[[How has been]]

Friday, September 28, 2018

[[]]

What similarity does the "spartan boy (in how to die) who was presumably captured and shouts "I won't be a slave" and dashes his skull against the wall when commanded to fetch the chamberpot have with Etsuko (in a pale view of hills)?

Let me turn some knobs and see if they run on the same tangent. One key assumption that these makes is that there can be a hopeless situation.

Let's bring it to the correct timeframe.

What if the boy, lets say he is an orphan, is now working in some sweatshop for sustenance. Let's say he is a victim of child labour trafficking. He sees no other way out for he cannot escape, if he tries he will get beaten and be made to work doubly hard. He commits suicide by hanging himself from the ceiling of his overcrowded dorm.

What if this is a female?

What if, instead, there is no one there to beat the girl, but only massive cultural and societal disapproval if he doesnt work in the sweatshop for his sustenance. Let's say the culture says that this is what all female orphans are to do. This disapproval is as stifling (or even more so since it cuts to the mind without the body) as the physical threat of human traffickers. She hangs herself.

What if this girl is a woman instead?

What if the conditions are better? It is not a sweatshop she works at but as a waitress in a noodle shop. She still hates the job though. And the culture is still as stifling as ever. And she still sees no hope of progress. And she still kills herself.

In all this cases, presumably death is preferable to a life of bare sustenance, a life "not worth living" with nothing in the future. (Rather unChristian, is just theoretical assuming some things). Dis stoic philosophy yo.

What if it is not for her own sustenance that she is tied to, lets say that of an elderly mother? Is there a difference? So the scenario here is that she is bound to a deadend job, miserable without hope of progress so that the elderly mother won't starve. Presumably she would want to kill herself just as much for her circumstances are the same (egoistically), but perhaps some people would think this scenario is different? Well there is some hope maybe, that progress can be made after her mother passes away but let me arbitrarily close that loophole by stipulating that perhaps the government subsidises her for taking care of her mother as long as she works once her mother passes away it the subsidies would stop and she would be just like the previous scenario. I find it hard to see how the addition of the mother makes a difference.

What if, say, the woman can have some hope if she takes whatever she and her mother has and leaves the system? Her mother would die then. Would it make sense for her to leave, to chase the hope if the alternative is suicide (or suicide-ish)?

For those sanctity of life people, what if the mother doesn't die but just becomes very miserable?

Now what if instead of an elderly mother, it is a child?

I guess thats the choice Etsuko faced, the miserableness of her child versus a hopeless future staying where she was. And she chose for her child to be miserable.

The link here is that a hopeless future is really quite something. One like Seneca would say, it is death before death. Or drawing breath without living. But is it worth the cost of a child's misery? Does the parent know better than the child? Must the parent be a living husk (the highest cost) in order to save the child misery? And what if the parent thinks the child will become a living husk someday too, if there is no change?

Idk, lol. I just am appreciative that I have no kids/am not married at the moment so I can kinda make nimble decisions. Not that I want to make selfish decisions, but sometimes having dependants force your decisions to be selfish (while appearing unselfish) in that you privilege the dependant.

Let me give an example, say you need to take care of your child. In this time and energy, you could have volunteered at an orphanage and "raised" 10 children. Let's say that if you don't volunteer at orphanage and instead spend the time on yourself, one would say you are making the selfish decision. Just because it is your child, I think, in the greater scheme, doesn't make it less selfish by much.

Sometimes I think the greatest self-absorbedness comes in ties like family where it is supposedly for others but a very select others at the cost of everyone else. So not necessarily selfish, but selective and un-universal. And this is highly justified. Like in the family unit. Like in the tribe. Like in the country. But if one thinks about it, it seems to me to be as selfish as privileging self. And sometimes the most selfish behaviours are exhibited by parents on behalf of their kids which is another topic for another day.

[[I wrote this at]]*|1:42 AM|

Wednesday, September 26, 2018

[[]]

Feel like im reading too much and processing not enough. Ahhh! Then I scared to read more. But then I don't process. Processing is thinking thinking takes effort man.

[[I wrote this at]]*|11:41 PM|

[[On grief and loss]]

Just cleared A grief observed.

