[[How has been]]

Saturday, March 28, 2015

[[]]

Actually, I think what I admire most about LKY is his ability to use himself as means for an end. To live a life fully for something more than himself and being willing to make himself the one that is 'best' or 'as good as possible' for the task of attaining that end. (and for stepping aside when you are no longer best suited, in the interests of the end that is not you. By this I am referring to his succession planning.)

And secondly, 'What I fear is complacency. When things always become better, people tend to want more for less work' (unverified quote of LKY from facebook). Such a reminder. A reminder that one ought not seek to take the foot off the pedal even when one is 'good enough'. What is the point of seeking less when you can do more? Of course I do not mean this to say that you work and stress the shit out of yourself. I mean that do not live life less than the fullest. Slacking off is bad, period. Being contented is not slacking off. Resting is not. Socialising is not. Regenerating is not. At anytime, especially to myself, if I ever want to slack off, I would do well to remember this. A full life must be full, full of enjoying the sunsets and whatnot too.

I hope that I can emulate LKY in these two areas. To work towards an end greater than myself (even though it won't be Singapore per se in my case) and to live a full life (the urge to slack off is great man, so strong.)

[[I wrote this at]]*|10:54 PM|

Friday, March 27, 2015

[[Death of LKY]]

So the above was the post that I was supposed to do, perhaps I will do it next time. But I guess, while I seldom comment on current affairs, the death of Lee Kuan Yew is important, so important that exceptions can be made.

I woke up on 230315, at about 0630, to study extra for an Arabic test (that would be held at 0800) that I have been stressing the whole night about. I went to the bathroom, groggy and all. My suitemate was bathing, the first day of his hospital attachment as a med school student. I checked my phone, there were a couple of whatsapp messages from my family group at about 4am.

"Lee Kuan Yew died already." I said.

"Yea, I heard."

"Not fake one." (We had fallen for the fake-photo just a few days back, or rather, he told me and I naively believed, and propagated in to my family albeit with some hedging 'it seems ...')

"Yah, I heard."

(silence)

What does one say about the death of LKY? There were many things that could have been said but weren't- like a joke about scams, discussion about the day ahead or my favorite past time, whining. It didn't feel appropriate.

I mean, we never met him, we never saw him at his prime, at the height of his powers. In recent most of the contact I had with him was my parents remarking that he was looking increasingly frail at each national day parade.Yet, with his death, I felt something. Something more than, say, the death of the lady next door that I might have said hi to occasionally. It felt like the death of a mentor more than that of a stranger, a mentor that I have never met. A personal, ideological mentor to most of us Singaporeans, especially those of us with a hefty dose of mainstream education.

In anycase, we went back to our rooms and life went on. I took the Arabic test while Lee Hsien Loong addressed the nation about the passing of his father and predecessor. Life doesn't stop just because something momentous (in my opinion) happened, it just gets somewhat heavier, more sombre. I'm not sure whether that was because I was in Singapore (and the external world, Singaporeans were behaving thus) or because I am Singaporean (and I interpreted thus in my head).

The newspapers were black, facebook display pictures turned black and white, many articles were written about LKY's passing, many about the legacy he left. Most articles seemed to praise him while several articles, especially those overseas managed to lens it in 'an authoritarian leader has died' sense.

Speaking of which, I really hold his (LKY's) line on foreigners commenting on Singaporean affairs. Perhaps the way we comment on foreign affairs is the same, full of ignorance and sorely lacking context. It seems to me that the West has become so enamoured with rights, freedoms, democracy, capitalism and whatnot that they forget that these are not right in themselves (as they seem to take them to be nowadays) but this is a topic that can be pursued another time. Is the freedom to eat gum really that important to a person's freedom? (I think this stance is already rather generous to the west, I have already granted that they are not up to their realpolitik shenanigans again)

Anyway, it does seem that the passing of LKY does seem to resonate amongst most Singaporeans. Even with all my talk about moving past the state to one humanity I am proud to come from such a background. And indeed, it is arguably the background that allows me to think the way I think. Being able to think beyond survival and concern oneself with ideas of justice and utopian stuff are luxuries that many people cannot afford. I must say that Marx got this much right, at least, it is hard (though not impossible) to dream when you are hungry and tired.

There are shows of solidarity and it is impressive that people are willing to queue 5 hours ++ to pay their respects to him. I mean, many of my friends want to pay our respects, but yeah 5 hours is really costly and (I shan't hide behind some excuse) I am not willing to pay 5 hours of time. But still, kudos to all who are willing.

The skeptic within me always asks is he as great as he seems. It seems like, I don't really care. He seems to be great. Maybe not as legendary as some seem to paint but at the very least, great enough for all these to happen. I don't think Singapore will get to see anything similar to this again.

