The continuum between the anti-thesis of Free Will and Determinism has long been a subject of debate among philosophers. While there have been many philosophers who argue for Determinism, the popular view among humanity is that Free Will does exist. This is simply because no one wants to live with the knowledge that everything that one does is insignificant and that a certain fate awaits. There are three stances regarding this continuum. The first is the Hard Determinist, who denies that we have Free Will, and that the world is entirely deterministic. In contrast, there is the Libertarian, who believes the opposite, that the world is not deterministic, and that there is some sort of contra-causal freedom – Free Will. Then there are the fence-sitters – Compatiblists or Soft Determinists who seek a compromise between the two stances. In this essay, I will discuss how plausible it is to maintain that people act of their free will given what science tells us about the human mind and brain.
The concept of Free Will can be a very vague concept if no constraints or definition is given to it. Is Free Will simply freedom to do whatever one wants to do? Roger Sperry came up with the idea of degrees of freedom – that consciousness emerges from and is determined by the biochemical activity of the brain and this consciousness in turn helps integrate and organize activity in the brain. So while he takes into account the theory of Mechanism, he still holds a belief that the consciousness that emerges as the by-product of its activity would in turn organize the brain activity.
Patricia Churchland takes the Compatiblist argument of arguing that there is the concept of control. In other words, she claims that while one cannot be held responsible for things beyond control, one can still be held responsible to the extent that some control could have been exercised. Churchland also presents it as “being able to do otherwise,” such that if one were unable to do otherwise then the act was not free. For example, she gives the example of patients with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, who ceaselessly wash their hands. These patients would not be doing that very act if they did not have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder in the first place. In this regard, Churchland adopts Aristotle’s principle that one is held responsible for his own actions unless there are mitigating reasons.
Another philosopher – Benjamin Libet theorized that Free Will had to satisfy two conditions. Firstly, an act of Free Will is under endogenous or internal, rather than external control. Hence one has to be in control of his actions, where the person intends to do something. Secondly, the act of Free Will has to be felt to be under the control of the subject. So in the case of Alien Hand Syndrome, both these conditions are not satisfied as the person does not intend to use the ‘alien hand’ to unbutton his shirt in public, and the person does not feel that he is controlling that hand.
Despite these definitions and constraints as to what Free Will is, there still requires some proof that it exists. In science, empirical evidence is what determines the verifiability of a concept or law. Libet attempted to prove that Free Will exists by conducting a study regarding the connection between the human mind and the brain. In this study, participants were asked to flex their wrists at random intervals of their own choosing. They were also asked to note when they were first aware of their intention, by taking note of the spot on a cathode ray oscilloscope clock, where the spot of light revolved around the clock face every 2.4 seconds. In addition, Libet measured their early evoked potential using an electroencephalogram, and the onset of their muscular response using an electromyogram recording. The study found that the awareness of intention came after the early evoked potential. This finding suggests that Free Will does not exist, as we are only aware of our intention only after the message is sent for the action to occur. This disproved Libet’s null hypothesis and belief that there is Free Will.
Before we discuss Libet’s reply to the finding, I would like to point out that this experiment is flawed. Firstly, it has problems with its content validity, as it is not really representative of Free Will that it was trying to measure. It is quite hard to grasp that awareness is measured by the person saying when he feels the spot of light reaches a certain point. Despite the error accounted for in the experiment, there is insufficient and lack of robust proof that this awareness comes after the early evoked potential. I believe that there is a need to differentiate between what I would call the internal and external consciousness, which I will discuss later on in this essay.
In response to his findings, Libet maintained his belief that Free Will existed, and he claimed that Free Will is an inhibitory function that acts as a control. This novel definition, later dubbed as “Free Won’t” explains that a person has the ability to stop the action from occurring. However, there is no empirical evidence that proves his claim. Still, rather than trying to prove his claim, Libet argues that there is no evidence that rejects his claim – clearly, a violation of the fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance. He then goes on to add that deterministic supposition is also an unproven hypothesis and that there is an explanatory gap between the brain operation mechanics and conscious mental phenomena. Libet draws reference from Leibniz in that respect, using Leibniz’s analogy of the brain with a mill. It explains that perception is inexplicable on solely mechanical principles as while one can see its parts, there is nothing that would explain perceptions.
So this brings us back to square one with neither side being having a sufficiently strong argument. So perhaps the most plausible choice would be to adopt the stance of the Compatablists. Free Will is not something that we all have as there are constraints which mean that there is still some form of determinism. Take for example, unleashing a dog. While the dog is free to do whatever it wishes, it is still inhibited from having absolute Free Will by the fact that it knows that it belongs to you. Eventually, due to its dependence on you, which has been programmed in its unconscious as well as conscious mind, it will return to be leashed up.
A closer example to us would be that we have no complete Free Will ourselves. I believe that there are certain principles that govern and inhibit our ability to use our Free Will. Firstly, there are laws which prevent a lot of our actions. Although we are able to kill someone, there is something in our minds which inhibit this as we do not carry out the act for fear of the consequences. Secondly, we have been taught by our parents since young, how to behave in society. We would not simply defecate in the middle of the sidewalk or crawl around in public. It is programmed in us that those are not proper acts and should not be done. Thirdly, our conscience really governs right and wrong. It is because of the latter two principles that contribute to the conscience of a person. A person with a good conscience would not normally do something that is wrong. As a result of these three principles, our Free Will is constrained. Still, there is no scientific proof that shows that these principles are plausible as is the case with Libet’s “Free Won’t”.
Perhaps hypnosis, if considered a form of empirical study, might be possibility. There is the common misconception that one could manipulate another person under hypnosis. However, it has been proven in studies that no matter how deeply a person is hypnotized, the person would not do anything that he or she would not normally do sans hypnosis. Hence it could be said that, based on this finding, there is Free Will after all. The hypnotist simply uses suggestions to provide a medium for the hypnotized person to decide whether to act or not act. While the hypnotized person’s mind is thinking about something else, the hypnotist tries to slip in a few suggestions, which the hypnotized person sometimes carries out.
This shows how the relationship between internal consciousness and external consciousness as the internal inhibitions in the person’s mind clearly restrict any action to be carried out externally. It brings me back to my concept of internal and external consciousness, which I previously claimed that Libet’s experiment failed to take into account. My main objection is that if the reaction potential or early evoked potential was measured using an electroencephalogram, should the subject’s awareness of intention not also be measured in the same way? Libet’s experiment measured the external consciousness of its participants in their awareness of their intention, but it does not measure the internal consciousness in that respect. So it could be fair to say on this basis, that if external consciousness were to be taken into account and compared, we could compare the external awareness with the actual muscular movement. In essence, a fair way to approach this argument empirically is to find a way to measure both of these factors on the same scale.
Perhaps there might be a possibility that this early evoked potential is in fact, the awareness of intention itself. The awareness of intention in Libet’s experiment could in fact be another process – the participants’ judgment of the spot of light, the process of how it moves, the estimation of where it starts and stops, and the processing of the information. In that respect then, the electroencephalograph result could be compared with the electromyography results as it can be argued that should it be the case that the awareness of intention is indeed really the early evoked potential, then it would be fair to compare it with the onset of muscular response, as both are electrical signals, meaning that they both are on the same plane – internal consciousness.
From what we have seen so far, there is an obvious lack of strong evidence from both sides of the argument. However, that is no reason that either stance should be refuted or that the Compatiblist approach is the right one. Until technology or a study that allows us to accurately measure consciousness internally and externally, this debate will continue to rage on. Still, to answer the question, it can be concluded that it is plausible to maintain that people act of their own free will given what science tells us about the human mind and brain. This is only based on the fact that it opens the door for Cognitive Psychology to work. It is only if it is accepted that we have Free Will, that we can use the concepts and theories in Cognitive Psychology, which has its own empirical evidence for all its findings. This in a way, does tie in with Churchland’s idea of Free Will, as the processes of Cognitive Psychology would be said to be the kind of responsibility that she describes, as certain cognitive processes are absent in those who have a certain disorder, and these people are said to be exempted from responsibility as they are “unable to do otherwise”.
In terms of science, Free Will seems to have an advantage as Cognitive Psychology is related to it, and its bank of empirical data could be used to strengthen the argument for the existence of Free Will. While the argument between Free Will and Determinism is still unanswered empirically, it is most plausible to take the slant towards the existence of Free Will simply because it has been proven to be the most convenient one to take. In addition, it is a more positive stance, as humanity in general, refuse to accept that we are not in control of our actions, and that whatever we do is insignificant and ineffective – that our fate is pre-destined.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
The Right Choice - is there one?
I have always prided myself in knowing what I want to do. I always knew which direction I was headed and what to expect. You could say that I had it all figured out – at least that was what I thought. The last few years have almost completely blew that notion away, leaving me in an embarrassing situation and a question that leaves me questioning myself, and everything else with it.
What is the right choice? Am I making the right choices? Am I on the right track? It seems everyone has a plan in life. I am no different. I plan to be successful. But what is success? What constitutes success and what are the right steps to take?
In Singapore, it seems quite straight-forward. Success is the amount you take home. Success is owning the 5Cs – Car, Cash, Condo, Country Club, and Credit Card. Before that however, we all have to follow a certain plan in store for us. Attaining all that is easy, but working for it is difficult and for many of us, impossible.
It is a harsh world out there. If you don’t have a degree, your chance of getting a good or even decent job is limited. Even so, a degree might not suffice. Nowadays, degrees are a dime a dozen and everyone seems to have one. Unlike the days of our parents, degrees are rare and only the rich have it. A degree back then would guarantee you a job. But times have changed and a degree is only a piece of paper. In order for that piece of paper to be worth anything, it has to be from somewhere prestigious. Image is everything. If you are from a small unrecognized tertiary institution, you are nothing. Your degree would be almost worthless.
To be stumped there would mean your dream of attaining the 5Cs would be delayed or be what it is – merely a dream.
So does that mean you made the wrong choices?
Alternatively, would the right choice be working hard to get a scholarship to a prestigious overseas university and then get employed by a Fortune 500 company immediately? You slave over enormous amounts of paperwork everyday. Your hours are not 9 to 5 but rather 5 to 5 as you work way past overtime even after you return home. You loathe the paperwork and you are not enjoying your job. However, you tell yourself that if you were to endure the hardship long enough, you would soon reap the benefits in a few years time. Your goal is your promotion, and with it, the money. All you care about is getting that promotion even if it kills you. How else would you attain your dream?
Before even joining the workforce, perhaps the biggest decisions would have to be made in school. It is then, that we hit a fork in our plan in life. Most of the time, the decision seems to be between doing what we enjoy and doing what would be deemed as the right path. You may be a gifted artist and have your work published on a regular basis, but that will not bring you success. Do you think you would be able to survive trying to sell your paintings? Perhaps you might use that gift to be an art teacher. Still, that will not bring you your 5Cs.
So you choose to go against your interests, and take up a path that might bring you this perceived success – Engineering, Medicine, Business, or Law. I was at a university seminar in Singapore once and at the end, the prospective students were to break up into groups according to their faculty. I was there as a volunteer and was having a chat with a new student. She was a foreigner but lived in Singapore for more than a decade albeit in an International school. She remarked that she was not surprised at all that the majority of the students were clustered around in the faculties of Engineering, Medicine, Business and Law, claiming that it was very “Singaporean”. I could only nod in agreement.
In contrast, the groups for Social Science and Arts consisted of a mere 2 individuals, of whom only 1 was local. Even so, that student was doing a combined degree with Business. The mentality in Singapore seems to be that Arts is as a friend of mine once described as a “toilet paper degree”. It is deemed practically useless to the extent that another friend of mine upon completion of his Arts degree has decided to pursue a MBA in Business. Is that the right choice?
I have long been questioning my choices in life. I too have been infected by the “Singaporean Dream”. During my secondary education, I aspired to be a lawyer. I had always perceived lawyers as respectable and successful people. I desired to be like that. However, it all changed when I realized the kind of life they lead. I did not want to do that.
Still with the mindset that the prerequisite of success was to do something that is regarded as the ‘right choice’ I eventually ended up doing a degree in Business and Economics in university. I hated it and I could not grasp it. Still, I convinced myself that it was necessary.
Thankfully it did not last long, and I duly ended the façade by transferring to another degree. I decided to do something I have an interest in – Psychology. Still, I question my decision as my real interest lies in the Arts. I have always enjoyed my history classes and I have always loved traveling to different countries. Whenever I went on a tour to a foreign destination, I would always stick by the tour guide, listening intently to his descriptions and historical information. So why did I choose Psychology? Is it because I feel that I might have a better chance of making money compared to whatever career an Arts degree would lead me to? Have I weighed the opportunity costs of both these prospects and once again decided on the basis of success? Inevitably the notion of success has been heavily influenced by my ability to attain the 5Cs.
I have often told people that the reason why I am taking Psychology is because I have an interest in it, yet at the same time I could be have a decent job in the future. I may have found a balance although the latter could be the more decisive of the reasons. Perhaps that is the reason why I am anxious and in a certain sense, desperate to do well and qualify for honors so that I would be able to take my MBA in order to be registered as a practicing psychologist.
So am I making the right choice or am I simply fooling myself?
The Singapore dream is comparable to the American Dream. Immigrants flocked to America to make it big like some others have. They only hear of success stories, never of failure. After all, no one wants to hear those. So they try to follow their footsteps. Singaporeans are no different. Singaporeans crave for this perceived success. We envy those who cruise around in their SUVs and live in condominiums in the city, funded by their huge wage packets. Therefore we try to make the same choices they made. We try to follow their paths to success. Sadly, it seems that we are all too busy trying to adhere to the path trying to make these ‘right choices’ that we lose track of ourselves. If everything is pre-planned, what is the point of living life? This Singaporean Dream is our dictator. Our obsession with it leads to an impairment in volition. We become like robots, all programmed to complete a certain task, because that is the ‘right choice’ and that is the choice.
This entry was written in acknowledgement of an essay by Colin Goh and Joycelin Woo, as well as the movie "Singapore Dreaming" directed by Woffles Wu.
Read about it here: http://singaporedreaming.com/blog/?q=node/6
What is the right choice? Am I making the right choices? Am I on the right track? It seems everyone has a plan in life. I am no different. I plan to be successful. But what is success? What constitutes success and what are the right steps to take?
In Singapore, it seems quite straight-forward. Success is the amount you take home. Success is owning the 5Cs – Car, Cash, Condo, Country Club, and Credit Card. Before that however, we all have to follow a certain plan in store for us. Attaining all that is easy, but working for it is difficult and for many of us, impossible.
