das Ding an sich

The red hue represents the limitation of our reason.
The objects represents what we perceive.

Immanuel Kant reminds us that we can never know the world in itself, for we only perceive the world as it is to ourselves. Everything we know about this world is limited by the capability of our reasoning, as the form of ’space’ and ‘time’ always precedes all of our experiences.

To Kant, it is pointless to prove or disprove God as it is a matter beyond the capabilities of our reason. However, Kant maintained that it is through faith and logical postulates (explained in his ethics) that God exists.

Similarly, when Christians talk about ‘God is love’, it is an expression of the necessity of faith as part of love itself. Yes, the feelings of love can be observed from scientific analysis of the various chemicals in the brain. But, we mustn’t forget that (usually) people don’t continue to love each other based on scientific reports, they base it on trust and faith. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us the same thing about how there are various paths towards the common truth i.e Reason, Experience, Faith.

All in all, I found that I shouldn’t be complacent with the limited capabilities of my reason, I believe in the possibility of something beyond the inferior form of knowledge (the world it is to me/you).

Remember Plato’s cave? That’s exactly what Plato was trying to say:

The picture above – The shadows on the wall of the cave (Inferior representations of the true forms/The world as it is to us)

The real objects outside the cave – The world of forms/The reality beyond the material world (The world in itself)

I am not trying to prove anything. I am only writing about the philosophies of philosophers as it is.

Those who insist that I shut up must be playing God

“Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign” – ‘On Liberty’ by John Stuart Mill

In this essay, Mill aims to prove the necessity and positive effects of liberty. Unlike the other philosophers such as Kant and Locke,  the basis of Mill’s arguments are founded on his utilitarian approach to the question of liberty – the common good of society. Mill rejects the notion of a Social Contract with the claim that “no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it”.  The mechanism of his idea is expounded in his essay with a major assumption that people will truly understand and learn about their opinions through dissent. Opinions can never be legitimately suppressed by a government. Initially, Mill puts forth the argument that a silenced opinion may be true and it would not benefit the society. Ostensibly suppressing an opinion because it is ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ is tantamount to claiming infallibility in judgement. Mill also considered the possibility of the opinion to be false, however he argues that persons of different opinions should be confident to debate and disprove the false opinion. Human judgement as Mill writes, is only valuable if a person is open to criticism. Hence, this is how a person will be able to improve him/herself through these experiences and discussions.

The cornerstone of Mill’s philosophy is the ‘harm principle‘. Mill believes that opinions and actions should be free insofar as it does not harm any other individual besides the agent him/herself. In the event that an individual is proven to be a drunkard, he/she should never be punished for being drunk. However, Mill believes that a drunkard can only be rightfully punished if he/she fails to fulfil his/her duty or obligation. Therefore, a drunk police officer on duty should be punished for not carrying out his/her duty, not for being inebriated. It is apparent from Mill’s arguments that he places emphasis on individualism. In the introduction of his essay, Mill introduced the idea of ‘the tyranny of the majority‘ by explaining how a majority can oppress a minority through public opinion. This is further expounded with the problem of customs and the lack of development of human faculties. Mill complains about a society bound to stagnation in the future, a result of people following customs without question, without the use of human faculties in decision making. Individualism as Mill envisions it to be, is a society where people are free to develop in any means that pleases them. Dissimilarities is sacrosanct to the human learning process, as a combination of positive traits can benefit society as a whole. Mill exemplified the problem of the ‘despotism of custom’ by referring to China’s ideal of making everyone alike. On the contrary, Mill is optimistic of Europe’s diversity of lifestyles as it appears to be more progressive unlike conformist China.

Society does not have an interest in actions that affect no one but the person acting, or people by their consent. Furthermore, society may even interfere wrongly by imposing their “moral values” upon others: “there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is offended at his holding it; no more than between the desire of a thief to take a purse, and the desire of the right owner to keep it.”

So are you try to tell me that Beyoncé is too sexy for Malaysians?

We have learned over the course of history that it is not acceptable to ask questions, the “gods” who claim infallibility are out there watching.

Shadows on the wall

If I think and therefore I am, does this mean that I see and hence it’s the truth?

Lo and behold! Prisoners in a cave that are bound by chains which restricts them from moving. The prisoners can only look forward towards the wall of the cave, where they see shadows on the wall created by puppeteers above them. Truth to them, is nothing but shadows.