Personally, I think LKY's life is really 'lived to the fullest'. I really admire the drive he had. I wish that at the end of my life, I would have lived it to such fullness (although I fear that even as a mortal, his bar is set way high. I will try, though. And try really hard.) And he is also a social giant sticking to his values. I do wish I will live my life, sticking to my values and ready to defend them at any time, at any cost. Singapore is very lucky to have such a person pour all his energies into improving it.

[[I wrote this at]]*|11:30 AM|

Friday, March 20, 2015

[[God is not a genie, neither is he a bystander]]

So anyway, my life has just gotten somewhat easier, after the dreadfully stressful day that was yesterday and the day preceding that that was stressful due to the preparation required for yesterday. I do still have some essays and whatnot to do, but I think and hope that they should be rather manageable until the finals come up. I was rather close to panicking on monday, actually.
Anyway, the point of me writing this is that to state that God will act. The theistic God acts. The deistic God doesn't. The Christian God is a theistic God, therefore the Christian God acts.
But anyway, of course he doesn't act in a way congruent with what you expect, he acts in the way of God and one must know that human understanding can never reach that. But anyway, point is, he has made some promises, that would be against his character to break. Anyway I am sure that if one sincerely seeks God, God has no reason to hide himself from that person.
Point is, do ask God in prayer, and do expect him to answer, for if he exists he will, just not in the way you might expect.

So example: If you say to God something like, proof yourself to me, let the air combust spontaneously in front of me now, chances are God will answer you with a no. That is asking God on your terms. You ought to ask God on God's terms, like please reveal yourself to me. And see how he does it. I dunno how he will do it. I'm not God.

[[I wrote this at]]*|11:39 PM|

Thursday, March 12, 2015

[[On positive and negative liberties (and possibly on the failure of the majority)]]

So there is this concept of positive and negative liberty from several of my modules.

Concept of negative liberty is simply put, freedom from restraint. Negative liberty is basically like the less chains around you. An example of negative liberty would be turning 18 and you can smoke/purchase alcohol.

Concept of positive liberty is more complex. Basically is the idea that you are free from influence. Or free to choose. So if you turn 18 and society and your friend immediately pressures you to go and drink yourself drunk to which you find it almost impossible to say no to then you are not really having positive liberty.

The thing about positive liberty is that it assumes that there is a you that can exist free from influence (an unencumbered self). Otherwise if you are free from influence, what will guide the decision that you make other than your self?

In the past people have seen religion as the most detrimental to positive freedom. Religion essentially provides an encompassing worldview that it touts as the one and only right. (sort of, certain strains of religion, I am generalising). I think this might be true in the past when religion was the choice of the masses.

Now that religion's clout has diminished (especially in the west), it seems to me that positive freedom is not improved. If anything, the masses just go with the flow and bow down to a humanist, 'atheistic', science-based worldview that seems to substitute 'god knows' for 'we do not know, yet'.

It is really hard to determine whether an external party has positive liberty. What external influence is wanted and what external influence is not wanted cannot be determined by the causal third-party observer. What if a person really wants to listen to 'pop junk'? Who are we to say that he needs an education if he really wants to be illiterate and 'at the whims of societal influence'(to us)?

SO whatever, I think the concept of an unencumbered self is hard to defend, possibly non-existent. Even if it exists, there is no inherent value in it for what is the value of 'natural'? Might as well say death has value for it is 'natural' if you get what I mean.

So always the majority will face the criticism of being conformist, being uncritical and all that hogwash. But there is nothing much you really can do if you really believe in the majority. It is just one person's assertion of you against your own assertion of yourself. It is a stalemate.

[[I wrote this at]]*|1:25 PM|

Saturday, March 7, 2015

[[An argument from progress against religion]]

In this post, I shall propose a probabilistic argument against some religion.

Ugh the proper philosophical procedure is so bothersome.

Basically the argument goes thus:
1. The religion claims to provide a comprehensive framework regarding human life
2. As humanity progresses, human life changes
3. As human life changes, the framework becomes less relevant to humanity
4. The religion, if true, would have provided a satisfactorily relevant framework until the end of time (unless the religion claims that there will come a time when the framework is no longer relevant and... something, humans choose for themselves?)
5. The further humanity progresses, the higher the likelihood 'the religion' does not hold true

Or alternatively:
1. The religion makes many claims which are relevant at that time.
2. With each successive step of human progress, we (humans) are deviating more and more from the situation at the 'time' of the religion.
3. As humanity progresses, some claims become less relevant or even irrelevant. (or even outright proven false).
4. A certain amount of relevancy is required for the religion to hold true.
5. Hence, the further humanity progresses, the higher the likelihood 'the religion' does not hold true

I can give an example, for instance, if the religion mentions that as certain as the sun rises from the east and sets in the west is God's existence and one day, humanity decides to reverse the earth's rotation and the sun rises in the west and sets in the east then I think that religion would have a hard time coming up with an explanation for that. They could, of course try to explain it away somehow but then I think the probability is whittled away, credibility is lost (I simplify).

