Poor Thinking on Both Sides Tuesday, Oct 27 2009

My goodness.

I often get really tired of reading boring rants on The Online Citizen. I mean, I was quite excited about the site when I heard about it, only to find that it is mostly just a bunch of disgruntled people who often don’t make much sense.

I quote this article I recently read:

The power of efficiency, so sterile, so clinical, so enticing, has arguably been the bedrock of our economic transformation. It will also be the impediment to our national identity – a nation does not grow with GDP, a nation does not live in skyscrapers: a nation is only born when it has a soul. As long as we remain predicated and fixated upon material and technocratic concerns, Peter Schoppert will affirm that “Singapore is about routes, not roots”. Our national soul however requires roots.

Okay seriously, this paragraph to me represents what is just wrong about much of the opposition voice in Singapore. It takes something as wondrous as efficiency, and tries to make it sound like something evil. It uses warm and fuzzy concepts like soul and no one really knows what those concepts mean, except that it is warm and fuzzy.

Bullshit. A nation does not grow with GDP? Are skyscrapers not better places to live in than rubbish dumps?

Efficiency is about getting maximum output for minimum input. Anyone who argues that efficiency has made us “souless” just doesn’t make sense.

I am very disillusioned with opposition voices in Singapore, which may shock some who know my past inclinations. I have yet to see many credible opposition voices other than Yawning Bread.

But then, on the other side, we have our dear Young PAP. I mean, I seldom read their site but this post absolutely made me puke.

We, as Citizens of Singapore, are the best to judge which system of governance suits our Nation best in terms of advancing the well-being of our people. And no, we should not be so arrogant as not to want to look closely at other successful systems of governance with a view to adapting aspects of those systems to our benefit.

The observation has been made that it is those countries in the West, who were former colonisers of countries in Asia, and who robbed lands belonging to others, suppressing the native inhabitants of the lands they conquered, and stealing their valuable resources to fuel their own industrialization now condescendingly want to teach us how to govern ourselves following their model wholesale.

These were also the countries that once lorded over the great ancient civilization of India, and who also derided China [another great ancient civilization] as the ’sick man of Asia’. And these were also the nations that, at the height of their imperialism, imposed, by sheer brute force, the ‘right’ of extra-territoriality upon the countries they had subjected. And now, they are crusading for Freedom and Human Rights in their former colonies as well as the other countries of Asia.

Okay, so after the first paragraph of the section I just quoted, I kinda thought that the guy was going to analyze why “Western” models of governance are unsuccessful. Instead, he just goes on rant after rant, rhetoric after rhetoric about Colonialism. Seriously, the anti-West knee jerk reaction is just getting old.

By the way, can you imagine if what our island would be like if we were not colonized? Would we still have a Sultan like Thailand has a King? Seriously, colonialism was one of the best things that happened to Singapore.

Anyway, I’m just disappointed at how few great sites on Singaporean issues there are. Which really tempts me to start one but… I don’t think I’d be able to do it alone and everyone else is so busy with everything else.

Besides, I can’t think of a good name for such a site.

Hahaha, how I wish I could start a Wave on this and see what my other friends think about it.

5 Responses »

 

Initial Thoughts on Atlas Shrugged Friday, Oct 23 2009

I guess the title of this post is pretty misleading, since I am writing this after reading the book, plus reading a couple of stuff online about the book and Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy.

I guess my true initial thoughts on the book was: awesome! And I still think it was absolute fun to read.

But now, I guess I’m trying to understand the ideas espoused in her books a little better.

Rand’s Objectivist philosophy is an attempt to have an integrated, consistent philosophy that explains her views on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics. The idea of an integrated philosophy is one that seems really interesting to me: I’ve always thought about whether there were any underlying principles that guided me on my beliefs with regards to everything I believe in. In other words, could I reduce all my beliefs and opinions to a certain number of axioms that form the bases of all my beliefs?

Rand’s philosophy may indeed prove a fruitful starting point for that search.

The thing that struck me when looking at material online was how hard it was to find a comprehensive and well considered criticism of Objectivism. I mean, all I seemed to be able to find were criticisms that don’t seem very strong to me at first glance. I quote from a website:

As to be expected, Rand’s original system of thought has not gone without criticism. A few of the most common criticisms are discussed below.

Rand claims that all of a man’s knowledge of reality comes through the senses. She also takes for granted the validity and objectivity of the senses. Nowhere does she disprove that knowledge can be gained through and/or enhanced by other sources such as revelation by God, existential encounters, mystical experiences, and the human emotions. Knowledge that comes through a man’s senses varies with respect to its accuracy. Concepts are abstractions and are not equal to their referents. Not only are man’s senses and brain fallible, he is also limited by his own subjectivity and perspective – alone he may be able to perceive some aspect of reality, but very seldom can he see the whole picture. In those cases in which he does perceive reality accurately, he cannot totally prove it since if, as Rand maintains, the senses and the brain are the only means by which we know reality, there is no way to compare reality with perceptions created by the brain.

Rand contends there are no reasons to believe in God. For her, the idea of God is offensive and humiliating to man since it would mean that man is not the highest being in the world. Her position is that without God it is up to man alone to pursue his own happiness and create his own values. Freedom for Rand means the non-existence of a Creator. Nowhere, however, does she attempt to refute arguments for the existence of God such as Aristotle’s unmoved mover, Aquinas’ five proofs, Anselm’s ontological argument, and James’ argument from mystical experience.

