Euthyphro

Plato's short dialogue on piety culminates in negatives; its greatest insight is to expose the fundamental incompatibilities of two disparate cosmological propositions: that of a universally valid standard of meaning and the good, against the standards seen to derive from the caprices of the Greek pantheon. This contradiction has come to be known as the Euthyphro's dilemma.

However, the present interest lies in the fact that this incompatibility was not in itself the main focus at the point where it was raised. Socrates introduced the issue in his attempts to examine and disprove Euthyphro's assertion that the pious is that which is God-loved. For simplicity's sake, we will take that to mean that a necessary but insufficient aspect of the pious, is that it is God-loved.

Socrates's arguments run as such:

1. A thing is God-loved because God loves the thing, not because it is inherently God-loved. (The adverb sequentially succeeds the verb. Being God-loved is not a quality inherent in the thing).

2. The pious is God-loved because of its piousness. (Being God-loved is a quality inherent in the definition of piousness).

3. From 2, it follows that (all?) God-loved things are God-loved because they are inherently God-loved.

4. This in opposition to 1., therefore only one of the statements, 1 or 2, can be true; being mutually exclusive, they cannot be true at the same time.

Now, the fishy points in the argument lie in 2 and 3. It becomes apparent after some thought that in the course of the argument, Socrates must commit the implicit assumption that if piousness was pious not because of God's love (but due to some external standard), then God's love of piousness must derive not from God's act of loving, but from the implicit inherency of God's love as a quality in the thing. In other words, it assumes that the only way in which God can love the pious is if that which God-loves (namely, the pious) was, in essence the God-loved. By that score, nothing that is God-loved can be anything else but THE God-loved. Again, in other words, it assumes the truth of the bracketed statement in thread 2 of the above argument, when of course, requiring God's love by definition certainly does not mean in any way that something is God-loved in its original state. It is a complex form of the age-old straw man fallacy.

This would then trap Euthyphro in the depths of the Euthyphro dilemma which is in fact not bound up directly with the argument at hand.

Musing

If the reason of the founding of a city is the recognition that mutual benefit, materially and in terms of security, can arise, then the basis of the necessity of noble lie must lie in the belief that the established rational basis for the allocation of power within the city is precarious against human greed and striving.

By associating the citizens of the city with a higher order, the noble lie widens the range of those whom the individual identifies with as his own to include the whole city, thereby dissipating self-interest. However, this is but a preparative to Socrates's wider goal to dispel material wants completely within the perfect city. The identities of clan and self contain tacit boundaries which exclude those beyond; in such divisions lie the source and justification of private possession, both of knowledge and of goods. Socrates significantly neglects the needs of the body in attempting to reshape the way citizens expect their needs to be met in the city; he realizes that the bodily wants, of which a majority are in a nature of private goods, reconciles human greed with human selfishness; poisons the nature of identity and man's need to belong. Socrates overhauls both the impacts of identities on men's choices and the identities themselves.

The new identities Socrates propose attach themselves along the defining characteristics of vocation and their attending class. The mode of creation, rather than consumption and need, becomes the flag to which men rally by. He lends it the allure of divine fulfillment, aiding men's necessarily selfconscious tempering of his bodily wants.

At this point however, one must consider if Socrates indeed saw moderation as a virtue worthy of huge sacrifices beyond the material, or if the impetus to turn his citizens into purely political creatures reached an end in itself. For it would be surely draconian and unjustifiable to go to such lengths, indeed, breach the limits of human nature, in the name of moderation. Perhaps Socrates attempted to align human lifestyles to divinely virtue, therefore requiring religious observance in his subjects.

The necessity of the noble lie should be debated as well. Enlightenment thinkers believed in channeling of human self interest into activities that would fulfill an alternative set of moralities and result in mutual benefit. The worker and the consumer benefits. In contrast, the noble lie seeks to limit the meaning and concept of the consumer. Socrates attempts to reverse the demand and supply driven relationship between consumer and worker; in his city, the consumer exists for the worker. Such a lie is therefore necessary, it seems, if human survival and human invirtue derive from the same source, bringing forth yet another example of Platonic tragicomedy. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen if the replacement of self-interest with self-neglecting loyalty marks any real progress.