Or perhaps a more concrete example of something that has happened, "ancient Greek religion" claims that mount Olympus was home of the Gods. People eventually maybe after hundreds of years, climbed up mount Olympus and found neither Gods there nor residences of Gods. So I would presume that adherents of the "Ancient Greek religion" would have a problem then. They could propose many defences such as "Gods are invisible" or "Mount Olympus refers to a mythical mount Olympus". Whether these defences would work would depend on how well it sits with the rest of the religion. So if there was a chapter on an ancient Greek hero that saw the Gods from a distance on the mountain then more problems would arise. And with more problems, the likelihood of it being the truth decreases.

Or perhaps the religion claimed that humans can only live until 120 years old. (If you think Christianity claims that you can read http://www.versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/are_people_limited_to_120_years_of_life which I think seamlessly deals with that claim, though I appear to have heard some preacher from somewhere appear to somewhat endorse that view.)

So if the religion claimed that humans can only live until 120 years old and through advances in human medicine and whatnot, viola! demonstrably people can live to more than 120 years or even better, you live till more than a 120 years old. What then do you do with that religion? You probably are highly unimpressed by it. Unless they have an awesome viable explanation.

Or last example: religion claims man needs god like how man needs water and one day humans learn how to drink nitrogen or something. Well then, clearly man doesn't need god.

Anyway so I have gone down to a micro level and see individual cases. Of course the individual cases seem to make the most sense but on a whole, I would think, my macro assertion makes sense too.

And obviously this argument is empirical and whatnot. All the associated problems are inherited, yes.

Thoughts thoughts?

After thinking a little longer I propose two more examples of how 'progress' could possibly discredit religion- If certain animals that held great significance in the religion became extinct (e.g the lamb or horse, maybe even pigs) and lose their meaning to humanity or if hybrid animals become more and more widespread such that certain regulations concerning cleanliness become blurred. Maybe not progress per se, but the rolling on of time. Not that this is a death knell to religion, but it chips away, I think, to the non-believer especially.

Or imagine a world that is largely run by artificial intelligence and there is minimal human interaction. What then, of all the commandments on how to deal with other humans?

[[I wrote this at]]*|4:53 PM|

[[Some 'worldview' profile website idea.]]

I have this idea. Perhaps I ought to create a webpage where people can post and defend their views (and in a sense, refine their views) so that they can find a worldview acceptable to them. So maybe for each account they would have certain ideas or theories that they buy into(or modifications of their own to them). Other people can then ask questions or things about the person's worldview that the person can choose whether to answer or not. These questions then will be also shown on the person's profile or something. Other people can also propose certain labels for you. (Such as liberal or whatnot, troll works too. If you are a troll). Of course, a certain amount of moderation will have to occur. Do any of you know of any such websites in existence? Or do you think it will be a good idea.

Maybe then you can use these as a sort of identity on the internet. I mean it makes much sense to me. Or if you tire of introducing yourself to people you can just send them your profile link. Very good for people who tire of explaining their viewpoints repetitively.

I mean in current social media there is hardly an outlet for one to make a more than superficial call on that person as a person (from photos or the short writeup). I do believe some people might want something more substantive. People that fancy themselves not superficial for example.

Maybe give it a catchy name like, I dunno, mindbook. LOL.

[[I wrote this at]]*|3:38 PM|

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

[[On failing]]

Sorry but these posts have become somewhat more personal and like reflective rather than dealing with ideas as I would like them to be due to me being involved in this thing called life.

Anyway, just about 2 hours plus ago I took probably the worst test of my life. The last time I came out of a test that badly would be a p3 听写 in which I scored like 25/100 which I got a good scolding and whatnot for. But anyway, point is, failing sucks.

It feels like I have no control. So powerless, so irrelevant. I stare at the questions and they don't make sense. Ugh. That was bad. Like it is not even smokable. How do you answer what you do not understand?! Anyway I did study for it, quite a bit to be honest, but it seems that I studied the wrong things (again, because the teacher does not reveal which exact parts will be tested and I cannot study everything because I am not good at arabic).

This whole arabic experience is fascinating. I think it is rather heavily stacked against those without prior experience, much of the first few weeks are spent learning how to read and trying to sense make the system before going to actual learning of words and concepts and all. Im not saying that it is unfair or whatnot, but we have to put in lots of effort. Lets hope that I am willing to do so. After my nap. Loss of 1%-1.5% of the marks is not ideal. But yeah, whatever.

[[I wrote this at]]*|12:19 PM|