Rand’s repudiation of altruism seems to be due to the unusual way that she defines the term. Her idea of altruism is that man must selflessly place the welfare of others above his own. A more common idea, however, is that altruism is a man’s concern for or dedication to others’ interests in addition to his own. Charity, compassion, and the desire to give pleasure to others can have their place in human relationships as long as they do not playa principal, determining role, or are accomplished through the involuntary redistribution of individuals’ wealth.

Okay, I quote this from a article that was fairly sympathetic to Rand so it is possible that these are just strawmen that its citing but if these are the “main” criticisms of Rand, then I’m a little underwhelmed given how her ideas are so frequently (on the net) rejected out of hand.

I mean, okay, you can criticize her use of “altruism” as being different from how others use it, but to me it seems to make sense. For an act to be considered non-trivially altruistic, it has to benefit others at your expense. It may not be how people like to use it, but at least she uses it in an intelligible and reasonable manner.

And of course, the criticism quoted that she didn’t bother arguing against the existence of God doesn’t really move me since I have plenty of those arguements on my own.

So yeah, I seem to see mostly hysterical (“Omg you don’t care about the poor things in the world”) criticisms online. Hopefully I’ll find better in the days to come. Unfortunately, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, my first go-to site on all things philosophy related, doesn’t seem to have an article on Rand.

(Which, incidentally, does far more damage to her credibility in my mind than reading any criticism cause my mind automatically asks, “What is it that makes a great site like SEP not recognize Rand as worthy of an article?”)

Anyway, I am most struck by this line in Atlas Shrugged:

To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, purpose and self esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge. Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve. Self esteem as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living.

I mean, clearly, I’m not yet going into the epistemological basis of her philosophy, but as a philosophy of life, as a philosophy for living, reason, purpose, and self esteem strike a particular chord with me.

Which really brings me to all sorts of conclusions about my life as I am living now.

A moral life is one where one is a trader: trading openly and honestly, value for value.

It makes me wonder, what sort of sacrifices have I knowingly made. Whether I expect my payment to be something I value, or in the form of suffering that I will wear as a badge of honor or matyrdom.

Ultimately, one has to ask, have I been conditioned to enjoy pain and suffering? Have I been deluded into thinking that to suffer is to be moral? Did I decide somewhere along the way that the sympathetic attention from being a martyr was a wondrous feeling?

To love being a martyr is to love death.

What makes Atlas Shrugged such an optimistic book for me, one that might provide me insights as to how to live my life in a more fruitful way, is that in all its cynicism, it is a profoundly life affirming book.

After all, there is only one life that I control, one life that I can truly understand, one life that I can truly take care of.

And I choose to live it.

2 Responses »

 

Prelude Sunday, Oct 18 2009

It seems that nowadays my blog posts mostly consists of weightless, fleeting thoughts.

Today will probably be no different.

I’ve not been reading much fiction since this year, but reading Atlas Shrugged has made me recall what it’s like to read a book that simply resonates and speaks to you.

And it makes me remember that great line from Possibility of an Island.

“What do you call the fat around the vagina?”

“The woman.”

I think I’m gonna add that into my favorite quotes on my facebook page.

Along with this quote from House:

“Religion is not the opiate of the masses; It is the placebo of the masses.”

I guess what I feel now is that everything seems to be a prelude to something else.

A quiet build-up to something.

Though the uncertainty as to what that thing is is rather unsettling.

Things have been going along the lines of what I have forseen.

Hmm.

I am now thinking that perhaps the best way to articulate the many random thoughts in my head is to list them out, complete with a numerical order.

Might make for a more coherent post than one that just rambles on.

Okay, so here goes the list of my random thoughts for the day.

1. Grey’s Anatomy is awesome. “You can’t pray away the gay.” Hahaha, Singapore is so not going to show Grey’s anymore.

2. It disgusts me that our government is still so prudish about the things we watch. Like seriously. I’m starting to think that there are two types of people in government. The first, think of how to make money. The other, think about how to control how people spend their money. Come on, don’t kill my new found liking for our government by reminding me of all the stupid, senseless, illogical restrictions on our freedoms.

3. And that brings me to: Atlas Shrugged is an awesome book. Think I’m gonna write a couple of serious posts inspired by it some time soon. As soon as I finish the book and then go read a couple of reviews/commentaries, I guess. Haha.

4. There are certain things I think I should re-evaluate. Partly inspired by Atlas Shrugged, I am now beginning to think that I should stop playing a part in faking realities that I do not even want to be true.

5. I am also thinking that when it comes down to it, marriage and kids are really really expensive. I mean, how many adults do you know can really think of what they have spent and say that it’s really worth it. I, for one, am starting to think that marriage and kids are seriously overrated. Do I really want my life to be about the pleasure and feelings of others? Do I really want to spend 80% of my money on other people?

6. Did I mention that Grey’s Anatomy is awesome? Hahaha.

I guess all I can say about my life now is that I’m satisfied. Not really good, of course, but I’m satisfied. And I’m trying to see if there are certain things that I can live without. Because come one day, I may not have a choice.

Leave a Response »