While I have never lost my wife to the clutches of death, I think I have experienced some sort of loss. And loss is a fascinating thing to work through, very refreshing.

I think CS Lewis walks through the whole process of (Christian) grief quite well. It starts off rather bawly, with great anguish and stuff. I feel like grief is appropriate not just for people dying, but for other things even as trivial as missed accomplishments. And it really is a process of, kinda like fighting with self, fighting with fear of loss, fighting with fear of memories being insufficient. Fear of tainting the memory, of over-idealising the memory, or that it becomes less real or something like that.

And finally there is peace. For Christians, because God is in control, for non-Christians I reckon for whatever reason works. And then there is an appreciation of that which has passed, when the passing does not cause it to lose any character.

I'm quite glad that when I look back at experiences/people/things I do not "have" anymore they are beautiful things that brings much joy to my heart. I don't rue their passing yet it is not inconsequential, it sort of has changed me and I am glad for it. The current, changed, present me can live in the present happily because of all the past. Thanks past!

I initially wanted to write this longer but I kinda wanna go read the next book. I reckon the next book, how to die, should have related ideas!

OOH. yeah. wanted to talk about how to start from t he end. But ok ok. I'll synthesise it after how to die.

[[I wrote this at]]*|3:43 PM|

[[Short story 1: The futility of youth]]

I interrupt this series of book reviews to present a short story that I thought of. Hopefully there will be more.

Lets tentatively name this "the futility of youth".

(Young-ish) Man 1 opens his eyes and quickly shuts them again. The light seems unnaturally bright. His head hurts, the cogs in his brain are grating against each other. It is too bright. He drapes his right arm across his eyes ~~- eyelids scrunched shut are insufficient~~.

His inner mind's "vision" slowly clears. Recent memory comes back to him in trickles.

How did he get here...? He remembers downing copious amounts of alcohol. Bottle after bottle. That accounts for the splitting headache, the dryness in the mouth and an urgent need to take a piss. He bargains with himself to lie down for 5 more minutes. Did he go to a club? A friend's house...? Can't remember. Nobody goes drinking to remember (clearly) after all. All nights of drinking are remembered (or not) the same. And he wasn't concentrating on the interior decor anyway. He thinks he was with some friends or kindred spirits for the moment anyway-. Where are they...? Did he get into another fight?

What happened? He recalls being angry, in a kind of murderous rage. Who was it with...? His dad. Of course it has to be his dad. Again. His dad never understands him, he never understood.

What was the issue again? Ugh... Right. About money again? About him not having a job? About him being a disappointment? A waste of resources? Ughhhh. His head hurts. Whatever, the specifics don't matter. It was probably some combination of these. It always is. Screw father and his expectations. And society where he got these expectations from.

Man 1 detects an ache in his lower back, at the bone and rolls over, to rest on his right side, away from the light. The pressure on his hips tells him that he's not lying on his bed. He can smell dirt. Dirt and litter and human fluids. He must be lying on a roadside again. At least he isn't in manure like the last time.

Did he finally fight his dad? That doesn't seem right... He never raised his fists against his dad even though he participated in, and won, a fair number of fights outside. Could it be that he was afraid of him? Man 1's temple throbbed as he pressed his other hand to it.

That can't be. Dad would not be his match in a fight. That would be obvious to anyone with a pair of functioning eyeballs... Perhaps it is the culture he grew up in that emphasises filial piety. Bah. Screw culture. Didn't he clearly reject culture by dropping out of school and entering into the trade? Perhaps he really respects dad after all. Grudgingly perhaps. Ughhhhhhh. He considers finally apologising to his father, and perhaps the rest of his family. Perhaps someday he will do it, after he has sorted out the mess that is his life. At the back of his aching head he knows his family loves him - it can be seen in their concerned faces every time he does something stupid although their words are scathing in rebuke afterwards. Man 1 makes a vague internal promise apologise the next time he meets his dad. He knows he probably will not keep the promise, he has made them before. He is also dimly aware that the explosive anger he feels towards his dad when they fight is in a significant part attributable to the fact that he knows his dad is right and he resents him being right.