The prisoners play a game of naming the shadows, the fastest at naming the shadows are respected as elites. They become so good at it until they can predict the next shadow which is to be shown on the wall.

Suppose that one day, a prisoner is released from the chains and is compelled to stand up and to walk out towards the exit of the cave. Wouldn’t she be shocked by the sight of the puppets and the light? What if she is asked to name the puppets as how she named it’s shadow?

As she leaves the cave, the brightness of the sunlight overwhelms her, her eyes that were accustomed to the dark environment cannot see. Over time, her eyes starts to adapt to the new environment, she first identifies the shadow of herself and the other objects around her. She then starts to study the sky, realising that the sun is the cause of everything she sees.

Contemplating about her past, she realises that the rewards of winning in the game of naming the shadows on the wall was worthless. She feels pity for the other prisoners who are still trapped in the cave, she would rather suffer than to live like that.

Upon her return to the cave, she realised that her eyes that were once capable of seeing clearly in the dark was affected by the brightness of the sunlight. The prisoners ridiculed her when she failed perform in the game of naming the shadows on the wall.

She tells the prisoners about her enlightenment and the truth about the shadows on the wall. She persuades them to leave the cave.

However, the prisoners concluded that her ability to identify the shadows (which they still believe to be the truth) was ruined by her journey out of the cave.

The prisoners refuse to leave the cave.

Yes, be glad that you’ve left the cave.

The dictator

I’ve always wondered how we make decisions when there are several options to choose from. Situations as simple as to buy product A or product B, or to escape from prison or not, there must be a reason behind the choices we make insofar as there must be a tangible logic behind this ‘reasoning’.

Today, I happened to be in a pet shop and I was observing the behaviour of people while they make decisions on their purchase. Being an eavesdropper, I listened to the conversations between the promoters and the customers (Well, it’s not against the law). I realised that the words ‘fear’, ’scared’ and ‘worried’ popped up in the conversation at numerous occasions. It appears that customers are concerned and worried of the various risks and inconveniences that may happen in the future (Assuming that the customer is moderately price-sensitive).

Risk is a complicated and yet tedious matter to understand, however our lack of understanding is compromised by our in-build cognitive decision maker – our brains. Ironically, this ingeniously designed feature varies from one individual to another, causing variation on how people perceive and manage risk. I was watching this programme “One way out” on television one night and it opened my mind to the different sources people seek pleasure from. The programme shows an escape artist who doesn’t mind putting himself through gruesome amount of pain to achieve the thrill of escaping. We call him a masochist, he calls it science.

Let us now exclude the minority who seeks happiness through risk taking.

Why do we respond to risk? According to the principle of existentialism, we realise that we are fully responsible for our own actions through the feelings of angst or anguish. Consider yourself being on top of a mountain and you feel lazy to walk down the mountain. You have 2 options, to jump down the mountain at 9.80665ms^-2 or to take the longer way down by walking. Although the analogy is flawed in practicality, the theme of this concept is “fear” and how we steer away from it.

How do you manage your fears? Is fear a barrier to the things you wished you would do?

Cosmetic Surgery

Today I debated the negative of the motion “This house would provide medical benefits for cosmetic surgery”

Note: These are not my actual debate points.

Personally I disagree with the whole concept of cosmetic surgery because it distorts the image of women in society.

The leading cause of people undergoing cosmetic surgery is simply because they are not satisfied with their current physical image and they wish to have it changed. People often see cosmetic surgery as a solution to their problem of having ‘un-lifted face’, ‘pot-belly’ etc. But why are they unsatisfied with their current image?

The media played a very big role in this, people are ‘in dire need’ of cosmetic surgery because they want to emulate the body contour of the stars in Hollywood. However, is this realistic? This act is justifiable under the Kantian ethics by Immanuel Kant because the intention of looking good is a positive motive. However, the act of modifying one’s own body to seek the approval of others is an extrinsic value that leads to a slippery slope of ‘going with the flow’ or the act of being a blind follower.

In general, the ‘end’ of the ‘means’ (cosmetic surgery) is to make one more attractive or more approved by society. According to the principle of existentialism, a human being  are defined through their undertakings in life as Jean-Paul Sartre writes “Man is nothing else but his plan; he exist only to the extent that he fulfills himself”. Assuming that most people who undergo cosmetic surgeries are atheists like Sartre himself (most of the major religions opposes cosmetic surgery), is it really morally justifiable to seek the approval of others through ‘masquerades and facades’ of silicon?

