' mean 'care less' when ultimately we all come from the same source?

[[I wrote this at]]*|3:40 PM|

Thursday, November 6, 2014

[[On marriage]]

So, I have always been hearing this refrain about marriage after finances are stable or one of its other permutations such as 'have to graduate first', 'have to find a job first' or 'have to have one or two years of working experience first'.

I think that is entire horseshit. Perhaps it has been repeated too often in present society such that people just blindly follow this refrain.

To answer when ought one get married, one has to first know why does one get married. So, why does one get married?

I would think that one gets married because one loves another and desires union. Any reason about love or excluding money works for me actually.

So one gets married for non monetary reasons, why is there a monetary/economic clause on the 'when' of the marriage? Why isn't 'fulfilling the why get married' sufficient for marriage?

But wait, you say (in your stereotypical whiny voice that sounds a lot like mine), financial stability is a secondary but still important aim for marriage and hence, it should be taken into consideration before the knot is tied.

To that, I disagree. Financial stability ought to be the aim of everyone regardless of marriage. Do you mean to say that you will be financially prudent only if you are married? I think not.

But wait, you say (again), financial stability shows my readiness to be married. If I am not able to support myself, how can I support my spouse and perhaps kids? Hence, I will delay my marriage until I am ready so as to deny the option of me failing financially after getting married and being a burden to my spouse and family.

To that, I say that if you think that way, you are not ready to be married.

Now lets do a thought experiment. There are 4 cases,
1. You get married first and achieve your financial stability after.
2. You achieve financial stability then you get married.
3. You get married and you do not achieve financial stability
4. You do not achieve financial stability, hence you do not get married
Case 5 You do not achieve financial stability but still get married is analogous to case 1 and 3.

Now I will assume that achieving financial stability is independent of your marital status. That is, being married does not make you poorer, or less capable in your career. I think empirical evidence supports this assumption.

Next, I will assume that being married is a desirable state compared to being unmarried. If you think being unmarried is a desirable state then... stay unmarried and go do something more productive than reading this. I apologise for your wasted few minutes. I ought to have mentioned this earlier.

So the difference between 1 and 2 is that you are in a desirable state longer while having the same end point. I think the fact that 1 trumps 2 is quite obvious.

Now to compare 3 and 4. If one gets married and does not achieve financial stability, is one in a state worse off than being single and financially unstable? In other words, does financial instability cause more detriment to married people than unmarried and does this additional detriment outweigh the desirability of being married?

I would say no, 3 is better than 4. In 3, one has a spouse's support which will make financial instability much easier to cope with. If you say you do not have your spouse's support then I again, gently suggest that you do not marry. Additionally, in 3, one does not have to worry about marriage.

Ok, the argument is not watertight. I want to elaborate.

1. A marriage is through thick and thin. If your spouse cannot endure thin moments with you, you ought not to get married.
2. Marriage is a support structure. Man and woman are meant to become one. Two (meaning the union) is better than one.
3. Avoiding marriage due to financial instability is akin to not trusting that your spouse will be with you through the financial instability. This is as if you still get married in spite of the financial instability, you will lose out to getting married earlier. The only 'way' of seeing it as potential gain would be that you are looking to ditch your significant other if they are not going to achieve financial stability. And that would be a douchemove and would contradict the earlier point of why get married.

Understand?

[[I wrote this at]]*|12:30 AM|

Monday, November 3, 2014

[[On arguments]]

After struggling slightly with my philo of religion essay, I realised that a valid argument essentially spreads out 'doubt'. For example, if I wanted to argue that A = E and A = E is startling a proposition that most are likely to refuse, spreading it A= B, B= C, C=D, D= E and therefore A= E merely makes the doubt get spread thinner. Even if one agrees on every step of the proposition and the logical flow that A= E, where did the original doubt/disbelief of A=E go to?

Perhaps there is a doubt threshold. Such that if doubt is spread thinly enough, it does not register as doubt. For example, one million photons of light will register as light (actually, I do not know how many photons are required, I just choose an arbitrary large-sounding number) while one photon individually sent a million times will be pitch darkness. So the idea is to dilute doubt such that it registers under the minimum threshold to trigger a conscious 'doubt' reflex. Perhaps.

If that is so, is it possible to thin doubt for everything? Intuitively, I think that impossible. Side note: I just love this intuitive thing. Once you bring it in, there is no need for further justification. It is a wonderful justification 'ender'.

[[I wrote this at]]*|11:15 PM|