In certain conceptions of Enlightenment societies, the "common good" does not extend beyond the sum of individual good. Society merely acts as enforcers of laws that maximize individual good. For Plato, individual benefit is sacrificed in the name of checks and balances against injustice. Therefore it must arise out of a deep suspicion of the citizens in the city; a strong belief in their potential to be corrupted and manipulated. In proposing draconian static laws, the role of institutions are diminished into enforcers: warriors, not philosophers.

BATMAN!

Since everyone, everyone, everyone is blogging about how adverb-defyingly GOOD Batman the movie is, I would have pressured myself to differ. But, but, my blogger's honesty will not give in. Batman is a very good show. (I mean the Dark Knight.) (Spoilers ahead).

Good. Nolan is smart and savvy. Not completely, consistently so. His relative inexperience shows, I suppose, in the unnecessary audio dramaticisms in certain scenes. But there is no doubt that for someone who popularizes the dilemmas of ethics by making them an integral part of the understanding and enjoyment of the movie- from its own characters, to its implications for the audience, to the taunting means of engaging the audience itself, thereby in effect casting a mirror in its closeup shots of characters- there is little doubt that Nolan has read his canonical texts.

The movie's ethical and narrative approach is straightforward enough- we unanimously support and approve of Batman- this often in opposition to the people of Gotham City Therefore, politically placed as one of the hapless in Gotham but situationally privileged to obtain Batman's view of events, the movie can assert its points to its audience; cram out its insights in a clockwork manner.

For instance, the death of the woman as a turning point. It signals the irremediable shift from the personal to the political for Batman- he becomes the perfect political creature that the attorney Dent could never become. Dent needed a personal reward for political virtue which Batman was adept to living without. Therefore, the change in Dent. And the last straw for Batman; his 9/11 moment. Obviously, this in turn signals the shift from the focus of this superhero movie, and such movies perhaps in general, away from the personal issues of the hero to the political, and the universal, which the movie did, through the introduction of ethics, and personal/social order vs disorder.

If Batman had achieved an insight of social relevance, it could only have done so in such a fictional setting; through the beauty of superhero cinema that dispensed with the realisms of human abilities, leaving the viewer with few demands of conventional norms of human differentiation such as class. The fluidity and fragility of the upper class of Gotham is felt throughout in a way that cannot mirror the real world; this is possible due to the distortions in human ability assumed in the show. Without these fictions, the moral situations would have been difficult to imagine. The movie lends them both the weight and realism of real situations; rarely have real-world issues been made more pressing by a movie's analogies.

So. Now I suppose I know why Batman is a greater superhero than superman or spiderman.

Routine Retrospective

Of course, I need hardly state that blogging is a life buoy for the sinking flesh of my mental state. I write at the desperate moments; only at the desperate moments, or the appropriately elated ones, charged with beams of hope that burn bright but falter and cease at the first real obstructions.

Blogging contains an element of both.

When the constant pang of need, the deafening hums of hurt pride; not feelings, for they are immediately aroused, with the effect of a injection of sugar or salt- how superficial!- when the surrounding edifice encloses you within its shrinking walls, you had best falter and pretend nothing wrong existed by blogging. By blogging, trusting the truth of your words as the world folds its possibilities like a blanket under your fingers, shaped into a soothing path from the insanity that thuds the thunder of its war drums reverberating through the dark of the darkening forest.

I will wander through the protected circle of my mind, tracing the possibilities in a way that would never materialize, unconscious of the flaws; never needing to awaken to a nightmare- posing as a detached mode, the patch you land where you fall from yourself. The quiet breathed alone darkness.

................................................Why do people blog about their lives?