His bladder's signals finally overpowers the slothfulness combined with the aches in his body. It has been 9 minutes rather than 5, not that anyone is counting. Another half turn. He props himself up by his hands and slowly gets to his feet while his eyelids are assaulted by the direct sunlight. He rubs his dirtied hands on his pants and shields his semi-opened eyes. He is in a semi-familiar back alley. He stumbles to the side to take a leak, half asleep.

As his senses awaken, he is pleased to discover that he did not get into a fight the night before. Either that or he emerged victorious in any number of one-sided fights. He is less pleased to discover that his wallet and phone are not on him. His annoyance is interrupted by some rabble outside. They seem to be anti-government. Man 1 is angry with the government for mishandling the country like the majority of his countrymen, including his family, including his parents, including his dad...

---

(Youngish) Soldier 2 is feeling nervous. Today is the day of the big protest. They are on the truck after the government has called them in to disperse the crowd, the very thing he hoped and prayed against. This was not what he signed up for. He signed up to fight for his family and society against the baddies. It was definitely not to fight AGAINST them. And who are the baddies anyway? The government? His superiors? People who are paid by the taxpayers to ... Whatever their job was, they weren't doing it. The only thing they were interested in was keeping power, it seemed.

What could he do? He was just a small fry in the army, wet behind the ears. A minor mutiny was put down recently. That didn't end well for the mutineers. Apart from the sham trials and executions for treason, there were widespread rumours, especially in military circles about horrific tortures - the mutineers didn't get an open casket funeral for sure. The stories were surely exaggerated but soldier 2 was sure he didn't want to find out how exaggerated they were. Besides, he didn't know the true sentiments or allegiances of his commanders and peers for sure. Soldier 2 sighs. He can only do his job. Hopefully all his unit has to do is turn up and intimidate them into dispersing with a show of force. If they do not disperse, it might be a looooong day. Soldier 2 checks his equipment to take his mind off things. His buddies do the same. Nobody speaks.

His truck rumbles into the square. They fan out, reasonably organised like in the drills although the protesters here are very real. Someone is giving an incendiary speech criticising the leader of the country. It is a personal attack with some degree of embellishment although soldier 2 knows that the truth of most claims are open, unsaid, secrets. The speech is abruptly interrupted by an electronically amplified verbal warning coming from the army vehicle, piercing through the crowd and cutting across the entire square.

Soldier 2 notes the scowl across the speaker's face. He is a prominent dissenter standing on a makeshift, raised podium. Soldier 2 notes that he would be an easy target, for the water cannon or worse. Soldier 2 hopes that the scowl is one of defeated annoyance. If the crowds disperse without incident, he can still make it home for dinner with his fiance. It is in celebration of their third anniversary which was 3 days ago, during which he was confined in-camp. He loads his weapon, with supposedly non-lethal rubber bullets.

The speaker, however, is oblivious to the threat to his personal safety. Either that or he doesn't value personal safety. For he carries on his speech, with greater fervour, shouting, to the crowd, impassioned (anti-governmental) rhetoric. Soldier 2 wants to tell the crowd to disperse. Disperse and everyone gets home to dinner. Isn't that a victory in itself? At least he wasn't inciting them to violence, there was still hope.

The electronically amplified voice leaves out the part about dinner. The electronically amplified voice remains calm but firm, drowning out the fiery rhetoric. Soldier 2 knows what is coming next. Warnings would be repeated thrice with an escalating level of threat each time. This is both to provide some defence for themselves in the eyes of international media (and in court) as well as ensure that the crowd had time to disperse if they so wished. Soldier 2 wants them to heed the warning and protest some other day, when he is not on duty. He is not unsympathetic to their ideals, just not today.

The speaker wisens to the threat and hastily wraps up his fiery rhetoric. Instead he starts urging for non-violence resistance, trying to rein in and at the same time maintain the crowd. It seems to work. Electronically amplified voice starts his third warning for use of water cannon.

