Why is voting a binary. Either a vote yes or a vote now. (or maybe in some cases you can abstain.)
Does it not make sense to include the intensity of opinion rather than just the mere number of them? By this I mean that we ought have voting on a scale such as from 1-10.
I cannot understand how this additional 'intensity' will be in anyway 'less just' than the current binary form. (I am actually saying that it will be a better reflection of aggregate opinion, if that is what voting is supposed to achieve.) At most if everyone is fully polarised they can choose the extremes to vote and the result will be the same as the binary system.
Think about the ramifications for say, an electoral vote conducted this way. They really have to get people over to their side. But then again, possibly, people will vote the extremes more because they want their opinion to carry more weight. Perfectly fine, let those who want their opinion to carry less weight choose how much weight it ought to carry!
Why is the default nothing? (I don't mean nothing as just purely lack of matter (atoms) but nothing in a broad sense to include inaction.)
When people cannot agree on what action to take on, they do nothing.
When people cannot decide which God to believe in, they believe in no God (broadly generalising)
Why do people stand still when they cannot decide where to go?
For nothing to be given this additional 0.001 vote (or the status quo for that matter), there has to be a reason for valuing nothing over something. Yet I cannot find a compelling reason for it. It could be better in some cases and it could be not better in some other cases.
This is distressing. It is a fallacy (I would even go as far as to call it that). Inertia fallacy?
Hume, in his first section of 'enquiry', that I just read, makes some interesting points. Concerned reader, you dont have to care about the first sentence at all.
Short interlude into my life: It is now 11:06 AM, I just returned from arts. I am going to play some CS (maybe to 30 kills), do finish this blog post, have my lunch, and do the first draft of the summary reflection by 2pm. Lets see how this goes.
So time now is 11:52 and I fear I have not enough time to clear my summary reflection so this blog post shall have to wait.
And now is 1:47PM on 300115. The previous 3 paragraphs were written on 290115. Basically I took a nap and then... not enough time to do my summary reflection and all.
So basically Hume makes a point that I agree with much and I am going to loosely paraphrase as well as add some of my own stuff. So he draws a distinction between two kinds of philosophers. I shan't use that. Instead I shall treat it as a question of how much ought we think (I use the word think but it includes introspect, doubt, reflect, search .etc.) . Or its related question, how much doubt can we accept?
So how much ought we think? Different people think different amounts. This can very easily be empirically verified I believe. So take a simple question such as what should I do today? Some people think of what they feel like doing at each moment and do so. Some people think and plan what they ought to do for the whole week. Some people think beyond why they are doing what they ought to do. Some people think why do they believe they ought to do some things. Some people think how can they verify their beliefs. You get my point.
Or a simple question, is it right to steal? Some people can accept no, because the law says so (or because my mum says so). Some people go further, appealing to principles or conscience. Some end up with the divine. Some hypothesise to social utilitarian principles. Some challenge the fundamental principles of even morality.
At every step, it is possible to doubt, to propose something else. Very few things are impossible to doubt. Maybe only Descartes's cogito ergo sum works. If we are not to doubt everything, we ought to have a criterion on what can be accepted as 'justified enough'. Paradoxically, this criterion is not beyond doubt itself. So it cannot be water tight, but I guess, it can be, watertight enough.
I would then like to ask, how much ought a Christian think (or doubt, I use these somewhat interchangeably)? This is given that there are some things such as the existence of God that we accept as 'justified enough'. Where we draw the line must certainly be in line with this belief eh.
Hume says that the further you dig, the less likely you are to find answers. And the less likely you are able to, uh, find acceptance for your works (because the majority of people do not think that much). I find this resonates. I find people that stop at certain points tend to be very unwilling to go further in the journey to find deeper answers. For example, they might say it is so obvious why you should try to earn more money. So obvious. Or maybe appeal to support your family and when queried on why ought they support their family, the appeal to obviousness or intuition comes up again. Now I am not saying they are wrong. It is just sad.
A quote such as 'an eye for an eye makes the world go blind' by Ghandi is so popularly accepted by all. I personally think it makes sense, it appeals to the masses. Sad and lonely is the one that asks what is undesirable about a blind world?
Maybe what the world needs is a common pool of resource to be distributed. Where each member gives 10% of what they have away to a common pool that is split equally each year (or whatever arbitrary time period you like). I think a form of policy such as this would be a strong extreme leveller but still preserving a decent amount of incentive for people to work.
I guess to use my uncle's terminology, it will be a form of tax on capital. It is rather tricky to administer centrally. The issue here is that capital behaves differently from labor. Labor can be sort of simplified to a direct relationship between amount/quality/mix of both and monetary reward. On the other hand, capital has the property of being self-'multiplying'. It works like compounded interest. Each additional unit of capital has compounded monetary producing potential. As such, it is possible for an astute person to heavily frontload on working/saving early on in life to jumpstart the multiplier effect of capital and thereafter, live off (while still nominally growing) the available wealth.
The 'problem' here is the fundamental property of capital being a factor of production. I find that perhaps society overly rewards saving/hoarding. To be sure, saving is a virtue that I am very supportive of. What to do? Is the pure capitalist's unrestrained greed the real maximal (however unequal it may be) potential of society?