It is a harsh world out there. If you don’t have a degree, your chance of getting a good or even decent job is limited. Even so, a degree might not suffice. Nowadays, degrees are a dime a dozen and everyone seems to have one. Unlike the days of our parents, degrees are rare and only the rich have it. A degree back then would guarantee you a job. But times have changed and a degree is only a piece of paper. In order for that piece of paper to be worth anything, it has to be from somewhere prestigious. Image is everything. If you are from a small unrecognized tertiary institution, you are nothing. Your degree would be almost worthless.
To be stumped there would mean your dream of attaining the 5Cs would be delayed or be what it is – merely a dream.
So does that mean you made the wrong choices?
Alternatively, would the right choice be working hard to get a scholarship to a prestigious overseas university and then get employed by a Fortune 500 company immediately? You slave over enormous amounts of paperwork everyday. Your hours are not 9 to 5 but rather 5 to 5 as you work way past overtime even after you return home. You loathe the paperwork and you are not enjoying your job. However, you tell yourself that if you were to endure the hardship long enough, you would soon reap the benefits in a few years time. Your goal is your promotion, and with it, the money. All you care about is getting that promotion even if it kills you. How else would you attain your dream?
Before even joining the workforce, perhaps the biggest decisions would have to be made in school. It is then, that we hit a fork in our plan in life. Most of the time, the decision seems to be between doing what we enjoy and doing what would be deemed as the right path. You may be a gifted artist and have your work published on a regular basis, but that will not bring you success. Do you think you would be able to survive trying to sell your paintings? Perhaps you might use that gift to be an art teacher. Still, that will not bring you your 5Cs.
So you choose to go against your interests, and take up a path that might bring you this perceived success – Engineering, Medicine, Business, or Law. I was at a university seminar in Singapore once and at the end, the prospective students were to break up into groups according to their faculty. I was there as a volunteer and was having a chat with a new student. She was a foreigner but lived in Singapore for more than a decade albeit in an International school. She remarked that she was not surprised at all that the majority of the students were clustered around in the faculties of Engineering, Medicine, Business and Law, claiming that it was very “Singaporean”. I could only nod in agreement.
In contrast, the groups for Social Science and Arts consisted of a mere 2 individuals, of whom only 1 was local. Even so, that student was doing a combined degree with Business. The mentality in Singapore seems to be that Arts is as a friend of mine once described as a “toilet paper degree”. It is deemed practically useless to the extent that another friend of mine upon completion of his Arts degree has decided to pursue a MBA in Business. Is that the right choice?
I have long been questioning my choices in life. I too have been infected by the “Singaporean Dream”. During my secondary education, I aspired to be a lawyer. I had always perceived lawyers as respectable and successful people. I desired to be like that. However, it all changed when I realized the kind of life they lead. I did not want to do that.
Still with the mindset that the prerequisite of success was to do something that is regarded as the ‘right choice’ I eventually ended up doing a degree in Business and Economics in university. I hated it and I could not grasp it. Still, I convinced myself that it was necessary.
Thankfully it did not last long, and I duly ended the façade by transferring to another degree. I decided to do something I have an interest in – Psychology. Still, I question my decision as my real interest lies in the Arts. I have always enjoyed my history classes and I have always loved traveling to different countries. Whenever I went on a tour to a foreign destination, I would always stick by the tour guide, listening intently to his descriptions and historical information. So why did I choose Psychology? Is it because I feel that I might have a better chance of making money compared to whatever career an Arts degree would lead me to? Have I weighed the opportunity costs of both these prospects and once again decided on the basis of success? Inevitably the notion of success has been heavily influenced by my ability to attain the 5Cs.
I have often told people that the reason why I am taking Psychology is because I have an interest in it, yet at the same time I could be have a decent job in the future. I may have found a balance although the latter could be the more decisive of the reasons. Perhaps that is the reason why I am anxious and in a certain sense, desperate to do well and qualify for honors so that I would be able to take my MBA in order to be registered as a practicing psychologist.
So am I making the right choice or am I simply fooling myself?
The Singapore dream is comparable to the American Dream. Immigrants flocked to America to make it big like some others have. They only hear of success stories, never of failure. After all, no one wants to hear those. So they try to follow their footsteps. Singaporeans are no different. Singaporeans crave for this perceived success. We envy those who cruise around in their SUVs and live in condominiums in the city, funded by their huge wage packets. Therefore we try to make the same choices they made. We try to follow their paths to success. Sadly, it seems that we are all too busy trying to adhere to the path trying to make these ‘right choices’ that we lose track of ourselves. If everything is pre-planned, what is the point of living life? This Singaporean Dream is our dictator. Our obsession with it leads to an impairment in volition. We become like robots, all programmed to complete a certain task, because that is the ‘right choice’ and that is the choice.
This entry was written in acknowledgement of an essay by Colin Goh and Joycelin Woo, as well as the movie "Singapore Dreaming" directed by Woffles Wu.
Read about it here: http://singaporedreaming.com/blog/?q=node/6
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Perception
Checkerboard
The squares labelled A & B are the same color.
Comment:
The middle squares are actually the same color.
Dalmatian and Darth Vader
You can easily recognize Darth Vader in the 2nd picture but can you see the dalmatian in the 1st?
Pink and Green Dots
Stare at the top black cross for about a minute, then look at the bottom black cross. Do you see the colors switch places?
Comment:
This effect can be explained by Hering's Opponent Color Theory. Basically there are 3 opponent axes in 3D opponent color space - black-white, red-green and blue-yellow. Gray is neutral and is the middle color of each pair. In other words, if red and green were to mix evenly, gray would be the result.
With that said, the reason why you see the after image at the bottom is the opposite of the top colors, is because of the relative fatigue of the photoreceptors.
Triangle and Lady
Do you see a triangle and a figure of a lady?
Comment:
The reason why the white triangle and lady is seen here is because of illusory contours. These illusory contours emerge in the absence of any physical contours in the image. It is also an example of occlusion, where your perceptual system joins the missing edges and parts. In short, it is how you would view a person standing behind a gate that covers the bottom half of his body. You would not expect to find a man balanced on the gate, but rather a full length man with legs. This is the same concept.
Flip book
Comment:
When the flipbook is flipped at the right speed, the succession of images make it look as though there is motion. This is known as apparent motion. Where there is continuous motion perception from the quick succession of static images. It can be linked to motion detection as well, as our visual system detects movement and thus registers motion.
Luminating Moon
Why does the moon appear luminous when it's not a light emitting object?
Comment:
Although the moon does not emit light, it reflects light from the sun (the illuminant). This luminance appears to be a bright white color when seen. This is related to the Gelb Staircase Illusion where the object with the highest luminance appears brightest, and gets darker when a brighter object is next to it.
This is the Anchoring Effect, where the object that has the highest luminance in its local region without any spatially adjacent comparison is perceived as luminous and white.
Small People
In the first picture, notice the man in white at the top of the picture is also the small man in white at the bottom left corner? They are both of the same size.
In the second picture, although both the characters are of the same size, one is perceived to be bigger than the other.
Comment:
These picture shows that objects that have the same retinal size are perceived as smaller or larger, depending on the perceived distance. In the first picture, it shows how the man in white is a midget when the identical sized image is placed in the foreground, next to a person of bigger size. Similarly in the second picture, the characters may be the same size but the one behind is perceived as bigger because despite the perceived distance, they are both the same retinal size.
The squares labelled A & B are the same color.
Comment:
Although the squares A & B are physically of the same luminance, they are of different lightness. The concept of lightness constancy explains that the object or in this case, the square, will appear darker if perceived as having greater illuminance. The perceptual system automatically calculates (or in this case, miscalculate) the perceived lightness.
Middle Squares
The middle squares are actually the same color.
Comment:
These examples are similar to the one above. In regards to these examples, the key lies in our receptive fields. The middle squares are the same but because they're surrounded by a different color, there is a difference in contrast. Therefore, one of them appears to be lighter than the other.
These examples are similar to the one above. In regards to these examples, the key lies in our receptive fields. The middle squares are the same but because they're surrounded by a different color, there is a difference in contrast. Therefore, one of them appears to be lighter than the other.
Dalmatian and Darth Vader
You can easily recognize Darth Vader in the 2nd picture but can you see the dalmatian in the 1st?
Comment:
Both pictures are made up of black and white blobs. However, according the Gestalt Approach, properties of whole have structures not predictable from components. Furthermore, perception is not built up from sensations but is the result of perceptual organization.
Both pictures are made up of black and white blobs. However, according the Gestalt Approach, properties of whole have structures not predictable from components. Furthermore, perception is not built up from sensations but is the result of perceptual organization.
These pictures go according to the principles of perceptual organization. For example, the blobs are in relatively close proximity, and the principle states that items near each other are more likely to group together than items more widely spread.
Pink and Green Dots
Stare at the top black cross for about a minute, then look at the bottom black cross. Do you see the colors switch places?
Comment:
This effect can be explained by Hering's Opponent Color Theory. Basically there are 3 opponent axes in 3D opponent color space - black-white, red-green and blue-yellow. Gray is neutral and is the middle color of each pair. In other words, if red and green were to mix evenly, gray would be the result.
With that said, the reason why you see the after image at the bottom is the opposite of the top colors, is because of the relative fatigue of the photoreceptors.
Triangle and Lady
Do you see a triangle and a figure of a lady?
Comment:
The reason why the white triangle and lady is seen here is because of illusory contours. These illusory contours emerge in the absence of any physical contours in the image. It is also an example of occlusion, where your perceptual system joins the missing edges and parts. In short, it is how you would view a person standing behind a gate that covers the bottom half of his body. You would not expect to find a man balanced on the gate, but rather a full length man with legs. This is the same concept.
Flip book
Comment:
When the flipbook is flipped at the right speed, the succession of images make it look as though there is motion. This is known as apparent motion. Where there is continuous motion perception from the quick succession of static images. It can be linked to motion detection as well, as our visual system detects movement and thus registers motion.
Luminating Moon
Why does the moon appear luminous when it's not a light emitting object?
Comment:
Although the moon does not emit light, it reflects light from the sun (the illuminant). This luminance appears to be a bright white color when seen. This is related to the Gelb Staircase Illusion where the object with the highest luminance appears brightest, and gets darker when a brighter object is next to it.
This is the Anchoring Effect, where the object that has the highest luminance in its local region without any spatially adjacent comparison is perceived as luminous and white.
Small People
In the first picture, notice the man in white at the top of the picture is also the small man in white at the bottom left corner? They are both of the same size.
In the second picture, although both the characters are of the same size, one is perceived to be bigger than the other.
Comment:
These picture shows that objects that have the same retinal size are perceived as smaller or larger, depending on the perceived distance. In the first picture, it shows how the man in white is a midget when the identical sized image is placed in the foreground, next to a person of bigger size. Similarly in the second picture, the characters may be the same size but the one behind is perceived as bigger because despite the perceived distance, they are both the same retinal size.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Article Rebuttal Rebutted
I was just looking around the web and came across a pseudo-rebuttal pertaining to my article to the Straits Times Forum. I usually take criticism well provided it's constructive, but this one was pushing it and I felt that I had to reply. I actually knew about this a long time ago when Keng Loon sent it to me, but now that this person has decided to publicize it on the web, I feel a need to defend my views.
First, read his 'rebuttal'
Here are my views:
I ATTENDED a career talk organised by Contact Singapore in Sydney two weeks ago. This event boasted many respectable companies from the banking and financial sector, aiming to give new graduates job opportunities. Overall, the event was informative and encouraging. However, it was marred by a (Shouldn't this be 'an' ??) incident that sent shock waves through the conference room.
During the question and answer session, a representative from Morgan Stanley said, 'It is very hard to find good talent in Singapore nowadays' while explaining the need for more 'talent' from overseas. This remark was an insult to every Singaporean attending the event - a verbal slap in the face. (Hello, ppl say it is HARD to find good talent. Not juz ordinary talent. Ppl nv say sg got no talent. If u are stupid enough to misconstrue this, then perhaps you are justifying his sentiments.) It might not have been so offensive had it been a one-to-one talk, but this was an address to an audience of a majority of Singaporeans studying and working in Sydney. The looks on the faces of the Singaporeans present were clear to see. They were of shock, dismay and displeasure.
What is ironic (So where’s the irony huh?) about this incident is that the representative who made the remark happened to be in a senior position in the human resource department of the company. Remind me again what their job scope encompasses? (HR = Human Resource. NOT PR. Their job is to find talented ppl to work in their company. And they are merely reflecting sentiments that talents are RARE in sg. Not totally absent.) So if this is coming from this part of the company, what does it say about the company as a whole?
I find it ridiculous how local talent is neglected and foreign talent is idolised. (A strawman fallacy. The issue here is sg talent is rare. But the writer sets up a distorted argument by saying foreign talent are idolized. He then goes on to attack that argument, without referring back to the original issue.) Sure, they may have experience from overseas, but are they capable? What can they do that a locally educated person cannot? Surely, they are not worth a quadruple salary (Red herring fallacy. In no way did the Morgan Stanley rep said FTs are paid 4 times as much. If you wanna quote such vague statistics, at least back it up.) compared to a local, simply because they are from overseas. There are some who merit that no doubt, but it is often hastily generalised that employees from overseas are 'foreign talent'. (Missing the point here. The argument from the previous line is about how much a foreign talent should be paid. then suddenly you conclude by saying they are classified wrongly. i.e. should not be referred to as 'talents') They are foreign but they are not always talent.
Local talent should be recognised and companies that discriminate (Totally embarrassing. Morgan Stanley did not discriminate against Singaporeans. Their rep merely expressed his view that because his company cant find talent in sg, they have to look overseas. Morgan Stanley basically looks for top finance grads. and the truth is that they only hire TOP finance grads. With our 3 unis that is insufficient. HENCE, he said it is HARD to find GOOD talent. because other firms are paying TOP dollars for such finance grads. there simply isn't enough to go around.) against the local pool should not be welcome in Singapore. We do not have to take sitting down such disregard for our people. We should never discriminate (What discrimination? If a local and FT are equally good, and the FT is hired ahead of the local, then MAYBE you can claim discrimination. But in this case, Morgan Stanley nv say the dont hire local grads. they just say there are not enough good ones. If you want to make such a sweeping statement, at least dont veer off by SO much la.. in fact, you dont even have evidence of morgan stanley discriminating against any graduates. do you understand the legal liabilities you have just got yourself into? tort of defamation. ring a bell?) against our own and we should never allow ourselves to be victimized (So where is the victimization Mr Sng?? Ppl only say there are not enough local talents (in the Morgan Stanley context). like that call victimization?? so wad u want? u want that rep from Morgan Stanley to suck your cock issit??) in any way.
dis·crim·i·nate /v. dɪˈskrɪm əˌneɪt; adj. dɪˈskrɪm ə nɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. di-skrim-uh-neyt; adj. di-skrim-uh-nit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -nat·ed, -nat·ing, adjective –verb (used without object)
1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.
A letter whose quality reflects that of the ST?