Coming down to the root of this problem, society is in need of a major reform. I am aware that the statement is in direct conflict with psychological egoism and ethical egoism, however the problem with society is that they constantly seek material pleasure which will eventually bring more harm to themselves. The persuit of temporary happiness. So what if cosmetic surgery gaives you the ideal bust size?  So what if cosmetic surgery makes you look more attractive? It is all fake and plastic anyway.

It seems that there is no solution to this.

People should be accepted for who they are and who they will eventually be in the future (aging cannot be controlled).

So stop the botox and spend the money on something else!

Existence of colours

I had a conversation with Lee Young the other day, and we were debating on the existence of colours.

What exists? How do we define “existence”? The Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary defines it as “the state or fact of being real or living or of being present”.

Are colours real? The colours we see are actually electromagnetic waves of different wavelengths interpreted by our brain as colours. To have a better understanding of this logic, consider the statement: “Red is an electromagnetic wave.” It is known that the colour ‘red’ has a wavelength of 685nm and different wavelengths in the ‘visible light’ range within the electromagnetic spectrum is associated with different ‘colours’.

In a nutshell, colours are not real because its an outcome of how our brain interprets electromagnetic waves.

To investigate the accuracy of this argument, lets conduct a simple thought experiment.
Consider the premise: “Bush exists.”

Political aficionados will instinctively interpret the data “Bush” as the President of the United States. While those who are inclined towards the environment will think about the plant. Do you see the link? The data “Bush” represents the stimulus (Electromagnetic waves) while the interpretation of data represents the outcome (Colour). Based on the analogy given, we can deduce that colours do exist.

The notion of  ‘colours’ is equivalent to how we label different objects with different names. If you are still not convinced, how do you explain the existence of the English language? I believe that we can agree that words comprises of different letters in different combinations. Thus, to challenge the existence of colours is tantamount to the denial of the existence of language itself.

Since “Bush” exists, colours exists.

Truth Serum

From the usage in military to drug-lords, the truth serum is capable of extracting information from individuals who are complaisant  or questionable integrity. In a single dose, the victim will be sedated and feel extremely calm – a typical effect of  barbiturates.

Under the effect of a truth serum, an individual will be extremely cooperative and willing to share their deepest and darkest thoughts. In addition, when the victim regains his or her consciousness, the victim cannot recall any memories while being under the influence of the truth serum.

The composition of a typical truth serum is sodium thiopental. As trivial is the term ’sodium thiopental’ may sound, a truth drug that is much closer to home to the multitude is nothing other than alcohol. To budding teenagers, any bottle containing drinkable fluid which is labelled with a certain percentage of alcohol is appealing. The higher the better they say.

It appears that consuming a drinkable fluid containing this Carbon Compound is enjoyable and respectable to the multitude. The reason behind this is nebulous even though it is nefarious to consume alcohol under the age of 18 in certain countries.

Acting like a classic truth serum, an individual who is intoxicated under the effects of alcohol behaves wildly and spills all of his darkest thoughts which was once locked away in his mind. An intoxicated individual is everything but judicious, a once sensible and meek person can behave like a reckless murderer on the loose.

Behaving in such a manner may be entertaining to some, but are you willing to be humiliated by your unscrupulous behaviour? Waking up with a nasty hangover is no fun either, would you still be interested in that bottle of  ‘truth serum’ now?

This post is not an allusion or an innuendo directed towards anybody. Under compulsion or not, I believe that nobody would like to be under the effect of a truth serum.

The misunderstood premier

Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.

The country saw the end of the iron fist rule under my predecessor when he announced his resignation after 22 years of premiership that transformed the country into one of the burgeoning nations in South East Asia. Inter alia, the people often impugn his credibility by accusing him as a fascist who notoriously incarcerated his former successor based on dubious facts and accounts.

Being labelled as Mr. Clean in the cabinet, faute de mieux, I was selected to accede as the next prime minister. Alhamdulillah, my political party successfully regained mandate over several opposition controlled states during the first general elections under my leadership. The apotheosis during my tenure as the premier was short lived, my beginner’s luck was running out.

