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.

Much ado has been made of the 'elitist' attittudes reflected by Wee Shu Min's reply to Derek Wee's post. (I discovered this online blogtalk sensation two weeks late, after the nadir of criticism, or just outright massacre of WSM, is just about letting up, which allows me to proceed with my solitary musings undisturbed).

Firstly, let me state my position; where im coming and come from, as is so important when you are tackling the issue from the viewpoint of someone involved- part of, within, the spectrum of class distinctions (or at least perceptions of class distinctions) so painfully brought out by this incident.

For all our philanthropic pretensions, i doubt if me or my parents ( im not that old, as you witness)- assuming we are the microcosm of the upper middle class- can truly empathize with the concerns raised by Derek. And so with Derek, to the poor he feel he represents.

In this clash of mentalities, I find that fundamentally, i concur with WSM, but with these mentalities- or her personal philosophies, she takes them to an extreme degree which i can neither fufill nor hence can stomach, but which she can, and so justifiably, though stupidly, takes to its inevitably belligerent form.

What I am saying is, her attitudes (im thinking about the survival of the fittest here) are unsavoury, but justifiable, because of the success with which they have brought her- she is the top student for the Os and is now, after all, a humans scholar. I would go so far as to suggest that her achievements are the reflections of her fierce attitudes towards survival and success. Are we surprised, after all, that the most successful people in society are some of the most driven?

As to why it becomes morally justified to impose this on others, perhaps one could consider applying this to to the larger context of Singapore itself. I offer no answers here; to stay in Singapore is to subscribe to this... mentality.

With WSM at the crosshairs (but really, you know its the whull damned class of white-shirts and high-ranking bureaucrats), comments say that these privileged assholes dont understand the hard work that the common man has to endure. Maybe. For the truly lower class, the chances of actually climbing the social ladder is low. Poor environment and atmosphere plagues the student. Equal opportunities are there- no students are denied places in RI, at least, cause they are poor- but equality of circumstance is not, and no one can do much about this. You cannot dispute this. Because of the distinction between these two equalities, all that deterministic vs free will, shit, crops up. Suffice to say, from, say the bottom strata, the higher up you go, lower middle, middle, check, check, free will becomes more important and deterministic inevitabilities less so. Ive seen MPs sons, complete balloon heads, f(MDA)ing assholes really, "get in" despite failing to meet the mark. But ive also seen others who fail, like we do, and somehow fail to get up *bless him*. Others rise from the valley, that is, the 'heartlands'. My point is, the issue of personal responsibility is real and quite inescapable. I may not be the most worthy proponent of this; witness my guilt;and it sounds all to PAPish. But wth, I never claimed that they didnt have great hegemony over sub-political aspects of our lives.

The disdain expressed is elitist and reflect elitism here, but the underlying mentalities from which they grow are meritocratic, albiet a hard, realistic one- no i didn't plagiarize this from ST; i wrote this long ago. (On a sidenote, i feel that the emphasis placed on personal gain with the lack of ideals and the idea of servitude in public service among most Singaporeans in general, the upper class included, as the source of PAP arrogance perceived in the Wee senior's response ). To attempt to suceed, is to work within the hard truths of meritocracy, monetary and thymotic in its reward.