Wo Xiu Xi Wo De Xiang
(I rest my case)
NOW, for my reply
Clement, I thank you for generous act of mildly Good Samaritanism in sacrificing your precious time and imparting your words of wisdom upon me. Your opinions appear to be valid to some extent but they lack adequate support, while are self-sealers. First of all, for someone who can bring up a fallacy in your “straw man’s fallacy” claim, you fail to acknowledge other fallacies, while even committing one glaring one in the process. Have you not memorized along with all your other memorized fallacies, the fallacy argumentum ad baculum?
Let’s now go through your points in chronological order. You pointed out straight away that there was a grammar mistake. Well done. I’m impressed. However, it still occurs to me that perhaps you fail to realize that Microsoft word’s spell-checker might have picked that up, and perhaps I might’ve read through what I’ve written before I submitted it? Also, were you simply trying to fill up the void by peer editing the letter? You couldn’t have done it much better. You should receive a standing ovation for this feat.
You then go on to say that “ppl say it is hard to find good talent. Not juz ordinary talent. Ppl nv say sg got no talent”. For someone who has such good English and peer editing skills, you definitely justify that. That aside, I believe the phrase “good talent” and “ordinary talent” is redundant. Can there really be bad talent? What justifies good and bad talent then? Furthermore, it does not matter whether the accused stated “good talent” or “talent”. Are you not subjecting yourself to the defeatist attitude in the sense that you would gladly accept that there is no good talent in your country? So are you just “ordinary talent” or perhaps just ordinary and talent-less?
Your next comment inquires about the irony of the situation. The irony is that the statement is coming from someone senior in the human resources department. The irony is that this is not coming from any Tom, Dick and Harry from lower echelons of the company but rather from someone who is ‘up there’. He should have years of experience dealing with people and should be more tactful. In addition, while it is true that their department’s “job is to find talented ppl to work in their company” it is also true that they are the ones who deal with people. Therefore, the irony is that with all their expertise in dealing with people, they have failed to show their capabilities. Although they may have a certain entitlement to their claim, they should understand the situation they were in.
Your next statement again, elevates your status of English expert to another level. You have shown that not only can you peer-edit, but you are definitely capable of distinguishing the difference between a letter and an essay. Perhaps you might have some constructive feedback concerning my structure and paragraphing as well. My statement might not refer to the original statement specifically but it relates to it. It is another point in reference to the original statement. However, I will acknowledge that it is exaggerated but it is in no way a red herring fallacy as I did not attempt to win the argument by directing it away. In fact, this is not an argument, but rather an opinion.
You claim I’ve missed quite a lot of points. I would have to agree with you as I feel it is not reflected clearly and is not as meticulous as it should be. However, the original letter was much longer and had many more supporting statements. You had no knowledge of that, so that is readily forgiven.
The next few comments on discrimination definitely warrant a thought. You claim there is no discrimination when it stares you in the face. How can it not be discrimination if they regard local talent as being not good talent? Furthermore, granted they do hire “top finance” graduates, they also hire graduates in other departments. How else do you think the representative got his job? Do you really believe a company can be run by finance graduates and no one else? You may be forgiven perhaps, as you might not be familiar with how companies operate these days. Also, maybe you could be forgiven for that statement as you misunderstood that he referred solely in regards to the unavailability of top finance graduates. Is it not a form of Straw man’s fallacy being committed?
The victimization here Mister Clement, is that the local talent should not be discriminated (yes, there is discrimination – face it) against. So there is victimization involved.
I was very impressed by your ending comment. For all your intellectual prowess (or so it seemed) you have proven that not only are you capable of being an expert in the English language and peer editing, but you are as equally talented in disproving your whole argument by committing the same fallacies you speak about. Again, what does wanting the representative to perform oral sex for me have to do with the whole issue?
If I had such excellent tunnel-vision such as yourself, I would probably diagnose you with some mental disorder. You definitely show those symptoms. However, let that not detract us from acknowledging your incredible analysis. I salute you and call for a standing ovation.
Julian Sng
I think this adequately puts him in his place. A word of advice: If you want to critique someone's opinion on a certain matter, be more meticulous and do it properly. It's quite evident that he did it on impulse. He is much like some taxi drivers in Singapore who think that they know a lot about the political situation in Singapore when they clearly do not. While the facts are arguably available, they choose to attack the person rather than the policies. False Attribution as we call it in Psychology. Thankfully not everyone in Singapore is as narrow-minded as these people.
First, read his 'rebuttal'
Here are my views:
I ATTENDED a career talk organised by Contact Singapore in Sydney two weeks ago. This event boasted many respectable companies from the banking and financial sector, aiming to give new graduates job opportunities. Overall, the event was informative and encouraging. However, it was marred by a (Shouldn't this be 'an' ??) incident that sent shock waves through the conference room.
During the question and answer session, a representative from Morgan Stanley said, 'It is very hard to find good talent in Singapore nowadays' while explaining the need for more 'talent' from overseas. This remark was an insult to every Singaporean attending the event - a verbal slap in the face. (Hello, ppl say it is HARD to find good talent. Not juz ordinary talent. Ppl nv say sg got no talent. If u are stupid enough to misconstrue this, then perhaps you are justifying his sentiments.) It might not have been so offensive had it been a one-to-one talk, but this was an address to an audience of a majority of Singaporeans studying and working in Sydney. The looks on the faces of the Singaporeans present were clear to see. They were of shock, dismay and displeasure.
What is ironic (So where’s the irony huh?) about this incident is that the representative who made the remark happened to be in a senior position in the human resource department of the company. Remind me again what their job scope encompasses? (HR = Human Resource. NOT PR. Their job is to find talented ppl to work in their company. And they are merely reflecting sentiments that talents are RARE in sg. Not totally absent.) So if this is coming from this part of the company, what does it say about the company as a whole?
I find it ridiculous how local talent is neglected and foreign talent is idolised. (A strawman fallacy. The issue here is sg talent is rare. But the writer sets up a distorted argument by saying foreign talent are idolized. He then goes on to attack that argument, without referring back to the original issue.) Sure, they may have experience from overseas, but are they capable? What can they do that a locally educated person cannot? Surely, they are not worth a quadruple salary (Red herring fallacy. In no way did the Morgan Stanley rep said FTs are paid 4 times as much. If you wanna quote such vague statistics, at least back it up.) compared to a local, simply because they are from overseas. There are some who merit that no doubt, but it is often hastily generalised that employees from overseas are 'foreign talent'. (Missing the point here. The argument from the previous line is about how much a foreign talent should be paid. then suddenly you conclude by saying they are classified wrongly. i.e. should not be referred to as 'talents') They are foreign but they are not always talent.
Local talent should be recognised and companies that discriminate (Totally embarrassing. Morgan Stanley did not discriminate against Singaporeans. Their rep merely expressed his view that because his company cant find talent in sg, they have to look overseas. Morgan Stanley basically looks for top finance grads. and the truth is that they only hire TOP finance grads. With our 3 unis that is insufficient. HENCE, he said it is HARD to find GOOD talent. because other firms are paying TOP dollars for such finance grads. there simply isn't enough to go around.) against the local pool should not be welcome in Singapore. We do not have to take sitting down such disregard for our people. We should never discriminate (What discrimination? If a local and FT are equally good, and the FT is hired ahead of the local, then MAYBE you can claim discrimination. But in this case, Morgan Stanley nv say the dont hire local grads. they just say there are not enough good ones. If you want to make such a sweeping statement, at least dont veer off by SO much la.. in fact, you dont even have evidence of morgan stanley discriminating against any graduates. do you understand the legal liabilities you have just got yourself into? tort of defamation. ring a bell?) against our own and we should never allow ourselves to be victimized (So where is the victimization Mr Sng?? Ppl only say there are not enough local talents (in the Morgan Stanley context). like that call victimization?? so wad u want? u want that rep from Morgan Stanley to suck your cock issit??) in any way.
dis·crim·i·nate /v. dɪˈskrɪm əˌneɪt; adj. dɪˈskrɪm ə nɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. di-skrim-uh-neyt; adj. di-skrim-uh-nit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -nat·ed, -nat·ing, adjective –verb (used without object)
1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.
A letter whose quality reflects that of the ST?
Wo Xiu Xi Wo De Xiang
(I rest my case)
NOW, for my reply
Clement, I thank you for generous act of mildly Good Samaritanism in sacrificing your precious time and imparting your words of wisdom upon me. Your opinions appear to be valid to some extent but they lack adequate support, while are self-sealers. First of all, for someone who can bring up a fallacy in your “straw man’s fallacy” claim, you fail to acknowledge other fallacies, while even committing one glaring one in the process. Have you not memorized along with all your other memorized fallacies, the fallacy argumentum ad baculum?
Let’s now go through your points in chronological order. You pointed out straight away that there was a grammar mistake. Well done. I’m impressed. However, it still occurs to me that perhaps you fail to realize that Microsoft word’s spell-checker might have picked that up, and perhaps I might’ve read through what I’ve written before I submitted it? Also, were you simply trying to fill up the void by peer editing the letter? You couldn’t have done it much better. You should receive a standing ovation for this feat.
You then go on to say that “ppl say it is hard to find good talent. Not juz ordinary talent. Ppl nv say sg got no talent”. For someone who has such good English and peer editing skills, you definitely justify that. That aside, I believe the phrase “good talent” and “ordinary talent” is redundant. Can there really be bad talent? What justifies good and bad talent then? Furthermore, it does not matter whether the accused stated “good talent” or “talent”. Are you not subjecting yourself to the defeatist attitude in the sense that you would gladly accept that there is no good talent in your country? So are you just “ordinary talent” or perhaps just ordinary and talent-less?
Your next comment inquires about the irony of the situation. The irony is that the statement is coming from someone senior in the human resources department. The irony is that this is not coming from any Tom, Dick and Harry from lower echelons of the company but rather from someone who is ‘up there’. He should have years of experience dealing with people and should be more tactful. In addition, while it is true that their department’s “job is to find talented ppl to work in their company” it is also true that they are the ones who deal with people. Therefore, the irony is that with all their expertise in dealing with people, they have failed to show their capabilities. Although they may have a certain entitlement to their claim, they should understand the situation they were in.
Your next statement again, elevates your status of English expert to another level. You have shown that not only can you peer-edit, but you are definitely capable of distinguishing the difference between a letter and an essay. Perhaps you might have some constructive feedback concerning my structure and paragraphing as well. My statement might not refer to the original statement specifically but it relates to it. It is another point in reference to the original statement. However, I will acknowledge that it is exaggerated but it is in no way a red herring fallacy as I did not attempt to win the argument by directing it away. In fact, this is not an argument, but rather an opinion.
You claim I’ve missed quite a lot of points. I would have to agree with you as I feel it is not reflected clearly and is not as meticulous as it should be. However, the original letter was much longer and had many more supporting statements. You had no knowledge of that, so that is readily forgiven.
The next few comments on discrimination definitely warrant a thought. You claim there is no discrimination when it stares you in the face. How can it not be discrimination if they regard local talent as being not good talent? Furthermore, granted they do hire “top finance” graduates, they also hire graduates in other departments. How else do you think the representative got his job? Do you really believe a company can be run by finance graduates and no one else? You may be forgiven perhaps, as you might not be familiar with how companies operate these days. Also, maybe you could be forgiven for that statement as you misunderstood that he referred solely in regards to the unavailability of top finance graduates. Is it not a form of Straw man’s fallacy being committed?
The victimization here Mister Clement, is that the local talent should not be discriminated (yes, there is discrimination – face it) against. So there is victimization involved.
I was very impressed by your ending comment. For all your intellectual prowess (or so it seemed) you have proven that not only are you capable of being an expert in the English language and peer editing, but you are as equally talented in disproving your whole argument by committing the same fallacies you speak about. Again, what does wanting the representative to perform oral sex for me have to do with the whole issue?
If I had such excellent tunnel-vision such as yourself, I would probably diagnose you with some mental disorder. You definitely show those symptoms. However, let that not detract us from acknowledging your incredible analysis. I salute you and call for a standing ovation.
Julian Sng
I think this adequately puts him in his place. A word of advice: If you want to critique someone's opinion on a certain matter, be more meticulous and do it properly. It's quite evident that he did it on impulse. He is much like some taxi drivers in Singapore who think that they know a lot about the political situation in Singapore when they clearly do not. While the facts are arguably available, they choose to attack the person rather than the policies. False Attribution as we call it in Psychology. Thankfully not everyone in Singapore is as narrow-minded as these people.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Puzzle Bobble
Puzzle 1:
You have 3 containers measuring 8 liters, 5 liters, and 3 liters. The 8 liter container is completely full with water. Your goal is to end up with 4 liters in the 8 liter and 5 liter containers (i.e. 8-0-0 to 4-4-0).
You can only use the containers and can pour one at the time. How would you do it? (Note: there are generally 2 ways: 7 steps or 8 steps)
Puzzle 2:
In a pond, there are waterlillies. In 24 hours, the number of waterlillies double in number. The pond would be completely full in 60 days.
How many days will it take for the pond to be half full?
Puzzle 3:
The following numbers are arranged in a particular order:
8 5 4 9 1 7 6 3 2 0
What is the order? (doesn't take a math genius really...)
Puzzle 4:
A patient has a tumor in his stomach. The only way they can remove it is by using a laser to burn it out. However, the tumor is surrounded by healthy tissue. If the laser is too intense, it will kill the tissue. However, if the laser isn't strong enough, the tumor will not be affected either. So what must we do to remove the tumor without harming the healthy tissue?
Note: You cannot cut the patient up or make him ingest anything.
You have 3 containers measuring 8 liters, 5 liters, and 3 liters. The 8 liter container is completely full with water. Your goal is to end up with 4 liters in the 8 liter and 5 liter containers (i.e. 8-0-0 to 4-4-0).
You can only use the containers and can pour one at the time. How would you do it? (Note: there are generally 2 ways: 7 steps or 8 steps)
Puzzle 2:
In a pond, there are waterlillies. In 24 hours, the number of waterlillies double in number. The pond would be completely full in 60 days.
How many days will it take for the pond to be half full?
Puzzle 3:
The following numbers are arranged in a particular order:
8 5 4 9 1 7 6 3 2 0
What is the order? (doesn't take a math genius really...)
Puzzle 4:
A patient has a tumor in his stomach. The only way they can remove it is by using a laser to burn it out. However, the tumor is surrounded by healthy tissue. If the laser is too intense, it will kill the tissue. However, if the laser isn't strong enough, the tumor will not be affected either. So what must we do to remove the tumor without harming the healthy tissue?