No.No.No. I'd rather have nothing at all. It's better than the dark.

Cut And Paste Article

Since I have no time to post sufficiently, I'll repeat a recent reply I made. Its content is more in the nature of an independent post anyway.

"And no, I don't have a viable alternative to an inviability. Neither am I advocating that Singapore should stop being an independent country."

Really?

I would think that your arguments and principles will force you towards that conclusion, as it has for me, unless you really feel that a small state like Singapore can reconcile your (and mine too) ideas of what states should protect with its own need for survival. As it is, I can’t foresee any solution that you might have in mind, besides overthrowing the PAP.

In other words, you still attribute many of the atrocities against human rights to choices made by the government, while I believe that it is a slightly more indirect process. For me, Singapore’s existence, brought about by the PAP, itself relies on violations.

You may not advocate Singapore’s independence, but I grant you will advocate opportunities for open discussions on the value of Singapore’s independence. If the existence of the state itself necessitates large scale measures like conscription, then I don’t see why independence should remain uncontested as a policy itself. And if issues like these do remain uncontestable, wherein lies the value of independence? On social and economic grounds?

The point is that the PAP itself knows that Singaporean independence is merely a calculation, a matter of policy. LKY would gladly merge with Malaysia if it came to practice meritocracy, or if economic situations somehow change. For me, it is the inability of the media (or common discourse) to demystify Singaporean nationalism and thus not render the subject of Singaporean independence taboo, that the greatest curbs to open discussion of Singapore’s most oppressive policies come. We have to discuss policies in that larger context, in that more permissible environment. If not, the opposition, and maybe Molly, will be on the losing side, accused either of illogicality and childishness, or treason (ironic).

After all, even LKY has breached the subject in a candid way. I think that’s proof enough. Thank god I’ll be leaving for a UK education after NS.

Some Thoughts

Suicide is an amazing thing. Borne of desire to release oneself of his soul, the encroaching fire of living, people descend into the frosts of unfeeling death, smiling, rejecting the life that they have been forced to be given.

I suppose that there are several methods to force life out of themselves. Crumpling under the force of the train seemed to be irreverent and irresponsible (they are the same). But on further reflection, you will agree that it is a symbolically right method to end your life.

Obstructing the greater forces, and thudding along the wheels of the carriages strong with men's heels. Filling into a red spring that outlines the trails of wheel's progress. And mixing with the the forgotten dust that sift in the wind.

Random Muse

Philosophies which I do not comprehend often extend the description of the causal interrelationships between physical objects to imply that they are the consequence of the essential oneness of things. It requires a coagulating similarity to include everything, and this forms the essence of the category's identity. Our selection of objects that lie within the realm of the physical is such an example, where the senses are employed for the purposes of classification of the object. Of course, the first sentence begs the complex question of which came first and caused the other (for our understanding, and then in truth, each different and possibly inversed). Only with such knowledge will we be able to answer questions raised by the second sentence.

Rant 2

Seeing that I have no fresh topic to write about, I will continue with my tiring analysis of the Chinese issue. I came across a pertinent article about the difference between what we classify as the Western approach to discourse and the Eastern one. In the article, a French philosopher made the claim that intellectuals in the West engaging in discourse had the propensity to apply self-criticism in the evaluation of their ideas, both in terms of the philosophic validity of their ends, and the effectiveness of the solutions proposed. Certainly, it is the prevalence of the former that clearly sets apart a progressive climate of discourse in the West from a relatively traditional one in the East. In China, the social and cultural curbs, arising from the doctrines of Confucianism and Communism that remained unchallenged publicly in the arena of rational debate, mark out the limits- consciously for only some- of the scope for intellectual contribution and by extension, the range of what is defined as intellectual and respected at all. Hence thinking is confined to the best ways to achieve accepted larger ends.