Can I introduce a concept where the rich are actually slacking off (because of the capital they hold), and not contributing the labor they would if they were less rich and hence, society is deprived of the labor of the rich making it less-than-maximal-production? I shall develop on this more perhaps in another post.
Perhaps this is one of the instances where inequality can be an opportunity for charity rather than an undesirable situation. If everything were equal, there would be no opportunity for charity or the like to happen.
This is gonna be a little melancholic. It is now the end of week 2 of year 2 sem 2. I am 22 this year. I am an adult. Yet I don't feel adultish.
Normally, I don't think of myself as an angry person. However, recent events have shown me that I was way way more angry over the dumbest of things, the self.
That I may view myself as less and Christ as more is my wish. I really empathise with those who are trying to let go of self similar. It is insane man. This self of mine rushes to see red the moment its delicate feelings are tread upon. I guess I ought to thank God that I did not react too hastily and eventually did what I think was the right thing even though I was on the brink of doing the wrong thing not once but twice, at least.
It is so unnatural to want to cede self. I put it down to human nature, corrupt human nature. Tainted by pride. So much that can be good is tainted by evil. Such a tragedy. I think this is because we have forgotten what we are. We are created beings. So much hinges on this.
Now, I think I begin to understand the allure of staying up late. It is really borrowing happiness from the next day. Somewhat like drinking. Borrowing the daylight hours of a day that has just been born.
Borrow to do what? To do work? perhaps? Or just to waste time. Or just to exist in the dead of the night?
Whatever, I'm going to sleep.
According to my philo lecture, empiricism claims that all knowledge stems from experience. Rationalism claims that some knowledge stems from reason instead of experience.
What is fairness?
I think I might have mentioned this before. Somehow I feel that the current state of things are 'fair' because of the fact that it is.
Take for instance, a person being born into a broken, abusive and poor family. He didn't choose to be there neither did he choose not to be there. The being born into any family is completely random.
How is that unfair?
It is like buying a lottery ticket and not winning. It is a genetic lottery (I think someone used this term before). Nobody blames the lottery system for being unfair. Everyone had an equal chance. Equal chance is fair.
But there is no equal outcome, you say. Equal outcomes are ridiculous. In major political philosophers the prof shared another philosopher's example of how trade leads to unequal outcomes. I shall simplify it. If both of us have 10 dollars and you buy an ice cream that you ate for 5 dollars now you have 5 dollars and I have 10 dollars. If you want to push it further, say you lost 10 cents. Is everyone supposed to lose 10 cents to keep it fair?
The fact is that people are unequal in their actions and desires and whims and whatnot. Equating identical to fair is not right. Seems obvious, to me (to me lah, maybe not to you, but to me.)
Now lets touch on a politically sensitive example but with the pure objective theoretical lens (at least as pure and objective as possible) trying to not be biased. This is to illustrate the second line of this post.
So say in a country, there is a majority race of people. And they call themselves the indigenous people of the land. And because it is a democracy and because they form the majority, they confer privileges to themselves for being the indigenous people of the land. Clearly their system is not equal, but is it fair?
I would think so. Even given that they are not the original indigenous people they have settled and now become the majority population in the land. Their ancestors might have fought a war to gain the land. They won a (lets suppose it is not rigged) democratic election and the government made the choice to confer such exclusive privileges. Is it fair to the other minorities? I would think so, given that the minorities were outvoted in a system that they are compliant to.
However, fair doesn't equal lawful. I think it is fair for the minorities to resist, or even take up armed resistance. After all, they are just trying to get what they think they deserve but was deprived of due to the rule of the majority.
What then, you ask, is unfair? If everything is fair then what is unfair? I think fouling in a game is unfair. Within a game each player is bound by the rules of the game. And each player willingly chooses to play. Hence it would be unfair to go against such a rule that is voluntarily accepted. Contrast this to my earlier example. So two factors, there must be a stated and known rule and it must be voluntarily accepted. Of course you can pick holes in my definition but I shall leave it as that now.
So what is the whole point of this post? The whole point is to point out that fairness is a concept that we use to victimise ourselves too easily. Instead of whining that it is unfair that you have to do NS for example, perhaps you ought to just immigrate or just do it or just go to DB for it (and resist arrest, perhaps). All these actions are fair. Whining that it is unfair is not making any sense.
So don't use fairness so easily when what you mean is actually equal. I think lah. I think.
Labels: Something
So I found this on 9gag, yes I am wasting time on 9gag. I think notwithstanding its condescending tone, it does rest on a simple irrefutable principle - that the truth is independent of belief.
The truth is the truth. The truth 'is' (I used the quotation marks to help those that might be confused). The truth is, regardless of what effects it might have. The truth doesn't give two shits about what anyone thinks about it.
Because the truth is, I think it is important that we seek the truth for it is what is as opposed to what 'is not'. You might think this is all very obvious and all but let me elaborate a little more. The truth is not suited to any human whims. The axiom 'a lie repeated long enough becomes the truth' is false. A lie repeated long enough becomes thought of as the truth. As mentioned before, the truth is independent of what is thought of as the truth.