Note: You cannot cut the patient up or make him ingest anything.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
What the Modern Woman Wants
I've read many short stories in my time and I happened to chance upon this particular one in my email. It proved to be a very moving story that I could relate to. I felt very drawn to the story and could picture it all happening in my mind. The short story was very well-written and the descriptions and terms used throughout the story gives a familiar feel to it. It certainly made me think about how I would be like and my own character. My parents have oftened questioned my future decisions - whether I would do such a thing. They have even planned for such a contingency such is the fear among parents these days. That aside, what is interesting to note is that the author who wrote this short story is only 15 years old and she submitted this short story to the Annual Commonwealth Essay Competition in the 16-18 year old category. This competition is taken part by participants from 52 countries fetching 5,300 entries.
When asked about her story, Amanda said, "through my story, I attempted to convey the unique East-versus-West struggles and generation gaps that I felt were characteristic of young people in my country."
It certainly conveys that. Well done Amanda.
Now read on:
What the Modern Woman Wants
By Amanda Chong Wei-Zhen
The old woman sat in the backseat of the magenta convertible as it careened down the highway, clutching tightly to the plastic bag on her lap, afraid it may be kidnapped by the wind. She was not used to such speed, with trembling hands she pulled the seatbelt tighter but was careful not to touch the patent leather seats with her callused fingers, her daughter had warned her not to dirty it, 'Fingerprints show very clearly on white, Ma.'
Her daughter, Bee Choo, was driving and talking on her sleek silver mobile phone using big words the old woman could barely understand. 'Finance' 'Liquidation' 'Assets' ‘Investments'... Her voice was crisp and important and had an unfamiliar lilt to it. Her Bee Choo sounded like one of those foreign girls on television. She was speaking in an American accent.
The old lady clucked her tongue in disapproval. 'I absolutely cannot have this. We have to sell!' Her daughter exclaimed agitatedly as she stepped on the accelerator; her perfectly manicured fingernails gripping onto the steering wheel in irritation.
'I can't DEAL with this anymore!' she yelled as she clicked the phone shut and hurled it angrily toward the backseat. The mobile phone hit the old woman on the forehead and nestled soundlessly into her lap. She calmly picked it up and handed it to her daughter.
'Sorry, Ma,' she said, losing the American pretence and switching to Mandarin. 'I have a big client in America. There have been a lot of problems.'
The old lady nodded knowingly. Her daughter was big and important.
Bee Choo stared at her mother from the rear view window, wondering what she was thinking. Her mother's wrinkled countenance always carried the same cryptic look.
The phone began to ring again, an artificially cheerful digital tune, which broke the awkward silence.
'Hello, Beatrice! Yes, this is Elaine.'
Elaine. The old woman cringed. I didn't name her Elaine. She remembered her daughter telling her, how an English name was very important for 'networking', Chinese ones being easily forgotten.
'Oh no, I can't see you for lunch today. I have to take the ancient relic to the temple for her weird daily prayer ritual.'
Ancient Relic. The old woman understood perfectly it was referring to her. Her daughter always assumed that her mother's silence meant she did not comprehend.
'Yes, I know! My car seats will be reeking of joss sticks!'
The old woman pursed her lips tightly, her hands gripping her plastic bag in defense.
The car curved smoothly into the temple courtyard. It looked almost garish next to the dull sheen of the ageing temple's roof. The old woman got out of the back seat, and made her unhurried way to the main hall.
Her daughter stepped out of the car in her business suit and stilettos and reapplied her lipstick as she made her brisk way to her mother's side.
'Ma, I'll wait outside. I have an important phone call to make,' she said, not bothering to hide her disgust at the pungent fumes of incense.
The old lady hobbled into the temple hall and lit a joss stick, she knelt down solemnly and whispered her now familiar daily prayer to the Gods.
Thank you God of the Sky, you have given my daughter luck all these years. Everything I prayed for, you have given her. She has everything a young woman in this world could possibly want. She has a big house with a swimming pool, a maid to help her, as she is too clumsy to sew or cook.
Her love life has been blessed; she is engaged to a rich and handsome angmoh man. Her company is now the top financial firm and even men listen to what she says. She lives the perfect life. You have given her everything except happiness. I ask that the gods be merciful to her even if she has lost her roots while reaping the harvest of success.
What you see is not true, she is a filial daughter to me. She gives me a room in her big house and provides well for me. She is rude to me only because I affect her happiness. A young woman does not want to be hindered by her old mother. It is my fault.
The old lady prayed so hard that tears welled up in her eyes. Finally, with her head bowed in reverence she planted the half-burnt joss stick into an urn of smouldering ashes.
She bowed once more. The old woman had been praying for her daughter for thirty-two years. When her stomach was round like a melon, she came to the temple and prayed that it was a son.
Then the time was ripe and the baby slipped out of her womb, bawling and adorable with fat thighs and pink cheeks, but unmistakably, a girl. Her husband had kicked and punched her for producing a useless baby who could not work or carry the family name.
Still, the woman returned to the temple with her new-born girl tied to her waist in a sarong and prayed that her daughter would grow up and have everything she ever wanted. Her husband left her and she prayed that her daughter would never have to depend on a man.
She prayed every day that her daughter would be a great woman, the woman that she, meek and uneducated, could never become. A woman with nengkan; the ability to do anything she set her mind to. A woman who commanded respect in the hearts of men. When she opened her mouth to speak, precious pearls would fall out and men would listen.
She will not be like me, the woman prayed as she watched her daughter grow up and drift away from her, speaking a language she scarcely understood. She watched her daughter transform from a quiet girl, to one who openly defied her, calling her laotu; old-fashioned. She wanted her mother to be 'modern', a word so new there was no Chinese word for it.
Now her daughter was too clever for her and the old woman wondered why she had prayed like that. The gods had been faithful to her persistent prayer, but the wealth and success that poured forth so richly had buried the girl's roots and now she stood, faceless, with no identity, bound to the soil of her ancestors by only a string of origami banknotes.
Her daughter had forgotten her mother's values. Her wants were so ephemeral; that of a modern woman. Power, Wealth, access to the best fashion boutiques, and yet her daughter had not found true happiness. The old woman knew that you could find happiness with much less. When her daughter left the earth everything she had would count for nothing. People would look to her legacy and say that she was a great woman, but she would be forgotten once the wind blows over, like the ashes of burnt paper convertibles and mansions.
The old woman wished she could go back and erase all her big hopes and prayers for her daughter; now she had only one want: That her daughter be happy. She looked out of the temple gate. She saw her daughter speaking on the phone, her brow furrowed with anger and worry. Being at the top is not good, the woman thought, there is only one way to go from there - down.
The old woman carefully unfolded the plastic bag and spread out a packet of beehoon in front of the altar. Her daughter often mocked her for worshipping porcelain Gods. How could she pray to them so faithfully and expect pieces of ceramic to fly to her aid? But her daughter had her own gods too, idols of wealth, success and power that she was enslaved to and worshipped every day of her life.
Every day was a quest for the idols, and the idols she worshipped counted for nothing in eternity. All the wants her daughter had would slowly suck the life out of her and leave her, an empty soulless shell at the altar.
The old lady watched her joss stick. The dull heat had left a teetering grey stem that was on the danger of collapsing. Modern woman nowadays, the old lady sighed in resignation, as she bowed to the east one final time to end her ritual. Modern woman nowadays want so much that they lose their souls and wonder why they cannot find it.
Her joss stick disintegrated into a soft grey powder. She met her daughter outside the temple, the same look of worry and frustration was etched on her daughter's face. An empty expression, as if she was ploughing through the soil of her wants looking for the one thing that would sow the seeds of happiness.
They climbed into the convertible in silence and her daughter drove along the highway, this time not as fast as she had done before.
'Ma,' Bee Choo finally said. 'I don't know how to put this. Mark and I have been talking about it and we plan to move out of the big house. The property market is good now, and we managed to get a buyer willing to pay seven million for it. We decided we'd prefer a cosier penthouse apartment instead. We found a perfect one in Orchard Road. Once we move in to our apartment we plan to get rid of the maid, so we can have more space to ourselves...'
The old woman nodded knowingly. Bee Choo swallowed hard. 'We'd get someone to come in to do the housework and we can eat out - but once the maid is gone, there won't be anyone to look after you. You will be awfully lonely at home and, besides that, the apartment is rather small. There won't be space. We thought about it for a long time, and we decided the best thing for you is if you moved to a Home. There's one near Hougang - it's a Christian home, a very nice one.'
The old woman did not raise an eyebrow. 'I've been there, the matron is willing to take you in. It's beautiful with gardens and lots of old people to keep you company! I hardly have time for you, you'd be happier there.'
'You'd be happier there, really.' Her daughter repeated as if to affirm herself. This time the old woman had no plastic bag of food offerings to cling tightly to; she bit her lip and fastened her seat belt, as if it would protect her from a daughter who did not want her anymore. She sunk deep into the leather seat, letting her shoulders sag, and her fingers trace the white seat.
'Ma?' her daughter asked, searching the rear view window for her mother.
'Is everything okay?' What had to be done, had to be done.
'Yes,' she said firmly, louder than she intended, 'if it will make you happy,' she added more quietly.
'It's for you, Ma! You'll be happier there. You can move there tomorrow, I already got the maid to pack your things.' Elaine said triumphantly, mentally ticking yet another item off her agenda.
'I knew everything would be fine.'
Elaine smiled widely; she felt liberated. Perhaps getting rid of her mother would make her happier. She had thought about it. It seemed the only hindrance in her pursuit of happiness. She was happy now. She had everything a modern woman ever wanted; Money, Status, Career, Love, Power and now, Freedom, without her mother and her old-fashioned ways to weigh her down...
Yes, she was free. Her phone buzzed urgently, she picked it up and read the message, still beaming from ear to ear. 'Stocks 10% increase!'
Yes, things were definitely beginning to look up for her...
And while searching for the meaning of life in the luminance of her hand phone screen, the old woman in the backseat became invisible, and she did not see the tears.
When asked about her story, Amanda said, "through my story, I attempted to convey the unique East-versus-West struggles and generation gaps that I felt were characteristic of young people in my country."
It certainly conveys that. Well done Amanda.
Now read on:
What the Modern Woman Wants
By Amanda Chong Wei-Zhen
The old woman sat in the backseat of the magenta convertible as it careened down the highway, clutching tightly to the plastic bag on her lap, afraid it may be kidnapped by the wind. She was not used to such speed, with trembling hands she pulled the seatbelt tighter but was careful not to touch the patent leather seats with her callused fingers, her daughter had warned her not to dirty it, 'Fingerprints show very clearly on white, Ma.'
Her daughter, Bee Choo, was driving and talking on her sleek silver mobile phone using big words the old woman could barely understand. 'Finance' 'Liquidation' 'Assets' ‘Investments'... Her voice was crisp and important and had an unfamiliar lilt to it. Her Bee Choo sounded like one of those foreign girls on television. She was speaking in an American accent.
The old lady clucked her tongue in disapproval. 'I absolutely cannot have this. We have to sell!' Her daughter exclaimed agitatedly as she stepped on the accelerator; her perfectly manicured fingernails gripping onto the steering wheel in irritation.
'I can't DEAL with this anymore!' she yelled as she clicked the phone shut and hurled it angrily toward the backseat. The mobile phone hit the old woman on the forehead and nestled soundlessly into her lap. She calmly picked it up and handed it to her daughter.
'Sorry, Ma,' she said, losing the American pretence and switching to Mandarin. 'I have a big client in America. There have been a lot of problems.'
The old lady nodded knowingly. Her daughter was big and important.
Bee Choo stared at her mother from the rear view window, wondering what she was thinking. Her mother's wrinkled countenance always carried the same cryptic look.
The phone began to ring again, an artificially cheerful digital tune, which broke the awkward silence.
'Hello, Beatrice! Yes, this is Elaine.'
Elaine. The old woman cringed. I didn't name her Elaine. She remembered her daughter telling her, how an English name was very important for 'networking', Chinese ones being easily forgotten.
'Oh no, I can't see you for lunch today. I have to take the ancient relic to the temple for her weird daily prayer ritual.'
Ancient Relic. The old woman understood perfectly it was referring to her. Her daughter always assumed that her mother's silence meant she did not comprehend.
'Yes, I know! My car seats will be reeking of joss sticks!'
The old woman pursed her lips tightly, her hands gripping her plastic bag in defense.
The car curved smoothly into the temple courtyard. It looked almost garish next to the dull sheen of the ageing temple's roof. The old woman got out of the back seat, and made her unhurried way to the main hall.
Her daughter stepped out of the car in her business suit and stilettos and reapplied her lipstick as she made her brisk way to her mother's side.
'Ma, I'll wait outside. I have an important phone call to make,' she said, not bothering to hide her disgust at the pungent fumes of incense.
The old lady hobbled into the temple hall and lit a joss stick, she knelt down solemnly and whispered her now familiar daily prayer to the Gods.
Thank you God of the Sky, you have given my daughter luck all these years. Everything I prayed for, you have given her. She has everything a young woman in this world could possibly want. She has a big house with a swimming pool, a maid to help her, as she is too clumsy to sew or cook.
Her love life has been blessed; she is engaged to a rich and handsome angmoh man. Her company is now the top financial firm and even men listen to what she says. She lives the perfect life. You have given her everything except happiness. I ask that the gods be merciful to her even if she has lost her roots while reaping the harvest of success.
What you see is not true, she is a filial daughter to me. She gives me a room in her big house and provides well for me. She is rude to me only because I affect her happiness. A young woman does not want to be hindered by her old mother. It is my fault.
The old lady prayed so hard that tears welled up in her eyes. Finally, with her head bowed in reverence she planted the half-burnt joss stick into an urn of smouldering ashes.
She bowed once more. The old woman had been praying for her daughter for thirty-two years. When her stomach was round like a melon, she came to the temple and prayed that it was a son.
Then the time was ripe and the baby slipped out of her womb, bawling and adorable with fat thighs and pink cheeks, but unmistakably, a girl. Her husband had kicked and punched her for producing a useless baby who could not work or carry the family name.
Still, the woman returned to the temple with her new-born girl tied to her waist in a sarong and prayed that her daughter would grow up and have everything she ever wanted. Her husband left her and she prayed that her daughter would never have to depend on a man.
She prayed every day that her daughter would be a great woman, the woman that she, meek and uneducated, could never become. A woman with nengkan; the ability to do anything she set her mind to. A woman who commanded respect in the hearts of men. When she opened her mouth to speak, precious pearls would fall out and men would listen.
She will not be like me, the woman prayed as she watched her daughter grow up and drift away from her, speaking a language she scarcely understood. She watched her daughter transform from a quiet girl, to one who openly defied her, calling her laotu; old-fashioned. She wanted her mother to be 'modern', a word so new there was no Chinese word for it.
Now her daughter was too clever for her and the old woman wondered why she had prayed like that. The gods had been faithful to her persistent prayer, but the wealth and success that poured forth so richly had buried the girl's roots and now she stood, faceless, with no identity, bound to the soil of her ancestors by only a string of origami banknotes.