Obviously, my knowledge of China is shaky at best, but I think the social and political developments of the past 50 years or so do demonstrate the confusion in China over the ideas it came to adopt from the West, and even modern China's confusion over its dynastic ones. That Mao could push through disastrous policies (the Cultural Revolution) without ever having to purge his party officials to the degree that Stalin had to; for Chinese youths to reject simply the moral ideals that China even more simply held on to for centuries; for large sections of the populace to subscribe radically to a monarchic cult that mocked the substance of communism; and finally, for the focus of the entire population to change, after that spell of anarchic euphoria posing as ideological warfare, to the means of the capitalistic production it so fervently erased every glimpse of just ten years earlier. (Think about Russia).

To return to my earliest paragraph, the debatibilty of the fundamental philosophic issues- morality, the definition and desirability of justice applied in the political setting, the means to achieving the ideal city- these are the hallmarks of the advanced society over the traditional one. For these require the objectification of argument, the recognition that standards of judgment which stand apart from the subjective exist and should be respected. One no longer necessarily supports one's own clan, and expects his opponent to support his own; the fidelity to the standards themselves (morality, reason) become the judge against the position put forth. Therefore there is a recourse to truth, one that is argued into agreement, and therefore, criticism and self-criticism becomes an objective activity. For instance, an opponent might argue that your point is flawed, but we recognize that the reason lies in the failure of the argument to live up to some standard, rather than that the argument arose from you. Therefore, it (ideally) distinguishes criticism in debate from personal critique, which allows the focus of the argument to turn away from the individual to the issue. And philosophic questions indicate recognition of the underlying assumptions and values, those which are potentially most difficult to change.

Obviously, it would be an advancement if one were to recognize that such standards were valid, if only so for their utility.

Rise and Fall of China

In a recent play of events not entirely dissimilar to the events described in the previous article, Chinese netizens and Chinese in general have banded together as a race to protect what they wrongly perceive as an attack on their race or nation or mother China or whatever. (In my opinion, racism and historical animosity are working in the subconscious background, but are no means the primary reasons for protests as perceived, I think, by the Chinese).

We should be terrified that China is coming to power if a majority of Chinese perceive things this way. My toes are shaking in my army boots. (Its skin is slowly peeling like rotten kum quats sweating over a flame). Bacterial fear swell screeching through the agonized folds of my trapped brain.

It is an obvious truism that without a grounding in rational evaluation of ideas, people would necessarily turn to more instinctive means: support the group you belong to, ideology, race, religion. And perceive the attack to come from "the West" as well.

And, the modern Chinese only have backgrounds in two things: starvation and communism. Anything else is roped in; the ancient identification is very much an artificial thing. See what the youth of China did in the Cultural Revolution? The ideas did not matter to them; communism was enough. Now, the glorious past is too distant. Modern China takes its modernity from the West, but it does not digest its ideas. And it failed to claim or make its own in that stead.

And it uses the knowledge of the great past as a source of pride, not a source of wisdom. No; race replaces thought, or any re-evaluation of ideas. Recollections (a manipulated one) of the past will be more dangerous than beneficial. It will remind them of lost greatness, and greatness only.

As an overseas Chinese, I do not join the others in predicting greatness for China. Power unguided leads to madness. Greater power leads to greater freedom from economic constraints and considerations that bound the globalised world. And I wouldn't put too much faith in any sense of global community on the part of the Chinese young.

About The Controversial Cartoons

The Dutch are at it again. All too selfconsciously being the political equivalent of the avant garde, initiating a pilgrimage into the hellfire of human anger that desecrated sancity arouses. Their destination lies in the pasture of ideas beyond, ideas that ascend above the sea of untided emotion to give man to appreciate the sovereign rights of man; to glide us through the winds on the wingtips of freedom with the vantage view of ourselves below.

The fundamental rights of man predicates on the premise that no free will should be coerced out of its freedom of thought or speech by the force of another independent of one's own. The Dutch cartoons were directed assertions of that principle in a continent where heightened sensitivity to racial and religious taboos has induced self-censorship in the discussion of issues such as immigration and terrorism.

