My efforts at keeping to myself have been thwarted by many forces in my life, not least of which is my extraverted roommate. My customer service job also doesn't help of course. And the few friends that I do have expect me to hang out with them, and make me do stuff like join the local meetup group called "Socrates Cafe" where people talk about social problems and how to solve them. These people can be so full of themselves -- they can't get over their sense of superiority over what they see as the uneducated or unintelligent masses (which is pretty much anyone who is not part of the meetup group). As if getting together once a week to chat ever solved anything. Of course, they are also smart enough to realize they are just doing this for their own pleasure as a kind of mental masturbation, and not necessarily to help change anything. I for one am not a big believer in activism, but many of them seem to be activist wannabes, only they are too busy or lazy.
Anyway, all cynicism aside, I wanted to say that I really have a hard time writing. I am a consumer of words, not a producer. It takes a tremendous amount of effort for me to articulate my thoughts, which is also part of why going to the socrates cafe is frustrating sometimes. And of course it is one of the biggest reasons why this blog has few entries. I find writing exhausting. Thoughts are more fluid and fast, but words drag me down. They want to confine me and make me rethink and restate and reanalyze every thought that is worth expressing. I'm just not that word-y.
But to get back on topic here about solitude. I was unemployed for a while, and so I did get to spend a few months alone without constant contact with co-workers, friends, and strangers. I don't watch TV, but I do go online to read the news and blogs and nutrition/health stuff. I realized that even that is just a lot of noise in the head. I tried to cut that down further and noticed that I was restless and anxious without my daily dose of favorite webpages. Eventually, I trained myself to follow a strict routine of getting up in the morning, having a healthy breakfast of oatmeal and tea, listening to classical music while doing some light chores around the apartment. Classical music soothes my soul, calms me down, helps me focus on the present and keeps me from constantly thinking of lists of things to do.
Then I would sit in my porch under the sun, and meditate for an hour or two, until lunch time calls for a cooking session. Idle days. They were wonderful. I think everyone should get the opportunity to experience solitude without the daily pressure of meeting other people's expectations whether at work or home. To be continued.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Friday, June 5, 2009
Solitude
I have decided to enjoy, appreciate, and cultivate solitude in order to maintain my sanity and peace of mind. I hope it will also help me think more clearly about the nature of reality. People and their cultures can distort one's perception of truth, and I no longer wish to be guided by other people's delusions, illusions, and unexamined assumptions.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
On god
The ontological argument for the existence of god is weak because it is a bare assertions fallacy. The argument is that you can make an a priori conclusion that god exists just by using intuition and reason alone. Saying that god exists because people throughout history have thought so is also an ad populum fallacy. A good alternative explanation to why people throughout history have believed in god is this: it was humanity's first attempt at science because the human mind needs explanations for why anything happens in the world. Science has successfully thwarted religion's supernatural explanations for natural disasters, and today religion can only appeal to the god of the gaps (as well as comfort, I will grant).
A debate
The other day, I watched a debate between William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan about whether God is necessary for morality. I thought Kagan won the debate. His argument was simple: just because I have no cosmic significance does not mean I have no significance at all. He also struck down Craig's moral relativism attack by arguing about the “veil of ignorance” approach to creating a social contract.
The reasonable religious
I value rationality and reasonableness over sentimentality and reactionary communication. Most people that I have found to be reasonable and rational have been non-religious or people with a christian background. But I fear falling into the trap of thinking that all Muslims are unreasonable by virtue of being Muslim. I fear that Muslims may view me as disloyal for favoring the western religion over Islam.
However, I must argue that it is true that you can be a highly reasonable Christian, because Christianity goes back deeper into antiquity than Islam, and therefore allows for flexible interpretation. There have been millenia of Christian scholars who have tried to reconcile Christianity with the secular philosophical tradition, thus allowing for radical changes in how individuals relate to god and the bible. This hasn't happened in the Quran, and it cannot happen in the Quran because by definition, a Muslim believes that it is the direct word of God. A rational Christian on the other hand, does not believe that the bible is the direct word of god. There are few who do, but they realize full well that there are multiple authors who were inspired to write the various books in the bible crossing a vast expanse of time. The Muslim on the other hand has to believe that the Quran was revealed word for word in Muhammad's lifetime. This makes Islam much more rigid, and leaves little room for flexible interpretation of its origins, content, and intent.
However, I must argue that it is true that you can be a highly reasonable Christian, because Christianity goes back deeper into antiquity than Islam, and therefore allows for flexible interpretation. There have been millenia of Christian scholars who have tried to reconcile Christianity with the secular philosophical tradition, thus allowing for radical changes in how individuals relate to god and the bible. This hasn't happened in the Quran, and it cannot happen in the Quran because by definition, a Muslim believes that it is the direct word of God. A rational Christian on the other hand, does not believe that the bible is the direct word of god. There are few who do, but they realize full well that there are multiple authors who were inspired to write the various books in the bible crossing a vast expanse of time. The Muslim on the other hand has to believe that the Quran was revealed word for word in Muhammad's lifetime. This makes Islam much more rigid, and leaves little room for flexible interpretation of its origins, content, and intent.
Laziness and Socialism
One of the most common arguments against providing food and shelter free for everyone in society is that people will slack off. The belief is that everyone of us secretly wishes not to strive. Without food and shelter as incentives, the argument goes, people will turn into lazy sloths.