Her daughter had forgotten her mother's values. Her wants were so ephemeral; that of a modern woman. Power, Wealth, access to the best fashion boutiques, and yet her daughter had not found true happiness. The old woman knew that you could find happiness with much less. When her daughter left the earth everything she had would count for nothing. People would look to her legacy and say that she was a great woman, but she would be forgotten once the wind blows over, like the ashes of burnt paper convertibles and mansions.
The old woman wished she could go back and erase all her big hopes and prayers for her daughter; now she had only one want: That her daughter be happy. She looked out of the temple gate. She saw her daughter speaking on the phone, her brow furrowed with anger and worry. Being at the top is not good, the woman thought, there is only one way to go from there - down.
The old woman carefully unfolded the plastic bag and spread out a packet of beehoon in front of the altar. Her daughter often mocked her for worshipping porcelain Gods. How could she pray to them so faithfully and expect pieces of ceramic to fly to her aid? But her daughter had her own gods too, idols of wealth, success and power that she was enslaved to and worshipped every day of her life.
Every day was a quest for the idols, and the idols she worshipped counted for nothing in eternity. All the wants her daughter had would slowly suck the life out of her and leave her, an empty soulless shell at the altar.
The old lady watched her joss stick. The dull heat had left a teetering grey stem that was on the danger of collapsing. Modern woman nowadays, the old lady sighed in resignation, as she bowed to the east one final time to end her ritual. Modern woman nowadays want so much that they lose their souls and wonder why they cannot find it.
Her joss stick disintegrated into a soft grey powder. She met her daughter outside the temple, the same look of worry and frustration was etched on her daughter's face. An empty expression, as if she was ploughing through the soil of her wants looking for the one thing that would sow the seeds of happiness.
They climbed into the convertible in silence and her daughter drove along the highway, this time not as fast as she had done before.
'Ma,' Bee Choo finally said. 'I don't know how to put this. Mark and I have been talking about it and we plan to move out of the big house. The property market is good now, and we managed to get a buyer willing to pay seven million for it. We decided we'd prefer a cosier penthouse apartment instead. We found a perfect one in Orchard Road. Once we move in to our apartment we plan to get rid of the maid, so we can have more space to ourselves...'
The old woman nodded knowingly. Bee Choo swallowed hard. 'We'd get someone to come in to do the housework and we can eat out - but once the maid is gone, there won't be anyone to look after you. You will be awfully lonely at home and, besides that, the apartment is rather small. There won't be space. We thought about it for a long time, and we decided the best thing for you is if you moved to a Home. There's one near Hougang - it's a Christian home, a very nice one.'
The old woman did not raise an eyebrow. 'I've been there, the matron is willing to take you in. It's beautiful with gardens and lots of old people to keep you company! I hardly have time for you, you'd be happier there.'
'You'd be happier there, really.' Her daughter repeated as if to affirm herself. This time the old woman had no plastic bag of food offerings to cling tightly to; she bit her lip and fastened her seat belt, as if it would protect her from a daughter who did not want her anymore. She sunk deep into the leather seat, letting her shoulders sag, and her fingers trace the white seat.
'Ma?' her daughter asked, searching the rear view window for her mother.
'Is everything okay?' What had to be done, had to be done.
'Yes,' she said firmly, louder than she intended, 'if it will make you happy,' she added more quietly.
'It's for you, Ma! You'll be happier there. You can move there tomorrow, I already got the maid to pack your things.' Elaine said triumphantly, mentally ticking yet another item off her agenda.
'I knew everything would be fine.'
Elaine smiled widely; she felt liberated. Perhaps getting rid of her mother would make her happier. She had thought about it. It seemed the only hindrance in her pursuit of happiness. She was happy now. She had everything a modern woman ever wanted; Money, Status, Career, Love, Power and now, Freedom, without her mother and her old-fashioned ways to weigh her down...
Yes, she was free. Her phone buzzed urgently, she picked it up and read the message, still beaming from ear to ear. 'Stocks 10% increase!'
Yes, things were definitely beginning to look up for her...
And while searching for the meaning of life in the luminance of her hand phone screen, the old woman in the backseat became invisible, and she did not see the tears.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Evans on Reason and Violence: Arguments from Force – an Analysis
Reason and violence are two fundamentally opposite human strategies that are often not associated with each other. In the paper Reason and Violence, J. D. G. Evans attempts to search for a link between the fundamental antithesis of reason and violence. According to Evans, although it has been generally thought that argument by reasoning is the more “honorable way to try to convert an opponent than is the use of force”, there may exist certain situations where the use of argumentum ad baculum or appeal to force to bring acceptance of conclusion, would be the ideal strategy. A few key points were brought up to support this claim, but in the end Evans was resigned to the conclusion of Karl Popper, that reasoning is the only alternative to the use of violence.
Evans explains regarding the use of argumentum ad baculum, that the idea was that there are certain times when the opposition is infinitely intransigent and this method would be the best strategy to achieve a desirable result. The person making the argument realizes that the opposition would not give in and thus has to do something drastic in order to change their view. This is often the result of many wars in the past and present as both sides are willing to implement argumentum ad baculum readily. However, when one side gives in to the other, it is not due to the acceptance of the argument due to a valid argument. Rather, it is the acceptance of the argument because of the fear and unwillingness to suffer physical pain.
Evans elaborates that as the opposition acknowledges that the premise is true, they would then be rationally committed to also accept the conclusion. This would make the argument valid, although it is not a good one simply because there is no connection between the antecedent and the consequent. This case accentuates Karl Popper’s argument that this would not constitute someone believing that it is the fact, but rather it is a belief in the fact. A similarity can be drawn to the common school bully who forces a fellow classmate who witnessed him vandalizing the school into submission, threatening to make life hell for him if he did not acknowledge that he was not the culprit of the vandalism. The whole integration of violence with reason here is simply to change the other person’s belief.
Another point Evans brings up is regarding argumentum ad verecundiam. It is often assumed that someone who is an expert or who is well-informed in a certain field would essentially have ‘all the answers’. Therefore the truth about something would be urged on the grounds that it is supported by (intellectual) authority. Any opposition would then be met with the argumentum ad hominem due to the fact that they would have been deemed to lack the credibility needed for the respective stance. The general idea, Evans explains, is that the “credibility of the argument is or may be significantly affected by the credit of those associated with it”.
As those who use ad verecundiam to support their side of the argument have the notion that their argument is strong and supported, they would tend to strongly impose their views on the opposition. This is sometimes done utilizing the tandem of argumentum ad baculum and ad verecundiam. In this case, the violence is not always direct but rather indirect whereby the author of the argument sets an “infinite tariff”. This can be explained using the Nash Equilibrium or more familiarly, the Prisoners Dilemma where one has to adopt the dominant strategy. Like both models, the opposition of the argument has to adopt a dominant strategy. So someone who believes that the argument must be true because of the credible authority backing might have been doing so because the dominant strategy is to be accepted rather than be an outcast and embarrassed. As Pascal’s Wager shows, “however much we may feel that the strength of the case inclines one way or the other, it is rational to balance the pluses and minuses of both sets of outcomes”.
In this case, the conclusion is accepted simply because it seems rational to believe so. The ad hominem and ad baculum in this case would serve to enhance the strength of the argument such as is the case when a soldier is punished because he refuses to abide by the rules as he thinks the discipline is useless. However, the superior would then point out to the fact that he, who is a person of authority having seen the effects of war, knows that without discipline, soldiers like him would come back in a box. These arguments can only be good arguments provided the author of the argument has credibility. As Evans points out, someone who makes the argument with the premise that “Grass is green or diamonds are brown” in order to prove the color of a substance obviously has no credibility. This is evident in the person’s lack of knowledge about colors, botany and mineralogy. In this case, the dominant strategy would be to dismiss the person to save yourself from embarrassment and ridicule. However, unlike this example, it is not always clear about the credibility of the author of the argument, and the acceptance of the conclusion would then be misguided. Thus, as Evans explains, this is why it is not rational to implement argumentum ad baculum, as it is sometimes blindly “based on the nature of the goods and harms which will result from the various logical possibilities surrounding the situation”.
The other key point made by Evans is the power of the author of the argumentum ad baculum as well as the value of the argument. He draws upon the works of Rawls who highlights that the “uncertainty of outcome insofar as it may affect the individual’s decision”. This argument is similar to his previous point regarding the pluses and minuses of an argument. The only difference here is that the valuing of the premise, underlining its plausibility. Taking for example, the argument presented by Evans, “if freedom is not the highest value, you will suffer”. There will be a huge chasm in between the tyrant and the slave in an illiberal society compared to a liberal society. In this context, the slave would value freedom very highly, as if resigned to their fate, they will suffer the consequences. Here, the basis for ad baculum is strong and perhaps might be appropriate due to the rigid nature of it. As the value of freedom in this case is strong, rationalizing may not be sufficient to support the argument. Despite that, ad baculum still does not make the argument a good one. It is simply about the winning the argument because of the high valuation of something.
The contrary, where the author of the argument is in a position to enforce the effects of the argument is also similarly valid. Unlike Rawl’s case, the author has the right to enforce his views, thus being “in a position to affect the truth”. As a result, the argument will always be valid as there would be only one stipulated outcome. This makes it a valid argument but does not make it a good argument. It is like saying that pigs can fly despite prior knowledge that this is impossible. However, if the author of the proposition has genetically engineered a pig with wings, which it could fly with, you would stand corrected. Where ad baculum is concerned, the idea of the Orwellian character Big Brother shows that it could manipulate people mentally to believe that freedom is the highest value, and failure to believe that would lead to suffering. Hence in this case, the argument that ‘if freedom is not the highest value, you will suffer’ is valid simply because if those affected do not value freedom highly, they will be suffer as Big Brother would concoct various means and ways to ensure that the argument holds true. This argument is effectively a self-sealer as there will be no way of opposing it. Therefore its validity will not be in question. However in this case, because of the self-sealing biasness of the argumentum ad baculum, it would not constitute a good argument.
From these main key points, Evans has shown that there indeed is a fundamental antithesis between reason and violence. Violence cannot be used in the same rational context as reasoning simply because it is an irrational, however successful it may be in arguments. Again, the argumentum ad baculum has shown to force someone into submission, in order to get the person to belief in the fact rather than to convince someone that that is the fact. The difference is that the person is reluctantly accepting the belief in the fact rather than accepting that that is the fact. This is why ad baculum is considered a fallacy, which as the definition states, is a “trickery” and “deception”, thus being unsound.
Evans explains regarding the use of argumentum ad baculum, that the idea was that there are certain times when the opposition is infinitely intransigent and this method would be the best strategy to achieve a desirable result. The person making the argument realizes that the opposition would not give in and thus has to do something drastic in order to change their view. This is often the result of many wars in the past and present as both sides are willing to implement argumentum ad baculum readily. However, when one side gives in to the other, it is not due to the acceptance of the argument due to a valid argument. Rather, it is the acceptance of the argument because of the fear and unwillingness to suffer physical pain.
Evans elaborates that as the opposition acknowledges that the premise is true, they would then be rationally committed to also accept the conclusion. This would make the argument valid, although it is not a good one simply because there is no connection between the antecedent and the consequent. This case accentuates Karl Popper’s argument that this would not constitute someone believing that it is the fact, but rather it is a belief in the fact. A similarity can be drawn to the common school bully who forces a fellow classmate who witnessed him vandalizing the school into submission, threatening to make life hell for him if he did not acknowledge that he was not the culprit of the vandalism. The whole integration of violence with reason here is simply to change the other person’s belief.
Another point Evans brings up is regarding argumentum ad verecundiam. It is often assumed that someone who is an expert or who is well-informed in a certain field would essentially have ‘all the answers’. Therefore the truth about something would be urged on the grounds that it is supported by (intellectual) authority. Any opposition would then be met with the argumentum ad hominem due to the fact that they would have been deemed to lack the credibility needed for the respective stance. The general idea, Evans explains, is that the “credibility of the argument is or may be significantly affected by the credit of those associated with it”.
As those who use ad verecundiam to support their side of the argument have the notion that their argument is strong and supported, they would tend to strongly impose their views on the opposition. This is sometimes done utilizing the tandem of argumentum ad baculum and ad verecundiam. In this case, the violence is not always direct but rather indirect whereby the author of the argument sets an “infinite tariff”. This can be explained using the Nash Equilibrium or more familiarly, the Prisoners Dilemma where one has to adopt the dominant strategy. Like both models, the opposition of the argument has to adopt a dominant strategy. So someone who believes that the argument must be true because of the credible authority backing might have been doing so because the dominant strategy is to be accepted rather than be an outcast and embarrassed. As Pascal’s Wager shows, “however much we may feel that the strength of the case inclines one way or the other, it is rational to balance the pluses and minuses of both sets of outcomes”.
In this case, the conclusion is accepted simply because it seems rational to believe so. The ad hominem and ad baculum in this case would serve to enhance the strength of the argument such as is the case when a soldier is punished because he refuses to abide by the rules as he thinks the discipline is useless. However, the superior would then point out to the fact that he, who is a person of authority having seen the effects of war, knows that without discipline, soldiers like him would come back in a box. These arguments can only be good arguments provided the author of the argument has credibility. As Evans points out, someone who makes the argument with the premise that “Grass is green or diamonds are brown” in order to prove the color of a substance obviously has no credibility. This is evident in the person’s lack of knowledge about colors, botany and mineralogy. In this case, the dominant strategy would be to dismiss the person to save yourself from embarrassment and ridicule. However, unlike this example, it is not always clear about the credibility of the author of the argument, and the acceptance of the conclusion would then be misguided. Thus, as Evans explains, this is why it is not rational to implement argumentum ad baculum, as it is sometimes blindly “based on the nature of the goods and harms which will result from the various logical possibilities surrounding the situation”.
The other key point made by Evans is the power of the author of the argumentum ad baculum as well as the value of the argument. He draws upon the works of Rawls who highlights that the “uncertainty of outcome insofar as it may affect the individual’s decision”. This argument is similar to his previous point regarding the pluses and minuses of an argument. The only difference here is that the valuing of the premise, underlining its plausibility. Taking for example, the argument presented by Evans, “if freedom is not the highest value, you will suffer”. There will be a huge chasm in between the tyrant and the slave in an illiberal society compared to a liberal society. In this context, the slave would value freedom very highly, as if resigned to their fate, they will suffer the consequences. Here, the basis for ad baculum is strong and perhaps might be appropriate due to the rigid nature of it. As the value of freedom in this case is strong, rationalizing may not be sufficient to support the argument. Despite that, ad baculum still does not make the argument a good one. It is simply about the winning the argument because of the high valuation of something.