But the fact that the promotion of free speech, a brilliantly conceived idea, had led to such insoluble quandries was highly intriguing, at first. Of course, there were the usual mediocre articles that explained the ideas away in the context of cultural differences. They were not wrong; their fault was in being content with easy explanations, as if to resolve the writer's own need for contentment and a clear decision (with the usual constructive solutions). (Although this is only representative of the few I read). Even if cultural differences did not exist, the philosophical ones which drove deeper did.

I guess that a layman's (my) interpretation of the whole state of affairs would be among one of the few below:

One, that the Dutch papers should not have published the cartoons at all for they simply abused free speech; they do not assert or promote it. Or worse, publishing them is akin to physical crime in the name of freedom, a flagrant breach of the spirit of freedom that grounds sovereign rights.

Two, that the Dutch papers should not have published them for the very purpose of promoting free speech is reversed by the backlash. (This among such other practical reasons I don't care about.)

Three, that the papers were right, for resistence and unhappiness of other wills made the freedom of speech a principle in the the first place. Backing down would constitue an unwillingness to uphold the original ideal.

Four, other reasons I don't care about today.

Now, the perimeters of human rights lie where they run in opposition to that of others. (Again, rights are freedoms from other people). As such, it is obvious that physical harm against the victim's will is a breach of rights, hence a prohibited act.
Of course, the the cartoon fiasco begins where the editor does indeed have the right to publish the offensive pictures, and Muslims have to respect his right to publish the cartoons (and therefore not coerce him in any way not to publish them). However, what rights, then, does the Moslem have, when insulted and distressed thus? It is the right to be free from his distress and hurt when that which he reveres is made base; it is freedom from his reaction to others, freedom from himself.

The aforementioned cultural difference between "the Muslim World and the West" (which is really a loose term for the more relevant philosophical difference, and as such divides attitudes unparallel to cultural adherence) would secure the traditional Moslem's choice of reaction, that is, a rejection of the cartoonist's rights and catcalls for holy blights and Godhate's revenge. But that is not the point. To pretend that it is distracts us from the inadequacy inherent within the codes of human rights itself. At deeper levels (of conflict), human rights founder simply because it fails to see that constraints of the human condition inherently limit man's freedom from other men, and that the mutual exclusivity of human rights that result thus require a different set of moral guides to secure the primacy of one right at the expense of another, to affirm or condemn a set of actions. Criminalization and law, for instance.

"Social responsibility" as the imperative to curb human rights can be interpreted as such: responsibility comes from the control we have over the emotions (or the environment) of others. Social responsibility as an approach deals with the fact that the nature of social contact that gave rise to the concept of human rights does not reflect that principle in reality. Human rights fail there; so social responsibility avoids it.

However, the concept of responsibility carries within it the implicit danger of consequences. Therefore the concept alone is always insufficient to provide the sense of responsibility that guides actions. It needs a guiding arrow external to the concept itself. In the case of the cartoon, the pre-judgement that the freedom of the Muslim World's emotions from the West's provocations is sufficient reason to curb (or self-censor) the freedom of speech, guides the argument for those against the cartoons. Of course, the actions now undertaken by the UN were not spurred with that in mind; forced "responsibility" was invoked for fear of economic and political fallouts. Is this tradeoff then justifiable?

In my opinion, no. Outlawing criticism of religion in the name of social stability paves a slippery slope with regards to free speech. And through its fear of turbulence, it obstructs the flow of ideas that drive progress. Let the viewpoints presented be judged according to their rational merits instead. Only when unattacked on the issue of its right to be published, can controversial or even racist remarks be judged as baseless rationally rather than justified on principle, promoting confusion as to one's intent.

For human rights to work perfectly, it must be be so completely. Nevertheless, it remains applicable; but it can never function on its own. The jurisprudence of one's rights over another's has traditionally been in favour of the individual against those in authority, or, in law, criminalization is guided by the basics of Christian morality.

Im tired. Good day.