(Youngish) Man 1 stands in the crowd. A blast of water knocks the podium over and the speaker scrambles for cover. The crowd stands stunned for a few seconds. Someone in the crowd shouts "Government dogs!" There is a roar of affirmation, man 1 included. Another water cannon smashes into the crowd 30 meters away from where man 1 is standing knocking several people over, drenching everyone nearby. People start pushing and shoving to avoid being bowled over by the water jet. Someone shouts in pain. Someone else shouts a few choice curse words. There is a loud cry somewhere else.

It appears that several others heard a battle cry. Man 1 is feeling pumped. The rhetoric was inspiring. It is exactly what his family had been grousing about albeit put more eloquently. Perhaps today was the start of redemption. Perhaps today was the first time he could fight for something greater than himself - for, rather than against his family. There were more cries, a riot seemed to be brewing. Man 1 was no stranger to riots.

Man 1 feels a blow to the side of his head. He is on his hands and knees, utterly drenched. He snarls. Some stranger must have read his face and handed him an empty glass bottle.

(Youngish) Soldier 2 realises he is not going to make it for dinner tonight. That makes him sad. But he has more pressing matters to attend to. He has to make it through today in one piece together with his buddies. They are being pelted by rocks and other items.

Soldier 2 sees a group of youngish men advancing towards his squad while throwing things and shouting... things. He cannot really process what they are shouting. He hears his buddy shout at them to stop approaching.

(Youngish) Man 1 hears someone behind him shout "charge!". The people around him obey. Naturally, he charges too. He is not afraid. If he weren't afraid fighting for himself, he wouldn't be afraid fighting against the evil establishment. He closes the distance quickly.

(Youngish) Soldier 2 is afraid. He instinctively raises his weapon, as per training, at the bunch of youngish men charging his position and takes aim, trying to avoid the head. They were breaching safety distance.

(Youngish) Man 1 hears the sound of gunshots. And feels a sharp pain in his torso. Shit.

(Youngish) Soldier 2 releases his grip on the trigger. Shit.

----- end

Briefly edited for grammar and spelling on 4/7/19

[[I wrote this at]]*|3:01 AM|

Monday, September 24, 2018

[[On God is not Great]]

Originally I had in mind a more ambitious attempt but due date is today and I am lazy. As always, you are free to disagree with me and constructive dialogue (especially if you have read the book and are more agnostic/atheistic/of another religion) would be great (I mean if you are Christian its great too but I would reckon we would just be echoing each other for most of it).

At risk of over generalising, I think Hitchens does not really seem to grasp Christianity accurately (I can't really say much for the other religions since I do not have sufficient knowledge about them. I presume that there is some sort of mischaracterisation too). That being said, I think he does grasp "people who call themselves Christians over the ages" quite accurately (these things are historically verifiable).

From the title of his book, I guess he is suggesting that "God is not Great" because "religion poisons everything" (the subheader to God is not Great). And how religion poisons everything is in the effects it has on humankind. Presumably this has to assume that a non-religious secular framework has a better effect.

Chapter 1 is kinda assertions in an eloquent manner and confident tone.

Chapter 2 is titled religion kills:
Well the religious has made his case rather easy. It is blatantly obvious to see that many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion and religious authorities throughout history. All religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism especially) have been used to justify violence on massive scales with much human suffering. This violence is both intra and inter religious. These cases kinda go up to current history (e.g violence in former yugoslavia, current rohingya crisis, daesh .etc.).

Rather than attempting the futile task of challenging this empirical facts, it seems to me that the defence of religion would be that the violence and evil of such cases are primarily political and self-serving in nature with religion being perverted and used as a justification for such atrocities. The supporting evidence for this defence can be found when one looks into the actual claims of Christianity (and presumably buddhism which I have heard is very much non-violent, idk enough about Islam and Hinduism to make such claims here. Much effort is being put in to demonstrate that Islam is a religion of peace in Singapore and the west though, perhaps can look there if really interested.) as in the Bible rather than as being said through the mouth of fallible men preaching hate. Just a short defence: Christianity has love as the greatest (and second greatest) commandment and includes a direct command from Jesus to turn the other cheek. It seems to me that violence in the name of Christianity is very much a sham and would be agreed to be a sham by most Christians (unless particular political / whatnot beliefs that take precedence over what Christianity preaches in which case, idk what sort of Christians they are).