The contrary, where the author of the argument is in a position to enforce the effects of the argument is also similarly valid. Unlike Rawl’s case, the author has the right to enforce his views, thus being “in a position to affect the truth”. As a result, the argument will always be valid as there would be only one stipulated outcome. This makes it a valid argument but does not make it a good argument. It is like saying that pigs can fly despite prior knowledge that this is impossible. However, if the author of the proposition has genetically engineered a pig with wings, which it could fly with, you would stand corrected. Where ad baculum is concerned, the idea of the Orwellian character Big Brother shows that it could manipulate people mentally to believe that freedom is the highest value, and failure to believe that would lead to suffering. Hence in this case, the argument that ‘if freedom is not the highest value, you will suffer’ is valid simply because if those affected do not value freedom highly, they will be suffer as Big Brother would concoct various means and ways to ensure that the argument holds true. This argument is effectively a self-sealer as there will be no way of opposing it. Therefore its validity will not be in question. However in this case, because of the self-sealing biasness of the argumentum ad baculum, it would not constitute a good argument.
From these main key points, Evans has shown that there indeed is a fundamental antithesis between reason and violence. Violence cannot be used in the same rational context as reasoning simply because it is an irrational, however successful it may be in arguments. Again, the argumentum ad baculum has shown to force someone into submission, in order to get the person to belief in the fact rather than to convince someone that that is the fact. The difference is that the person is reluctantly accepting the belief in the fact rather than accepting that that is the fact. This is why ad baculum is considered a fallacy, which as the definition states, is a “trickery” and “deception”, thus being unsound.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
The Illusionist (Playing to your strengths)
I just watched The Illusionist under recommendation by Shuwen. It turned out to be quite a good movie with a twist at the end which I thoroughly enjoyed. To put it bluntly, it was a bit of a mental orgasm. I’ve always enjoyed such movies that provided such stimulation. It partly explains why I watched A Beautiful Mind a good 4 to 5 times.
The story was about a gifted illusionist – Eisenheim. Here was a boy born into poverty as a son of a cabinet maker and nothing else. He had a gift and he nurtured it. Along the way he fell in love with a girl from a powerful family – the classic forbidden love plot. Their plan to elope was foiled and he spent the next few years traveling the world before finally returning to his home town probably in pursuit of the girl who I would think never left his mind and ‘haunted’ his every thought and action.
He soon realized that the love of his life was to be married to the crown prince and so he sought about to get her back from him. So the twist was that he plotted to get her back by combining what we would now call conspiracy theories and his gift of creating illusions. So throughout the whole movie, we were to believe that the Crown Prince had an evil plan to overthrow the emperor (although he did in actual fact, like all Crown Princes in that era – an easy conspiracy theory for a naïve crowd) and that he had murdered the Duchess (his girl).
Using his gift of illusion, he managed to fool the crowds and most importantly, the Chief Inspector who reported it to the Attorney General. The Crown Prince correctly accused Eisenheim of the plot but it was turned down, leading him to shoot himself. In the end, he successfully was reunited with his childhood love, and as that happened, the Chief Inspector finally pieced it all together – a clever plot indeed.
I really admired Eisenheim as here was a classic example of someone who knew his strengths and played to it. Although he may not have used it in the most moralistic fashion, it is still admirable how he could defy the odds. His was an impossible situation. Yet, he could still conjure such a foolproof act (the puns strongly intended).
I myself am still trying to figure out what my strengths (if any) are. I wonder whether I would be able to play to my strengths the way Eisenheim did. Would I abuse my power in such a way he did? Perhaps. However, it would be interesting to know what my strength is. I’ve been searching all my life for a sign and have come up empty-handed each time. Perhaps only time will tell.
The story was about a gifted illusionist – Eisenheim. Here was a boy born into poverty as a son of a cabinet maker and nothing else. He had a gift and he nurtured it. Along the way he fell in love with a girl from a powerful family – the classic forbidden love plot. Their plan to elope was foiled and he spent the next few years traveling the world before finally returning to his home town probably in pursuit of the girl who I would think never left his mind and ‘haunted’ his every thought and action.
He soon realized that the love of his life was to be married to the crown prince and so he sought about to get her back from him. So the twist was that he plotted to get her back by combining what we would now call conspiracy theories and his gift of creating illusions. So throughout the whole movie, we were to believe that the Crown Prince had an evil plan to overthrow the emperor (although he did in actual fact, like all Crown Princes in that era – an easy conspiracy theory for a naïve crowd) and that he had murdered the Duchess (his girl).
Using his gift of illusion, he managed to fool the crowds and most importantly, the Chief Inspector who reported it to the Attorney General. The Crown Prince correctly accused Eisenheim of the plot but it was turned down, leading him to shoot himself. In the end, he successfully was reunited with his childhood love, and as that happened, the Chief Inspector finally pieced it all together – a clever plot indeed.
I really admired Eisenheim as here was a classic example of someone who knew his strengths and played to it. Although he may not have used it in the most moralistic fashion, it is still admirable how he could defy the odds. His was an impossible situation. Yet, he could still conjure such a foolproof act (the puns strongly intended).
I myself am still trying to figure out what my strengths (if any) are. I wonder whether I would be able to play to my strengths the way Eisenheim did. Would I abuse my power in such a way he did? Perhaps. However, it would be interesting to know what my strength is. I’ve been searching all my life for a sign and have come up empty-handed each time. Perhaps only time will tell.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Letter to my Landlord
Dear Landlord,
For years you have been living a façade and for years, you have deluded yourself. Your friends and family have been far too polite to inform you of that although they have the hope that you may one day see the light and have some sort of epiphany. However, that seems quite unlikely, and the intensity of your situation seems to be worsening. So I’m afraid I shall have to be the harbinger of news that will bring you back to reality. Earth to you, it’s time to wake up and smell the roses. It’s time for you to remove your rose-tinted glasses and view the world as it is here and now.
You are 48. You are unmarried. You are severely obese and have health problems. Your section of the house is perpetually a pig sty as you are entirely incompetent of undertaking any household chores. You claim to be diligent at work but I always see you sleep at every opportunity. You have trust issues and refuse to conform to new ways. You set such high standards and never make even a step to attempt anything to fulfill them at all.
You always tell me stories and tales about how girls are so attracted to you. You get excited over trivial matters that are really nothing at all. You constantly claim that the girls at the shop you are working at are attracted to you. However, they merely view you as nothing more than that of a friendly neighborhood rubbish collector. They are not attracted to you at all. Your colleagues have been no help in fuelling your delusions. They make fun of you as a joke, and these girls have no interest in you whatsoever.
I think you need to realize your situation. You are only interested in attractive girls who are old enough to be your daughter. When introduced to ladies who are somewhat older but still a decade or two younger than you, you scoff at your friends for attempting to lower your standards. You hypocritically claim that they are too old when it is a clear case of a pot calling a kettle black. Face it. You are old. Do you really think they would fall for someone like you?
You are not Hugh Hefner. He has the financial clout to make up for what he lacks while you have nothing. You have suggested many times that you would search for a bride in Vietnam but you are afraid that you might lose half your possessions. Frankly, the only reason any of them would marry you is because you are reaching old age and will go soon, and the girl would be able to help her poverty-stricken family, while seeking a new, better life as an Australia citizen.
The truth is, what you need is a caretaker. You are a complete imbecile at cooking. You do not understand the need to do household chores, yet you complain that I do not take out the trash. The house is perpetually in a mess because you are incompetent at cleaning up. So how can you take care of a family let alone a wife? It would be utterly irresponsible of humanity to allow you to do that.
Your distrust of people is perhaps a by-product of your incompetence. Subconsciously, you know how capable or rather, incapable you are of sustaining any family and thus are driven to paranoia. Coupled with your paranoia are your delusions of grandeur, and that leads to your so-called trust problem.
As much as I admire those who are ambitious, I also look down on people who employ the mentality of NATO – No Action, Talk Only. You always harp about how you would one day love to open your own store since you know how it works. You claim you would make more money because you are the best employee, and everybody would rather close the company down than let you leave. You complain about making the most sales but yet are still underpaid. Truth be told, that is all coming from you and I’m sure results will speak for themselves. All your talk about your potential is nothing but hot air, noise, and if I didn’t know better, I would mistake you for an empty vessel. If you think you have so much potential, why not do it?
Your mentality is also a liability. You refuse to keep up with the times, harboring your own conservative thoughts. You are so conservative; you make the conservative party members look liberal. That said, there is a fine line between being conservative and being backward. You are the latter. Your views are always right and the world is wrong. You condemn the world today because they do not conform to your deluded thinking. You mention about keeping tradition but you do not show any comprehension of that at all. The world is moving forward everyday while you remain moving at your own pace if at all. If you are unable even to catch up or match the pace of life in a backward country like Australia, how are you ever able to adapt to the world?
You really need professional help. You are merely fooling yourself. You can’t fool the world. We all see a stubborn, old, obese man who is deluded and paranoid, nothing more.
Yours Sincerely,
Your tenant, who has been tolerating your nonsense just so he doesn't have to move out and whose friends you rudely kicked out for no appparent reason
For years you have been living a façade and for years, you have deluded yourself. Your friends and family have been far too polite to inform you of that although they have the hope that you may one day see the light and have some sort of epiphany. However, that seems quite unlikely, and the intensity of your situation seems to be worsening. So I’m afraid I shall have to be the harbinger of news that will bring you back to reality. Earth to you, it’s time to wake up and smell the roses. It’s time for you to remove your rose-tinted glasses and view the world as it is here and now.
You are 48. You are unmarried. You are severely obese and have health problems. Your section of the house is perpetually a pig sty as you are entirely incompetent of undertaking any household chores. You claim to be diligent at work but I always see you sleep at every opportunity. You have trust issues and refuse to conform to new ways. You set such high standards and never make even a step to attempt anything to fulfill them at all.
You always tell me stories and tales about how girls are so attracted to you. You get excited over trivial matters that are really nothing at all. You constantly claim that the girls at the shop you are working at are attracted to you. However, they merely view you as nothing more than that of a friendly neighborhood rubbish collector. They are not attracted to you at all. Your colleagues have been no help in fuelling your delusions. They make fun of you as a joke, and these girls have no interest in you whatsoever.
I think you need to realize your situation. You are only interested in attractive girls who are old enough to be your daughter. When introduced to ladies who are somewhat older but still a decade or two younger than you, you scoff at your friends for attempting to lower your standards. You hypocritically claim that they are too old when it is a clear case of a pot calling a kettle black. Face it. You are old. Do you really think they would fall for someone like you?
You are not Hugh Hefner. He has the financial clout to make up for what he lacks while you have nothing. You have suggested many times that you would search for a bride in Vietnam but you are afraid that you might lose half your possessions. Frankly, the only reason any of them would marry you is because you are reaching old age and will go soon, and the girl would be able to help her poverty-stricken family, while seeking a new, better life as an Australia citizen.
The truth is, what you need is a caretaker. You are a complete imbecile at cooking. You do not understand the need to do household chores, yet you complain that I do not take out the trash. The house is perpetually in a mess because you are incompetent at cleaning up. So how can you take care of a family let alone a wife? It would be utterly irresponsible of humanity to allow you to do that.
Your distrust of people is perhaps a by-product of your incompetence. Subconsciously, you know how capable or rather, incapable you are of sustaining any family and thus are driven to paranoia. Coupled with your paranoia are your delusions of grandeur, and that leads to your so-called trust problem.
As much as I admire those who are ambitious, I also look down on people who employ the mentality of NATO – No Action, Talk Only. You always harp about how you would one day love to open your own store since you know how it works. You claim you would make more money because you are the best employee, and everybody would rather close the company down than let you leave. You complain about making the most sales but yet are still underpaid. Truth be told, that is all coming from you and I’m sure results will speak for themselves. All your talk about your potential is nothing but hot air, noise, and if I didn’t know better, I would mistake you for an empty vessel. If you think you have so much potential, why not do it?
Your mentality is also a liability. You refuse to keep up with the times, harboring your own conservative thoughts. You are so conservative; you make the conservative party members look liberal. That said, there is a fine line between being conservative and being backward. You are the latter. Your views are always right and the world is wrong. You condemn the world today because they do not conform to your deluded thinking. You mention about keeping tradition but you do not show any comprehension of that at all. The world is moving forward everyday while you remain moving at your own pace if at all. If you are unable even to catch up or match the pace of life in a backward country like Australia, how are you ever able to adapt to the world?
You really need professional help. You are merely fooling yourself. You can’t fool the world. We all see a stubborn, old, obese man who is deluded and paranoid, nothing more.
Yours Sincerely,
Your tenant, who has been tolerating your nonsense just so he doesn't have to move out and whose friends you rudely kicked out for no appparent reason
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Are we all really so superficial?
I was just browsing through facebook (instead of studying) and I found this note my friend and formerly my tutor wrote. I felt it was very meaningful and have decided to reproduce it here.
I reflected upon it briefly and realized that this also affects me and I know I am guilty of selecting my friends. In fact, there was an incident earlier this year with my group of friends and I. I won't spill the details because too many people read this blog, but my group of friends (who read this) should know exactly what I'm referring to. The bottom line is, I think humans are predisposed to choosing attractive people as their friends. I think this only applies to the opposite sex and I think that could be evolutionary. I think it's the residue of our 'animal instincts' as we yearn to get all the 'quality' (in the superficial sense) on our side, in our tribe. However, I think this tendency fades as we get older, when our requirements change. As we get older, we tend to see beyond the superficiality of things. Of course we will definitely retain some of that superficiality, but it will definitely be at a much decreased intensity.
Despite that, I still believe in Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, and thus it is your overall quality that really matters. Looks will definitely come in handy as a tool and will always be a factor, but face it, if that's all you have, you're no better than a manikin. Thankfully there's more to it than that, such as EQ (Empathy Quotient) and stability. Looks fade, stability is somewhat arbitrary, but EQ will generally hold constant. So can I be more conspicuous about the importance of each factors? I think not.
For the rest who don't really care at all, keep dreaming about your rich, latin husband who will sweep you off your feet with his dark skin and exotic accent, or for the others, your va-va-voom model with (some) brains. If you keep it up, you might just end up as some lonely miser for the rest of your life.
Today I had a rather interesting conversation with two of my friends, who were talking about their boyfriends. They mentioned that their boyfriends had told them that they wouldn't consider being friends with a girl unless they were attractive.
I was rather taken aback by this comment. It seems really strange to me that you would base friendship on a physical quality. After all, there are many reasons - pragmatic, personal and spiritual - that you might want to be friends with someone. Friendship doesn't really cost one anything, and there are many good things to enjoy from a friendship even with someone you are not attracted to.
However, as I was flipping through my list of Facebook friends, it occurred to me that I might be guilty of a tiny bit of hypocrisy. There are certainly a lot of hotties on my list, and I think the distribution is definitely skewed towards the positive end of the attractiveness spectrum.