So what?
So we ought to seek the truth for it does not come to us easily. Take for example the case of God. God doesn't exist simply because it would be nice for humanity to have a guardian, to have a entity to seperate the righteous from the unrighteous or to plug in gaps within human knowledge. Similarly, God doesn't not exist because it would be awful if unbelievers are condemned to hell, people are judged for their actions in the end or because human knowledge does not prove God. If God exists, he exists, it just is.
There is no utility involved when reasoning about the truth. The truth doesn't give two shits about utility. A lie or a falsehood that brings about supposed better utility is not. Regardless of the outcome, it is not!
If the truth demanded belief (Wrt to the article), then there would be no new discoveries, no new knowledge and we would be omniscient.
Given this, what is the point of convincing other people that the truth is the truth? What is the point of convincing others about atheism or religion. Perhaps there is a reason for religion to be spread inherent in religion such as a religious edict or command. But what convincing reason can there be for spreading atheism? If it is it is, same for religion.
Judging from the internet, there seems to be a huge issue about people being religious (or Christian because, America.) blindly. Like just following what their parents say or maybe believing what their Sunday school teacher told them when they were young.
Please don't believe in something blindly. The Christian faith was never meant to be a blind faith. It is a robust and defensible faith. Go and read up, compare other faiths or atheism or whatnot and conclude critically which you fully believe to be true. That is not to say you need a watertight logical proof, it can be emotional or spiritual or a combination of everything. Have a good reason for believing in anything please.
I would like to extrapolate and say have a good reason for doing anything.
By the way, I am doing up some posts on the economy and whatnot but it is taking rather long. And I am tired, and I lack discipline. So it is coming out a little later.
Hi all, 2015 is here.
I think my life churns out fitting examples to topics that I want to write about. This one is on time.
Basically, I appear to have 'wasted' my entire new year's day. Lets see, what did I do. I woke up at 9+, ate, did some computer, watched people pack around the house, took a nap, lazed around, did more computer, declined to go out with my dad, watched youtube, started a new game on armorgames, finished the new game twice. Now here I am! Attempting to write what I had intended to do at the very least for today. It is 11:58pm on my laptop. Looks like I might not be able to make it. I still need to bathe.
I have, in my mind, an idea of a perfect day. A day in which I spend my time perfectly. Perhaps I will wake up at a respectable 0700, pray and wash up and all that. Finish breakfast by 0800. Work on a blogpost until 0900. Relax until 0930. Read articles online until 1030. Read a book until 1130. Perhaps meet a friend for lunch and talk till 1500 which will be the time I reach home. Take a nap until 1700. Continue reading the book until 1800. Dinner plus some relaxation time till 1930, perhaps talk to family members and whatnot. Do some project (maybe Bob, maybe some other outstanding homework) until 2130. Talk to friends until 2215. Initiate sleep routine and sleep around 2230-2245.
Well, today, I had ample opportunity to do all that but I didn't. Suppose I say that I would very much rather have spent time in the manner I described above as opposed to what I actually did. I am sure all can empathise with what I have gone through today perhaps you didn't study as hard as you would have liked for a test or didnt read a book you wanted. The question arises as to why did I not do what I professed to rather.
Here I would draw the conclusion that I lied when I said I would rather have spent time productively. Similarly, I am saying that whoever that says he would rather do something and instead does something else without compelling reason is lying. The logic is simple, word and deed must go together. If I said I would rather have beef than chicken and when the choice comes I choose chicken without any external factor making me choose chicken then I would have been lying.
But we are not here to discuss what ails the mind to think it would rather do something when it actually does not. Briefly speaking I would think that the mind usually misjudges what it wants. When the mind thinks it wants something, it evaluates it based on the 'good' it gets at the end (I shan't say pleasure because not everyone is a hedonist). It rarely considers the cost, especially the opportunity cost to achieve the 'something'. It miscalculates the profit by misjudging or underemphasising the cost, I think. This is for people that say they want something first yet did not do it in the end. But yes, this is not the point.
Time is precious. Whether you are Christian or an atheist or of any other form a belief, I am quite certain time is precious to you. The only case where time becomes worthless is for those with nothing to live for, it is a sad case to be such (though perhaps not as sad as those chasing actual worthless things for these people chasing nothing have a greater hope to find something). Time is precious because it is scarce. As I have mentioned earlier, if everyone were immortal, time would be close to worthless. Time is precious because it is opportunity, scarce opportunity.
Why then, do I waste time? Why then do I willingly waste time? Why do I not comprehend that time is precious? Why do I let it trickle away. I can only conclude that it is because I do not believe enough. For me, I feel that with more faith in God will I better take responsibility for my own time and be a good steward of it. For the atheist he might feel a need to contribute more to his family, this internalised need might make him waste less time. Or he might feel a need to earn more money, so on and so forth.
Basically, those willingly wasting time lack discipline, self-control and willpower yes. But at the heart of it, those willingly wasting time do not really believe that they have anything better to do. What you do with this information, then, is up to you. I hope that you will have Christ to follow as a model to spend time but yeah, not really within the scope of this topic.