Religion is a very convenient tool for justification of violence because it is a claim about ultimate authority and involves some promises about the future that are unverifiable at present. Let me suggest that violence and evil is a result of sin and power being wielded in the hands of fallen man and will carry on due to the innate selfishness of men. Wanting power and control and such are the causes of mass violence and "evil", it just so happens that religion has served such desires because it was the "ultimate authority" (to society at that time). In staunchly atheistic communist societies where secular communism was the "ultimate authority", it could be argued that the "evils" done under such guises is far worse because there isn't a need to twist scripture .etc. to justify such violence.

The age in which religion dominated was violent. Let us assume with Nietzsche that God is dead and a new age of secular moralism or humanism (that Hitchens subscribes to) is dawning (at least for political power). Let me predict that this age will be equally if not more "evil" - this is just a reflection of humankind's innate sinfulness (and is also an empirical prediction of sorts that can be verified). Much more can be said about the Christian underpinings that allowed even this age of secular moralism to come about but I shall not go into these here.

The takeaway here for the Christian should be that if your religion causes you to support killings and evil .etc., perhaps you ought to relook your own understanding of Christianity, perhaps start with reading the Bible. And perhaps this is a call to have Christians help the church be focused on seeking its kingdom which is not of this world and avoid being entangled (not disengaging) with the politics of this world. Perhaps this chapter would be better termed the perverted religion kills (original is religion kills) and be a sobering reminder for us to safeguard our thinking.

Chapter 3 is about Pig-fearing which is not really applicable. Chapter 4 is about how some religious people reject certain scientific medicine and such treatments as well have unhealthy practices/rituals. Not really applicable either, I don't see anywhere in Christianity that suggests one should not take medicine or have any unhealthy rituals.

Chapter 5 is attempting to suggest that the metaphysical claims of religion are false. Without attempting to argue much, I think Hitchens is really better suited to avoid such philosophical topics, anger and mocking attempts really don't go well with philosophy however much they might be valued in journalism (his profession). He attempts to wield Ockham's razor as a sort of principle in itself even though it is generally a rule of thumb. I would go further to suggest that the religious framework requires less unknown variables than current secular frameworks since God is a "convenient" answer for many things while the secular frameworks have to posit all sorts of convoluted positions for things such as justifying "morality" or privileging humans morally or perhaps some sort of multiverse. Furthermore, and I am not entirely sure of this though I am reasonably confident, I believe that metaphysical claims cannot be scientifically disproved for if they could they would be physical claims. So I'm not really sure on what grounds is Hitchens attempting to argue that the metaphysical claims of religion are wrong.. and he doesn't really provide any metaphysics of his own... This could be a very courageous staring into the face of unknown because he doesn't like the answer of God.

Chapter 6 is about evolution vs intelligent design. I'm not gonna revisit this here. Lots of literature on this elsewhere from both Christianity and Islam.

Chapter 7 is about the old testament. I think something rather significant is the claim that Moses is not historical which apparently has scholarly consensus. If Moses was not historical, I think Christianity is on really shaky grounds. For Jesus and Moses are rather inter-linked. But scholarly consensus now is that Christianity is not true so... Oh well, it is the current framework. Time will tell. The rest of it is the angry stuff of the OT where God kills people or asks the Israelites to kill people. Well, if a Christian knows his Bible, he knows that these things have happened, and more than that, why these things happened. Hitchens doesn't address the why. Many times, God has been offended and demands some justice. This answer is not good enough for Hitchens presumably because it seems to me that he cannot accept a superior being that can have (an exceedingly) greater moral weight than a human. Which is kinda what God claims to be, and hence the justification for such actions.