Let's grant that the argument is valid. What is so wrong about laziness? There are worse crimes in the world, and laziness in fact indicates a tendency towards calm repose. Slackers are too lazy to rob banks, rape, or murder. In a socialist society, violence and crime will likely decrease.
In reality however, even lazy people like to accomplish something from time to time, as it is boring to be lazy all day long. A lazy person who spends a few hours doing nothing, may feel stirred up to create or do something useful in small bursts. This breeds efficiency because the new action is full of motivation and energy. Believe me, I speak from experience.
We all know someone who finds ways to slack off sneakily to avoid being caught by the boss. Most of us are guilty of that at some period of our lives, because the hours we spend at stifling workplaces breeds inefficiency and laziness. We try to escape the tedium at work by amusing ourselves with either video games or gossip, and it is very possible that the average white collar employee only works 4 hours in a typical 8 hour shift. This is not so different from our hypothetical slacker's acheivements mentioned above.
It is not fair to argue that if people didn't work, we wouldn't have enough food to distribute to everyone. Food is the biggest motivator for work, and there is more than enough of it to feed the entire human population for generations to come.
Let's grant that the argument is valid. What is so wrong about laziness? There are worse crimes in the world, and laziness in fact indicates a tendency towards calm repose. Slackers are too lazy to rob banks, rape, or murder. In a socialist society, violence and crime will likely decrease.
In reality however, even lazy people like to accomplish something from time to time, as it is boring to be lazy all day long. A lazy person who spends a few hours doing nothing, may feel stirred up to create or do something useful in small bursts. This breeds efficiency because the new action is full of motivation and energy. Believe me, I speak from experience.
We all know someone who finds ways to slack off sneakily to avoid being caught by the boss. Most of us are guilty of that at some period of our lives, because the hours we spend at stifling workplaces breeds inefficiency and laziness. We try to escape the tedium at work by amusing ourselves with either video games or gossip, and it is very possible that the average white collar employee only works 4 hours in a typical 8 hour shift. This is not so different from our hypothetical slacker's acheivements mentioned above.
It is not fair to argue that if people didn't work, we wouldn't have enough food to distribute to everyone. Food is the biggest motivator for work, and there is more than enough of it to feed the entire human population for generations to come.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Hitler and Hell
I was thinking about one of the arguments for the existence of god and the afterlife: how do you process Hitler in your mind without the concept of eternal punishment and accountability? My mom has often brought up this argument and it has always bothered me on several levels, though I've never been able to fully articulate why in the heat of the moment because I fully share the sentiment that bad people should be punished.
The 'Hitler deserves hell' argument for the existence of god and the afterlife is basically an appeal to consequences of a belief, which is a logical fallacy. Nonetheless, in case my opponent remains unconvinced, I have written down various counter-arguments that will speak to hir train of thought. Punishing Hitler after his death is useless because:
a) It would not detract one iota from the suffering of the people he tortured and it would not undo what already occurred.
b) How much should Hitler be tortured in hell and for how long? Should it be the equivalent of the experiences of one of his victims or should it be repeated until all the victims are accounted for? I don't think that an eternity of punishment for finite actions is fair.
c) Even if the punishment teaches Hitler a lesson, it is too late for him to be learning the lesson because he is already dead and his actions no longer have consequences.
d) Punishing him may satisfy the souls of the people he killed, but that satisfaction is merely the base sentiment of revenge which should not exist in a holy place like heaven, in the presence of god.
e) Hitler was not solely responsible for all the tortures and deaths. He was able to do so much damage with the help of a lot of people. So you can't give him an undue amount of credit and ascribe him an undue level of monstrosity.
f) Hitler was mentally unstable, so can you fairly and squarely place all the blame on him? What about blaming his creator?
g) Hitler most likely suffered most of his life with mental anguish, and he definitely did not get off "scott-free" because he did commit suicide.
h) The notion that the expectation of punishment will prevent people from committing crimes is false because we have been jailing and shunning god-fearing rapists, murderers, and pedophiles for a long time, and they still commit crimes (often even after being released from prison).
The 'Hitler deserves hell' argument for the existence of god and the afterlife is basically an appeal to consequences of a belief, which is a logical fallacy. Nonetheless, in case my opponent remains unconvinced, I have written down various counter-arguments that will speak to hir train of thought. Punishing Hitler after his death is useless because:
a) It would not detract one iota from the suffering of the people he tortured and it would not undo what already occurred.
b) How much should Hitler be tortured in hell and for how long? Should it be the equivalent of the experiences of one of his victims or should it be repeated until all the victims are accounted for? I don't think that an eternity of punishment for finite actions is fair.
c) Even if the punishment teaches Hitler a lesson, it is too late for him to be learning the lesson because he is already dead and his actions no longer have consequences.
d) Punishing him may satisfy the souls of the people he killed, but that satisfaction is merely the base sentiment of revenge which should not exist in a holy place like heaven, in the presence of god.
e) Hitler was not solely responsible for all the tortures and deaths. He was able to do so much damage with the help of a lot of people. So you can't give him an undue amount of credit and ascribe him an undue level of monstrosity.
f) Hitler was mentally unstable, so can you fairly and squarely place all the blame on him? What about blaming his creator?
g) Hitler most likely suffered most of his life with mental anguish, and he definitely did not get off "scott-free" because he did commit suicide.
h) The notion that the expectation of punishment will prevent people from committing crimes is false because we have been jailing and shunning god-fearing rapists, murderers, and pedophiles for a long time, and they still commit crimes (often even after being released from prison).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)