As a guy, I'm definitely programmed to pay more attention to the more attractive members of the opposite sex. (And by God, is it sometimes difficult to look away!) But I like to think I'm more than just the sum of my biological and mental programming.
So for all of you who are less than the embodiment of physical perfection (and I definitely include myself in that category), don't worry as I still want to be your friend, as I'm sure do many other guys.After all, I think this would be a lonely old profile if girls applied the same standards as some guys!
I reflected upon it briefly and realized that this also affects me and I know I am guilty of selecting my friends. In fact, there was an incident earlier this year with my group of friends and I. I won't spill the details because too many people read this blog, but my group of friends (who read this) should know exactly what I'm referring to. The bottom line is, I think humans are predisposed to choosing attractive people as their friends. I think this only applies to the opposite sex and I think that could be evolutionary. I think it's the residue of our 'animal instincts' as we yearn to get all the 'quality' (in the superficial sense) on our side, in our tribe. However, I think this tendency fades as we get older, when our requirements change. As we get older, we tend to see beyond the superficiality of things. Of course we will definitely retain some of that superficiality, but it will definitely be at a much decreased intensity.
Despite that, I still believe in Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, and thus it is your overall quality that really matters. Looks will definitely come in handy as a tool and will always be a factor, but face it, if that's all you have, you're no better than a manikin. Thankfully there's more to it than that, such as EQ (Empathy Quotient) and stability. Looks fade, stability is somewhat arbitrary, but EQ will generally hold constant. So can I be more conspicuous about the importance of each factors? I think not.
For the rest who don't really care at all, keep dreaming about your rich, latin husband who will sweep you off your feet with his dark skin and exotic accent, or for the others, your va-va-voom model with (some) brains. If you keep it up, you might just end up as some lonely miser for the rest of your life.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Testament to how small Singapore is
I'm sure you've heard the news by now, regarding the NSF who smuggled his rifle out of camp and somehow managed to get to Orchard Road. When I heard the news, I was quite amazed. As I read the news fresh from Channel News Asia and the MINDEF website, I couldn't help but notice that he was about to ORD in a month. So plenty of questions raced through my mind:
- Why subject yourself to such nonsense when you're about to get out of army? It's not like you have to serve the remaining month. It's just leave and off clearance.
- How did he manage to leave undetected? Who is accountable and why wasn't that person able to stop him?
- How did he get to Orchard Road? He definitely didn't drive so why didn't anyone on public transport spot him? It'd be even worse if it were on a bus.
- What was his motive?
- Does he have history of such rash behavior? (the psychologist in me has to ask)
So this afternoon, I checked for updates. It turns out that apparently, this individual fueled by hate, jealousy and bitterness, wanted to shoot his ex-girlfriend's new girlfriend. Perhaps it doesn't help that he was serving his military liability at the time. The isolation would only serve to make one ruminate and get more delusional. I managed to get the current and old blog addresses of that ex-girlfriend of his and found out that she had dumped him for a girl. So she turned lesbian after breaking up with him. (I guess that would be quite an insult to the guy - having your ex-girlfriend give up on males just because of you)
Now this just highlights how small Singapore is. Firstly, it was so easy for people to find the ex-girlfriend's blog merely hours after the incident was reported. Secondly, the news even spread to my friends in Sydney. Thirdly, this has seemingly become the hottest topic in Singapore (and I'm just proving my own point). Lastly, it couldn't have been much of a manhunt for the "200 officers" if they found him in 20 hours. (Although it puzzles me how long and with how many people mobilized, to find the 3 "marooned" robbers from Malaysia on Pulau Tekong)
So I guess Tammi can sleep peacefully while Li Hongyi can take a backseat, and allow this CPL Dave to soak in the limelight. All this is only possible because we live in the little red dot, pimple or pisai (booger), called Singapore.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Lunar Eclipse
Sydney - At about 7pm to 8pm on 28th August 2007, I observed a Lunar Eclipse. Despite not being equipped with a telescope, it was still quite a nice sight. It was no doubt over-hyped by the media but catching a glimpse of it was worth sticking my head out the window. I took some photos but most of them turned out quite blurry due to the amount of zooming in.
Some photos:
These two photos were taken by me. The first one was taken at about 7:40pm while the second one was taken at about 7:55pm. There is a bit of an illusion in the first picture as the camera wasn't steady enough, creating a double image.
Pictures I found on the web taken in Sydney. The first one was probably taken with the flag atop the Habour Bridge while the second one was taken in between the roofs of the Opera House.
Other shots of the moon during the eclipse
Just the sequence of the eclipse
A more comprehensive sequence of the whole lunar eclipse
Facts:
Some photos:
These two photos were taken by me. The first one was taken at about 7:40pm while the second one was taken at about 7:55pm. There is a bit of an illusion in the first picture as the camera wasn't steady enough, creating a double image.
Pictures I found on the web taken in Sydney. The first one was probably taken with the flag atop the Habour Bridge while the second one was taken in between the roofs of the Opera House.
Other shots of the moon during the eclipse
Just the sequence of the eclipse
A more comprehensive sequence of the whole lunar eclipse
Facts:
- The last visible Lunar Eclipse in Australia was in July 2000.
- The next visible Lunar Eclipse in Australia would be in December 2011.
- An eclipse occurs when the earth passes between the sun and the moon, blocking the sun's light. It is rare because the moon is usually either above or below the plane of the earth's orbit.
- If there is enough dust in the earth's atmosphere the surface will appear blood red.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Rejected Letters to the Straits Times Forum
Over the course of a year, I've written several letters to the Straits Times Forum. I've done that not so much because I feel strongly about something, but rather, I'm just bored and blogging is not enough. So some letters were published while others were rejected. The following are 2 letters that were rejected.:
Consider the rights of Cyclists
Dated May 24th 2007
I refer to Thomas Lee Zhi Zhi’s letter Planners would do well to walk the talk before allowing cyclists on footpaths. I think his letter has some valid points but he misses out on a few things.
Firstly, while I agree that bicycles may cause harm whether physically or mentally when it collides or zips past you, his description of the harm bicycles may cause is exaggerated. He states that a bicycle “has many parts that protrude out which could cause injury, maybe even fatal ones”. I would like to remind him that these are bicycles, not chariots. Also, if hypothetically bicycles were that dangerous, what about supermarket trolleys pushed by inattentive and inconsiderate shoppers?
Secondly, I think he is making a hasty generalization that the “easy route” is taken to conclude that cyclists should be taken off the road. Surely situational factors have been taken into consideration and that no fundamental attribution error is committed. Before making such accusations, I believe that Mr. Lee should put himself into the shoes of the cyclists and motorists.
Cycling is not exactly the most stable mode of transportation as there are many factors that could render it dangerous. It is not always stable riding a bicycle and cycling in that manner on the roads is dangerous. For an inexperienced or elderly person cycling on a road, it too can be “harrowing experience” when a big bus or truck zips past. So, would it now be better off letting the cyclist be susceptible to such danger?
On the other hand, if you were to put yourself into the shoes of a motorist, you will realize how inconvenient it is having to share the road with a cyclist. Both of you are unsure of who exactly has the right of way. In addition, as the motorist, you constantly get tormented by thoughts such as the cyclist falling into your path or your vehicle side swiping the cyclist. Most of the time, motorists would patiently (or at least they try to be) follow behind closely or ponder a lane change. This holds up traffic, thereby causing time wastage and in some sense financial loss.
Perhaps, you might think of banning cycling altogether since it attracts such problems. However, you also have to take into consideration that not everyone is able to afford a car and that it is the preferred transportation for many. As pointed out in other letters, it is also an environmentally friendly mode of transportation as well as a way to fit in some exercise. Therefore it would be wrong to ban cycling, as it would indirectly be a form of discrimination.
The third point I’d like to highlight in Mr. Lee’s letter pertains to the question of how established footpath rules would be enforced. I think while the government has done its part in the aggressive campaigning to generate awareness, it would be irresponsible of us to expect the government to come up with another campaign in regards to this issue. There should be a line drawn between what is legally tolerant and what is legally intolerant, and such an issue (I feel) does warrant legal toleration. We cannot expect the government to spoon feed us everything. Instead of rules governing what is permissible along footpaths, we should perhaps revert back to the age-old method of common sense and courtesy?
The main point of my letter is that it is easy to criticize policies but one should also take into consideration the factors of the other party. I acknowledge that I have not highlighted the opinions of those who are affected by the cyclists, but these issues have already been raised. There are many ways to solve such problems. In regards to busy footpaths and cyclists, perhaps it should be widened to allow more traffic. Another idea would be to incorporate bicycle lanes in areas where cyclists are a common sight. These are examples of ideas that have been implemented in other countries and have been proven to work. Everyone has their own opinion but it is essential that there should be a compromise. After all, we are human and we live in a civilized society.
Clarification Needed for the Road Block on the AYE during Peak Hours
Dated 15th July 2007
I was in a cab along the AYE at about 7pm when I saw many police cars and traffic police. Initially upon sight of some heavy vehicles such as low loaders, I wondered if they were moving these heavy vehicles at the wrong time. However, as we approached and went past the section that overlooked the marina, I was surprised to see all four lanes blocked by heavy vehicles and police cars. I was thankful that it was the other side that was blocked rather than my side as I was in a hurry. In spite of that, it occurred to me that I could not find any reason why there was such a massive road block.
Firstly, with Singapore’s roads already so congested, why is there a need to have such a massive road block on the expressway? There is a ripple effect as vehicles pile up, and it makes it worse that these vehicles are unable to turn around or exit anywhere along that stretch. A small accident in one lane is already bad enough to cause a jam that takes a long time to clear, and the magnitude of the jam caused by blocking all the lanes must be very frustrating. Why was there no contingency plan in place?
Secondly, has anyone spared a thought for those who desperately need to get to places? I saw many cabs stuck in the jam and if I were in the shoes of the passengers stuck in that jam, I would probably lose my temper. Just imagine those who were heading to the airport to catch their flight!
Thirdly, were attempts to inform the public about this inconvenience adequate and/or effective? I did a survey with a representative random sample, and my findings show that only 2 out of about 50 actually knew about the road block. These 2 just happen to be cab drivers who only knew about it by getting stuck in that jam themselves. Hence it seems that whatever measures taken are questionable.
Lastly, what is the reason for the road block? I cannot see how it would affect the National Day Parade rehearsals and moving heavy vehicles during peak hour would be very irresponsible.
I would appreciate any clarification from those responsible and I would also like to see more effective measures taken in the future.
Possible Reasons why they were rejected...
Consider the rights of Cyclists
Dated May 24th 2007
I refer to Thomas Lee Zhi Zhi’s letter Planners would do well to walk the talk before allowing cyclists on footpaths. I think his letter has some valid points but he misses out on a few things.
Firstly, while I agree that bicycles may cause harm whether physically or mentally when it collides or zips past you, his description of the harm bicycles may cause is exaggerated. He states that a bicycle “has many parts that protrude out which could cause injury, maybe even fatal ones”. I would like to remind him that these are bicycles, not chariots. Also, if hypothetically bicycles were that dangerous, what about supermarket trolleys pushed by inattentive and inconsiderate shoppers?
Secondly, I think he is making a hasty generalization that the “easy route” is taken to conclude that cyclists should be taken off the road. Surely situational factors have been taken into consideration and that no fundamental attribution error is committed. Before making such accusations, I believe that Mr. Lee should put himself into the shoes of the cyclists and motorists.
Cycling is not exactly the most stable mode of transportation as there are many factors that could render it dangerous. It is not always stable riding a bicycle and cycling in that manner on the roads is dangerous. For an inexperienced or elderly person cycling on a road, it too can be “harrowing experience” when a big bus or truck zips past. So, would it now be better off letting the cyclist be susceptible to such danger?
On the other hand, if you were to put yourself into the shoes of a motorist, you will realize how inconvenient it is having to share the road with a cyclist. Both of you are unsure of who exactly has the right of way. In addition, as the motorist, you constantly get tormented by thoughts such as the cyclist falling into your path or your vehicle side swiping the cyclist. Most of the time, motorists would patiently (or at least they try to be) follow behind closely or ponder a lane change. This holds up traffic, thereby causing time wastage and in some sense financial loss.
Perhaps, you might think of banning cycling altogether since it attracts such problems. However, you also have to take into consideration that not everyone is able to afford a car and that it is the preferred transportation for many. As pointed out in other letters, it is also an environmentally friendly mode of transportation as well as a way to fit in some exercise. Therefore it would be wrong to ban cycling, as it would indirectly be a form of discrimination.
The third point I’d like to highlight in Mr. Lee’s letter pertains to the question of how established footpath rules would be enforced. I think while the government has done its part in the aggressive campaigning to generate awareness, it would be irresponsible of us to expect the government to come up with another campaign in regards to this issue. There should be a line drawn between what is legally tolerant and what is legally intolerant, and such an issue (I feel) does warrant legal toleration. We cannot expect the government to spoon feed us everything. Instead of rules governing what is permissible along footpaths, we should perhaps revert back to the age-old method of common sense and courtesy?
The main point of my letter is that it is easy to criticize policies but one should also take into consideration the factors of the other party. I acknowledge that I have not highlighted the opinions of those who are affected by the cyclists, but these issues have already been raised. There are many ways to solve such problems. In regards to busy footpaths and cyclists, perhaps it should be widened to allow more traffic. Another idea would be to incorporate bicycle lanes in areas where cyclists are a common sight. These are examples of ideas that have been implemented in other countries and have been proven to work. Everyone has their own opinion but it is essential that there should be a compromise. After all, we are human and we live in a civilized society.
Clarification Needed for the Road Block on the AYE during Peak Hours
Dated 15th July 2007
I was in a cab along the AYE at about 7pm when I saw many police cars and traffic police. Initially upon sight of some heavy vehicles such as low loaders, I wondered if they were moving these heavy vehicles at the wrong time. However, as we approached and went past the section that overlooked the marina, I was surprised to see all four lanes blocked by heavy vehicles and police cars. I was thankful that it was the other side that was blocked rather than my side as I was in a hurry. In spite of that, it occurred to me that I could not find any reason why there was such a massive road block.
Firstly, with Singapore’s roads already so congested, why is there a need to have such a massive road block on the expressway? There is a ripple effect as vehicles pile up, and it makes it worse that these vehicles are unable to turn around or exit anywhere along that stretch. A small accident in one lane is already bad enough to cause a jam that takes a long time to clear, and the magnitude of the jam caused by blocking all the lanes must be very frustrating. Why was there no contingency plan in place?
Secondly, has anyone spared a thought for those who desperately need to get to places? I saw many cabs stuck in the jam and if I were in the shoes of the passengers stuck in that jam, I would probably lose my temper. Just imagine those who were heading to the airport to catch their flight!