Chapter 8 is about how the new testament is worse than the old testament. His first contention is that it led to Jew-hating and subsequent Jewish persecution which... if anyone knows early church history, is rather stupid because the early church clearly started from the Jews and spread to the Gentiles with the Gentiles being "grafted" onto the early Jewish church (all the apostles and Jesus himself was Jewish). The subsequent Jew-hating happened after Christianity got politicised and all that whatnot covered earlier. He then criticises some mainstream popular stuff about Jesus like the passion of Christ (and Jesus being white?? and being born in a stable???), I don't even know what is happening here since I doubt any Christian other than a very oblivious and cultural Christian (in other words, non Christian) would give credence to such things. I was under the impression that the historical evidence for Jesus's existence was watertight enough with evidence from both Christians and those persecuting Christians (both sides of the coin), but clearly he is exposed to evidence that is difference from that which Christians have been reading and perhaps we should go look into those claims if we are very free. Theres a point about contradictions in the new testament which I presume Christians understand. Perhaps try to engage with some Christians who can live with the supposed "contradictions" instead of having it seem as if Christians have not read their own Bible (ok maybe he is really targeting the cultural Christians in which case, good on him cos I think they ought to be challenged too) and come to an understanding of how it is not gibberish. There is some more attacks on immaculate conception and assumption which were "discovered by Rome" in 1852 and 1951 respectively, I don't have much to say, I think these are problematic too. There is some part about the savior, lunatic or fiend argument put forth by CS Lewis amongst others and his response is "Well, it can be stated with certainty, and on their own evidence, that the Gospels are most certainly not literal truth". Which is a great argument (clearly not an assertion since it contains the word "evidence") since Lewis's argument kinda assumes the truth of the gospels (in that what was said happened) so he is not even addressing Lewis's argument. Thereafter he takes issue with John 8:3-11 and Mel Gibson again which is like ??? (who made Mel Gibson the spokesperson for Christianity?). I believe Bibles include that earliest manuscripts do not include John 8:3-11 and you can ask any Pastor for why it is included if they the earliest manuscripts do not include them and engage them rather than present it as if as it was fascinating new discovery. I love some questions that he raises such as "what authority did Jesus have to "forgive" (the adulterer)?" Man that would make a good question at an alpha course if he was actually interested in knowing the answer.

Chpt 9 is against koran alleging that it is borrowed from Jewish and Christian myths. I've heard that argument before and well, I don't have much to say because I'm not too familiar.

Chpt 10 is against miracles, my favorite b+ topic. Anddd oh joy! He quotes my favorite Hume as well. But I digress. There is some tussle over evidence for the resurrection of Christ. Hitchens just claims that there is insufficient evidence and, loosely paraphrased, "something something Hitchens razor therefore we ought disbelieve". Can read Case for Christ if really wanna see evidence instead of just being convinced that there is no evidence. He throws some shade and supposedly reported catholic miracles which i'm totally cool with (him discrediting them, that is). He also observes that when you in power you can make people not question your narratives (at least openly) which is cool and true. So now that religion has less and less power, lets question the narratives more and see if they hold! Yay! I'm all for that and I think they do hold. Those that don't hold can be discarded. why not (like the mother Teresa fake miracle thing he quotes).

Chpt 11 is mostly against Islam and mormons and stuff like that in which Hitchens suggests that the creation of religion was for some gain for the founders (kinda hard to do that with Christianity lol).

Chpt 12 is about the death of some religions in which they overstretched and finally gave up (usually some false doomsday prediction followed by frantic trying to stitch together why the prediction was wrong). Doesn't really apply to Christianity I reckon.

Chpt 13 about does Religion make people behave somewhat similar to chpt 2. First is he is very uncharitable to Christian achievements like he claims MLK's actions cannot be Christian based or something despite him clearly being a pastor and using the scripture for arguments, ignores the abolition of slavery fight by Wilberforce .etc. Its ok, not a big point. Think really mostly covered in chpt 2 response.

Chpt 14 about eastern religions. Chpt 15 about religion imposing stuff on people as original sin... Think it is a misunderstanding of Christianity at the very least. Christianity should not be about imposing but an own choice and actions in response to what has been given by God rather than "coercive law" to avoid "punishment". Would probably be hard for him to understand as a non-christian? Chpt 16 about religion as child abuse which follows from chpt 15 but if religion is good and it is not an imposition, 16 shouldn't be a problem. ill skip 17 and 18.