Apropos the deterioration in my political career, I lost my late wife to breast cancer in the year of 2005. Although there are no official responsibilities of the first lady of a country, the presence of the first lady is de rigueur at official ceremonies and international sittings. The former first lady of the United States, Hillary Clinton once said: “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfil my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.”

Cynics often ridicule my second wife as a femme fatale who tainted my popularity and political career. To add salt into the wound, my integrity was mired in controversy when the opposition uncovered dirt originating from my predecessor. Mr. Clean was then known as Mr. Sleepyhead who was often ridiculed for his obsequiousness and feeble-mindedness.

My efforts to bring about a fresh reformation within the cabinet were futile due to the avaricious politicians in my cabinet who remained intransigent. Consequently, the people reacted by dealing a savage blow to my premiership in the recent general elections – a blow that instils schandenfreude in my yet to be successor. Yes, I do hear the people’s cri de coeur for democracy, but do they realise that none of these could have happened without democracy?

Quod erat demonstrandum!

Schrödinger’s cat

Note: The experiments below are merely thought experiments (Experiments done in the mind).

Imagine putting a cat in a box, not in any specific box but a box that will will prevent an observer from the outside from looking into the box. Inside the box, there is a cat, a radioactive substance and a flask of cyanide gas which will be broken automatically by a hammer when the Geiger counter is defected.

Assuming that there is a radioactive substance that has a 50/50 chance of decaying in one hour, the law of quantum superposition states that the radioactive substance will be both decayed and not-decayed after an hour until the box is opened and an observation is made. Since the fate of the cat solely depends on the occurrence of a radioactive decay, the cat is known to be both alive and dead at the same time.

Quantum physics, quantum mechanics, quantum immortality, quantum suicide?

The many-worlds-interpretation (MWI) postulates that the universe hold many worlds where each world holds a different probable result of a quantum experiment. “I” am an object, an object at a specified time in space which represents a complete description of a state of my body. Even though “Peter” and “I” represents the same thing in layman’s term, “I” and “Peter” do not represent the same thing in the MWI.

At the present moment, there are many other “Peter(s)” in many other worlds both in the past and the future. Whenever a quantum experiment is carried out (an experiment is multiple outcomes), the present “Peter” corresponds to all the other “Peter(s)” in the different worlds with all possible results of the experiment.

Now imagine having a gun which will fire a bullet if and only if a determinant quark is spinning in a anti-clockwise motion. Assuming that there is a 50/50 probability between the two outcomes, you nervously point the gun towards your head and pull the trigger. Based on the ‘Quantum Suicide thought experiment’, no matter how many times you pull the trigger, you will not die. Ironically, if you return to the point where you pulled the trigger and the the determinant quark was spinning in a clockwise position, you died.

“Hold on a minute, you said that the gun did not fire!”

According to quantum superposition and the many-worlds-interpretation, the universe splits into two whenever the individual pulls the trigger. Hence, the individual is unaware that he/she is both alive and dead at the same time (The individual is alive in the other half universe).

Warning: Do not attempt any of the above experiments in reality!

Where to, Capitalism?

Capitalism, the road to socialism?

It has been a disastrous month for the global economy, front runners of the capitalist system Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch collapsed. On top of that, the US government has also bailed out mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while the fall of Northen Rock was cushioned by the UK government.

Capitalism is the most popular economic system on Earth. What went wrong?  It is important to note that the world today is not like it was before in the 1980s when the central government of a country has full control  over the county’s economy. Today, the economy of a country is placed in the hands of private institutions who play the game of business on the global market.

The problem we face today is caused by two parties – the debtor and the creditor. People who have insufficient funds take huge loans from avaricious mortgage companies who willingly offer sub-prime loans with a quid pro quo contract of higher interest rate in return. The flaw in this system is that most sub-prime loan takers renege on the loan and cause a major hit on the economy.

Knowing the major flaws in capitalism, is it then rational to conclude that capitalism is a failed system and move on to socialism? Probably not. In every system there is an ideal that most people consider to be utopian and unattainable. The ideal of socialism is perpetual equality among the people through a government who controls businesses in a country. The problem with socialism is that the system depresses the rich to the level of the indigent and cause eternal inadequacy.

To solve the problems faced in the capitalist system, the capitalist government should have some control over certain companies through laws and legislations to ensure the safety of the country’s economy. You may now stop and say, “Hey, wait a minute, that’s socialism!”

I say: At least I have the opportunity to stand on my feet again in this form of capitalism!