Thirdly, were attempts to inform the public about this inconvenience adequate and/or effective? I did a survey with a representative random sample, and my findings show that only 2 out of about 50 actually knew about the road block. These 2 just happen to be cab drivers who only knew about it by getting stuck in that jam themselves. Hence it seems that whatever measures taken are questionable.
Lastly, what is the reason for the road block? I cannot see how it would affect the National Day Parade rehearsals and moving heavy vehicles during peak hour would be very irresponsible.
I would appreciate any clarification from those responsible and I would also like to see more effective measures taken in the future.
Possible Reasons why they were rejected...
- In the first one, I would have made the poor guy look like a fool after my rebuking of his arguments
- I used a bit too much sarcasm
- I might have criticized the government in the second one (which I'm lucky I haven't gotten a letter that required me to go to court)
- They've heard too much from me
- I might have overlooked other responses
- Timing
There are other reasons such as the fact that they are often flooded with letters, but I won't accept that. Anyway, I'll continue writing in more. I think my next letter would be something rather controversial.
Monday, June 04, 2007
The Importance of Self
There is a profound importance of the self. In Western societies, individualism is a valued quality in a person as it shows how capable among many things, a person is. On the other hand, in the collectivist Eastern societies, despite the high emphasis placed upon groups and relationships, the reputation of the individual is a direct reflection of his group. In both cases, the individual is an object, observed and perceived by the others. More specifically, as stated by J.P. Sartre in his book “Being and Nothingness,” it is the nature of the individual that is being perceived by the others that matters. It is this very nature that distinguishes your existence as either a subject or an object.
Before we begin to examine the contributing factors of nature, perhaps it is best we distinguish the difference between subject and object. First of all, if one is classified as an object, he would be much like the surrounding objects. There would be a void of any significance and he would simply blend in with the scenery. Alternatively, the person who is objectified may also be handled like goods. Slaves for example, were human beings objectified and used as currency in the imperialistic empires. They had no personality, no culture, no rights, and had a number value attached. The relationship would be analogous to the relationship between a person and money. Nothing distinctively makes the person anything more than a material good, an object.
In contrast, one who is a subject would be of some importance and would function relative to the world. If I were to walk into a convenience store to buy something, the cashier at hand would be a subject. He would be a subject because he is in relation to me in the sense that he supplies me with what I want, and deducts some money from my bank account in return. His interaction with you and his relationship with you qualify his subjectivity. It is a general consensus that you are the customer while he is the cashier, and you both interact in relation to the roles. There is also a mutual perception of each other’s existence, which is important in the determination of subjectivity.
The nature of an individual depends on a variety of factors. Sartre implies in the excerpt that the nature of a person is conferred by the other. In other words, your nature is somewhat given to you by another. Sartre explains that it is impossible when you are alone, to realize your “being seated”, nature and existence. In addition, your nature is “for the Other”. It is not so much that you live for others, but rather what impression or nature you give of yourself, and what you want or hope for others to perceive. In that sense, due to your pre-determination to shape your nature, it can be said that your nature is given. However, this can happen in a variety of ways that is subtle enough not to grab attention. These variety of factors, simply take place as per normal, and your nature is shaped with you somewhat unaware.
The first factor would be the idea of role playing. It is by no means in direct reference to a play, but the concept is quite similar. The only difference is that these roles are roles that are given in reality, where you are required to function in these roles consistently. Sometimes these roles would come naturally, while other times, they come by appointment. The simplest form of this can be found in children where a first born child has to adapt to the birth of a new sibling. He takes on a new role as an older brother. Previously nonchalant, this child adopts in his nature care taking roles and more attention to the needs of others. This changes the nature of the child and it would be evident that this child has a different self from an only child who has no opportunity to nurture these characteristics.
Roles can also be appointed to people and it is inevitable that these people would sooner rather than later adapt to their roles. Again, this shows how ‘given’ the nature of human beings is. There was an experiment conducted by Psychologist Philip Zimbardo in 1971, called the Stanford Prison Experiment where volunteers for the study were assigned either a prison guard or a prisoner role. There they would act out the duties respectively for a certain period of time. This experiment had to be concluded prematurely as the volunteers assigned to be prison guards started taking on that role almost permanently, being abusive and aggressive towards their fellow volunteers who were assigned as prisoners. This shows how the nature of a person can be changed by the assignment of roles. Thus, the nature of a person is given and not wholly controlled by the person assigned the role.
On a personal level, I have also been in a role before, particularly one in a leadership position. When I was serving in the army, I worked my way up to a junior officer rank of second lieutenant. Complementing my rank was my appointment as platoon commander of a platoon in an elite unit. There were high standards to uphold and it was in the nature of the officers to be gung ho and strict with the subordinates. As a result, upon taking up this role, I became aggressive, quick-tempered, and anal. I soon absorbed within the culture of the unit. I accepted nothing lower than the best, and would punish anyone severely for attempting to break the rules, slacken in standard or showing dissent. Once, as we were marching back after a 7 day field camp where the troops were involved in intense mini battles and drills, I became agitated at the state of the men. It was my policy that despite the obvious lethargy and fatigue, the troops had to show that they were still fresh and to display high morale. Unfortunately that did not happen and I punished them severely. I made them march six kilometers, carrying fifteen to twenty kilograms worth of weight on their backs, and rifles over their heads. In addition, I was constantly abusing them verbally, yelling at their weakness and questioning their integrity. That display from me was not typical of my behavior and in retrospect, it was due to the atmosphere and the surroundings. It was the other that influenced my nature in such an aggressive manner. In this case, the self was another self, and the self was for the other.
Another factor that affects one’s nature is his status. More specifically, this factor is the status of whether one is a success or a failure. When acquainted with success, many can be brain washed and change their nature. Their perception of the world changes with success, and sadly, many choose to flaunt their success. These people pay little or no attention to the things around them and it would be in their nature to do things that “successful people do”. If they were once a poor pauper, they would usually show no resemblance to that “ugly past” and would only associate themselves with those who are similar in nature. The successful nature would be their frame of reference.
Conversely, there are those subjected to failure. Of course it does not necessarily mean that the person would act in opposition to one who is successful. Quite so often these people pick themselves up to try to excel, and learn from their past mistakes. This would usually be a revelation to them in character, in nature. Those who choose to pick up the pieces would grow in strength, and they would have a stronger and more determined self. Moreover, they would understand the feeling of hardship, and not take things or granted. In addition, more often than not, these people tend to share their knowledge to help others. In this scenario however, it is still not the person entirely changing his nature, although it would be comparatively. In essence, it is still the fact that he feels a need to give back to society and his former plight that reshapes his nature into one so generous.
Shame is another big factor in one’s nature. Sartre writes that shame is a perception of yourself as a nature. It is your perception of yourself in negative light. It is a revelation of your flaws seen by others. This makes you self-conscious of your nature. Humiliation after all, can be quite damaging. Take the family of the Virginia Tech shooter, Cho Seung Hui. They have to live in shame that their son is responsible for the highest casualty campus shooting in the modern history of the United States of America. They live in shame because he is closely related to them. As an individual, it is his self that is a reflection of his immediate group – his family. This brings about the shame and would alter their nature. They would perhaps be trying to make it up to the community in certain ways such as community service, but still, this nature will never be washed away.
In role playing, success and (in some situations) failure, it can be seen how much of a subject each person would make themselves out to be. They would instill it within their nature of their subjectivity. Their relations with everyone else would be subjective as these are usually the people that influence others. Their behaviors are usually what others want to emulate and their natures are sought after. On the other hand, failure and shame would cause one to be an object as no one would pay much attention to them. They would be seen as scum of the earth and be left on the streets to rot. These people usually are ostracized and usually keep to themselves. Thus, in that sense, their given nature is objectified, and they have lost their selves.
This world functions on perception. If not, there would be no need for decorations, designs, and technology. People would not be ambitious and we would still live in caves. However, it is in our nature to perceive, and sometimes we even perceive things that are dreams. If we perceive them as reality, perhaps it might lead to another betterment of life in new techniques or technology. It is our need to influence others to perceive us in a good light that causes the drastic change in nature. The self, is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “the union of elements (as body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations) that constitute the individuality of a person”. This further justifies the factors that affect our nature and self, highlighting the importance of the self being a subject and not an object.
Before we begin to examine the contributing factors of nature, perhaps it is best we distinguish the difference between subject and object. First of all, if one is classified as an object, he would be much like the surrounding objects. There would be a void of any significance and he would simply blend in with the scenery. Alternatively, the person who is objectified may also be handled like goods. Slaves for example, were human beings objectified and used as currency in the imperialistic empires. They had no personality, no culture, no rights, and had a number value attached. The relationship would be analogous to the relationship between a person and money. Nothing distinctively makes the person anything more than a material good, an object.
In contrast, one who is a subject would be of some importance and would function relative to the world. If I were to walk into a convenience store to buy something, the cashier at hand would be a subject. He would be a subject because he is in relation to me in the sense that he supplies me with what I want, and deducts some money from my bank account in return. His interaction with you and his relationship with you qualify his subjectivity. It is a general consensus that you are the customer while he is the cashier, and you both interact in relation to the roles. There is also a mutual perception of each other’s existence, which is important in the determination of subjectivity.
The nature of an individual depends on a variety of factors. Sartre implies in the excerpt that the nature of a person is conferred by the other. In other words, your nature is somewhat given to you by another. Sartre explains that it is impossible when you are alone, to realize your “being seated”, nature and existence. In addition, your nature is “for the Other”. It is not so much that you live for others, but rather what impression or nature you give of yourself, and what you want or hope for others to perceive. In that sense, due to your pre-determination to shape your nature, it can be said that your nature is given. However, this can happen in a variety of ways that is subtle enough not to grab attention. These variety of factors, simply take place as per normal, and your nature is shaped with you somewhat unaware.
The first factor would be the idea of role playing. It is by no means in direct reference to a play, but the concept is quite similar. The only difference is that these roles are roles that are given in reality, where you are required to function in these roles consistently. Sometimes these roles would come naturally, while other times, they come by appointment. The simplest form of this can be found in children where a first born child has to adapt to the birth of a new sibling. He takes on a new role as an older brother. Previously nonchalant, this child adopts in his nature care taking roles and more attention to the needs of others. This changes the nature of the child and it would be evident that this child has a different self from an only child who has no opportunity to nurture these characteristics.
Roles can also be appointed to people and it is inevitable that these people would sooner rather than later adapt to their roles. Again, this shows how ‘given’ the nature of human beings is. There was an experiment conducted by Psychologist Philip Zimbardo in 1971, called the Stanford Prison Experiment where volunteers for the study were assigned either a prison guard or a prisoner role. There they would act out the duties respectively for a certain period of time. This experiment had to be concluded prematurely as the volunteers assigned to be prison guards started taking on that role almost permanently, being abusive and aggressive towards their fellow volunteers who were assigned as prisoners. This shows how the nature of a person can be changed by the assignment of roles. Thus, the nature of a person is given and not wholly controlled by the person assigned the role.
On a personal level, I have also been in a role before, particularly one in a leadership position. When I was serving in the army, I worked my way up to a junior officer rank of second lieutenant. Complementing my rank was my appointment as platoon commander of a platoon in an elite unit. There were high standards to uphold and it was in the nature of the officers to be gung ho and strict with the subordinates. As a result, upon taking up this role, I became aggressive, quick-tempered, and anal. I soon absorbed within the culture of the unit. I accepted nothing lower than the best, and would punish anyone severely for attempting to break the rules, slacken in standard or showing dissent. Once, as we were marching back after a 7 day field camp where the troops were involved in intense mini battles and drills, I became agitated at the state of the men. It was my policy that despite the obvious lethargy and fatigue, the troops had to show that they were still fresh and to display high morale. Unfortunately that did not happen and I punished them severely. I made them march six kilometers, carrying fifteen to twenty kilograms worth of weight on their backs, and rifles over their heads. In addition, I was constantly abusing them verbally, yelling at their weakness and questioning their integrity. That display from me was not typical of my behavior and in retrospect, it was due to the atmosphere and the surroundings. It was the other that influenced my nature in such an aggressive manner. In this case, the self was another self, and the self was for the other.
Another factor that affects one’s nature is his status. More specifically, this factor is the status of whether one is a success or a failure. When acquainted with success, many can be brain washed and change their nature. Their perception of the world changes with success, and sadly, many choose to flaunt their success. These people pay little or no attention to the things around them and it would be in their nature to do things that “successful people do”. If they were once a poor pauper, they would usually show no resemblance to that “ugly past” and would only associate themselves with those who are similar in nature. The successful nature would be their frame of reference.
Conversely, there are those subjected to failure. Of course it does not necessarily mean that the person would act in opposition to one who is successful. Quite so often these people pick themselves up to try to excel, and learn from their past mistakes. This would usually be a revelation to them in character, in nature. Those who choose to pick up the pieces would grow in strength, and they would have a stronger and more determined self. Moreover, they would understand the feeling of hardship, and not take things or granted. In addition, more often than not, these people tend to share their knowledge to help others. In this scenario however, it is still not the person entirely changing his nature, although it would be comparatively. In essence, it is still the fact that he feels a need to give back to society and his former plight that reshapes his nature into one so generous.
Shame is another big factor in one’s nature. Sartre writes that shame is a perception of yourself as a nature. It is your perception of yourself in negative light. It is a revelation of your flaws seen by others. This makes you self-conscious of your nature. Humiliation after all, can be quite damaging. Take the family of the Virginia Tech shooter, Cho Seung Hui. They have to live in shame that their son is responsible for the highest casualty campus shooting in the modern history of the United States of America. They live in shame because he is closely related to them. As an individual, it is his self that is a reflection of his immediate group – his family. This brings about the shame and would alter their nature. They would perhaps be trying to make it up to the community in certain ways such as community service, but still, this nature will never be washed away.
In role playing, success and (in some situations) failure, it can be seen how much of a subject each person would make themselves out to be. They would instill it within their nature of their subjectivity. Their relations with everyone else would be subjective as these are usually the people that influence others. Their behaviors are usually what others want to emulate and their natures are sought after. On the other hand, failure and shame would cause one to be an object as no one would pay much attention to them. They would be seen as scum of the earth and be left on the streets to rot. These people usually are ostracized and usually keep to themselves. Thus, in that sense, their given nature is objectified, and they have lost their selves.
This world functions on perception. If not, there would be no need for decorations, designs, and technology. People would not be ambitious and we would still live in caves. However, it is in our nature to perceive, and sometimes we even perceive things that are dreams. If we perceive them as reality, perhaps it might lead to another betterment of life in new techniques or technology. It is our need to influence others to perceive us in a good light that causes the drastic change in nature. The self, is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “the union of elements (as body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations) that constitute the individuality of a person”. This further justifies the factors that affect our nature and self, highlighting the importance of the self being a subject and not an object.