Overall, I think he is very uncharitable and does not engage with many positions that an educated Christian nowadays would hold. Instead he takes a superior and angry-sounding tone which I presume, delights his converts because OF COURSE he is right. Good (sensationalist) journalism, very sub par argumentation. But of course he got into oxford ppe and I didn't so... heh, maybe I am the one talking shit. But then again, what does educational credentials have to do with truth (necessarily)? He talks alot about his religious experiences but I guess he never really understood religion without its political and power corruptions despite all his experiences including being twice married under different religious schemes.

Anyway, time shall tell whether religion is true or not. We shall see in the end right. Because that is what truth is, it is that it is right regardless of how many people believe it (he would happily agree with it). The future shall vindicate. No need to fight so much over it. If disagree then by all means let us disagree. And Christianity should turn the other cheek. After all, there is no reason for an agnostic / atheist to do so but there is reason for us to do so. I fully agree with him against imposition of religion (though bringing children up is not really imposition, they should be free to leave) at the very least. Let us all make our own choices.

[[I wrote this at]]*|4:00 PM|

Thursday, September 13, 2018

[[]]

Perhaps the role that we ought to strive towards is really building / educating / creating people (a la making disciples) rather than yknow, any sort of structure, skills, competencies or programmes. Because all these come out of the more foundational. But hmm. It is always hard to see eh.

[[I wrote this at]]*|5:04 PM|

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

[[Thinking through books 1]]

In order of it being read. Mostly for me to remember what I have read and what I thought about said books.

Sex is not the problem (lust is) - Thought it was decent. Rather america/western oriented concerning the whole sex thing but sure, why not. And not very contentious because it is one of Joshua Harris's (now a pastor) later-ish works. I just kinda felt I agreed with almost everything he was saying so a rather easy read.

Love: a very short introduction - Quite a philosophical book getting at the concept of love. And love here is defined in a very romantic / eros / limerencey way. Can't say I got much out of it since I was just, kinda disagreeing with the definition of love (for practical action wise, i mean it could be a good theory). It also provided some sociological and psychological explanations and frameworks that are somewhat useful. Not the easiest read because it is not simple content. I like some quotes that he uses though, from like really varied places concerning love.

The science of sin: why we do the things we know we shouldn't do - This was written by an atheist neuroscientist. I thought it was quite an interesting read even though I glossed over most of the in depth neuroscience parts. Book is arranged by the 7 deadly sins and in a sensible secular framework, why these sins are undesirable is due to the anti-social effects that they cause (rather than being bad in themselves). Some interesting points concern how much control one has over one's urges and behaviour especially if the brain has been fiddled with (with or without intent). There is some link to moral responsibility there (at least traditionally) since most people presume that if something (say a rock hitting your head) made you start to have urges you didn't have before, you are not responsible for the urges (though acting on the urges might be a different matter). There was also a part about how he suggested that one sin could offset another e.g a slothful person could be motivated by greed to do some work and so the anti-social effects would be mitigated. Nonetheless, I think from a Christian perspective this move is simply to be avoided because what it does is it merely provides the veneer (or basic action) of non-sin while the person goes on sinning within (since sin is not just action but a state of the heart, by heart I mean desires .etc. wrt God). Add in some idea that sin breeds sin (or tramples one's conscience) which is actually supported by some neuroscience since cognitive pathways can be reinforced, the type of person you end up being if you employ the sin fight sin move is just fundamentally undesirable. I would add that a greedy/slothful person would be the first to employ some get rich schemes or criminal activity or something along those lines since the ends he seek is fundamentally to be greedy and slothful (and there are many ways where they do not conflict and do not result in "work"). You can talk to me more about this if you are interested.

Counterfeit Gods - so, a Tim Keller book. Was quite easy reading I reckon. Alot of yes agree yes agree. There are indeed so many counterfeit Gods around and for the Christian, it is prudent to be on the look out for many subtle forms of idolatry, especially ones where the world (and hence the church (LOL cos the church follows the world right, LOL)) deems it to be a good thing. Think keewei was reading a book about money sex and power in langkawi. Counterfeit Gods seems like a really abridged version of that book.

Intuition pumps and other tools for thinking - by Daniel Dennett. Lmao. I expected this book to be teaching how to think. And it sorta is. But it is teaching you how to think like Daniel Dennett towards the conclusions that Daniel Dennett endorses. A valuable book nonetheless, I think most philosophy students should read this (well, i didnt, until after I graduated) not just because Dennett is a bigass name in philosophy but this is well presented. Rather painful reading because I disagree with his fundamental basis in evolution and some sort of physicalism but his arguments are definitely worth considering and thinking through. I also learnt alot about computers through his book (which is where the computers are incredible post came from). If I might, Dennett's main train of thought is 1. evolution is true. 2. Brains (consciousness) are essentially (like) computers. 3. Computers can arise through evolution. Everything else builds on from there. Well... personally I don't agree with 1 and 2 but who cares cos I'm not Dennett. Also included is quite abit of philosophical dissing (though witty) and stuff like that. I find it most amusing how the physicalist (Dennett) says that the dualist is just not imagining correctly when he can imagine a conscious-less person. (Could you indulge me to imagine millions of years correctly please.) One other thing I note is the tone in which it is written which is the characteristically "cocky" and confident tone that philosophy students/writers write in AGAINST another paper written in such a tone. When you agree with the author the tone makes the reading much more lively and interesting but when you disagree, sometimes you marvel at how confident people are in something that you so surely (ding!) perceive to be wrong.
Dennett also relates this wonderful concept (probably more a rule of thumb) called sturgeon's law where 90% of everything is crap. The corollary being that one should strive to engage with the 10% that is not crap because the 90% is too easy a strawman. Makes me wonder whether 90% of Christians are crap and/or 90% of students or workers for that matter. Why such a big majority eh?

God is not great - Christopher Hitchens. This is my second Hitchens book. The tone here is even more angry than Dennett and I would go as far to say as being alot more emotional and less than objective. It appears to me that he is an atheist that really wants religion to be bad (and thus by extension, atheism to be good perhaps?). Haven't read finish, these are the first impressions. I reckon Hitchens will appeal way more to the regular reader (especially if agnostic or atheistic) than Dennett just because of the style.

[[I wrote this at]]*|10:57 AM|

Monday, September 10, 2018

[[The role of self in Christianity part 1]]

A core aspect of Christianity is how the death and resurrection of Jesus impinges on our self if we deem ourselves followers of him. I think this is very fundamental and often not adequately addressed today. Through this lens of self, much of the narratives concerning Christianity can be evaluated, methinks.

Love (in some sense) is a shift in perspective from self to the other. And if the other is God then.. will I guess thats loving God.

Many things are done out of fear. And fear is usually linked to self-preservation. Fear usually stems from a threat to one's identity. E.g fear of death, fear of public speaking (social rejection), fear of failure (some identity thing) .etc. And fear is usually quite debilitating in ways that is apparent to all. A life without much fear is quite desirable to most people.

One very "attractive" route that many people take to solve the problem of fear is to be secure in oneself. Basically be confident in one's own abilities / capabilities / environment / social network / acquired skillsets / hardwork / whatnot in order to overcome fear. So if one is afraid of the future, one can be secure in a comprehensive savings plan, insurance, friends, family and one's degree and social network rather than fretting. If one is afraid of social rejection one can "accept oneself" and do whatever one wants to do anyway instead of putting up a front and bending over backwards to conform. If one is afraid of being lonely, one can put effort into grooming self / fitness / self-improvement or whatnot rather than be a clingy desperate person.

I think most would agree that the results of being secure in self is much more attractive than living in fear. Yet there is a more excellent way. I shall elaborate later...

[[I wrote this at]]*|11:42 PM|

Friday, September 7, 2018

[[]]

Just finished the AIPA thing. And it was great! Was a great use of time. Met interesting people both peers and the overseas delegates. Got to talk with "important people" and discuss some stuff regarding direction of society and stuff like that.

I really apologise for the lack of proper content. I have been reading much and "living" somewhat and haven't had the time and energy to put these into coherent posts. I have quite alot of drafts though!

[[I wrote this at]]*|12:42 PM|