Powered by glolg
Display Preferences Most Recent Entries Chatterbox Blog Links Site Statistics Category Tags About Me, Myself and Gilbert XML RSS Feed
Monday, Aug 21, 2006 - 18:51 SGT
Posted By: Gilbert

- - - -
Fishy Philosophizing

One more pre-sendoff meal, this time at the Glasshouse Fish & Co. The sweet and sour dish was okay, and having a Citibank cardholder among us meant free drinks on the house. On the MRT trip there, I had a curious insect landing on my forearm, and even after I had taken its photo it was reluctant to move, so I had to persuade it with a stern flick of my finger.


Looking pretty blur

The Premier League also returned! Saturday nights are brightened again, and I started off with some loose change to boot after Man U obligingly thrashed Fulham 5-1. My cousin wanted to pool up a wager on the Devils, and I agreed to put a tenner on a straight win, only for him to return with a betting slip for Man U (-1.5) because "the odds were too poor". Happily, it didn't end 2-1, or I wouldn't have known what to think. Turned out that twc's predictions of "1-0, 2-0, 3-0, 4-0 already" were on the ball. Wah!


My first ticket

Not a habit I want to cultivate, though.

Philo lecture was enjoyable, even without the "Search for tpk's junior" sideshow of Psychology. The lecturer even illustrated his own textbook, which won major points from me for a start. The most profound revelation came not from any of the Greek gentlemen in togas, however, but from Dale Carnegie - who presented the case that there is no point in proving that someone is wrong, because he will most likely resent you for it, regardless of whether you are right. And you can't win an argument, because if you lose, you lose, and if you win, you still lose because you have made the other fella feel inferior, hurt his pride, and overall reduced your chances of being invited to his next party or cut in on his next big deal. Oh, the pains of truth!

But, what is, truth?

So I began thinking, and unlike Descartes, no ergo sum followed, for I refused to immediately accept the self-evidence presupposed. What do these labels, words, mean actually? A dictionary is of no help, for it is all circular. Nowhere can anything be found about what "what" or "is" is. Stripped bare to mathematics, that comfort pillow of scientists, why should existence (one) and nonexistence (zero) have special meaning? What is green to the blind? I can prove nothing! But it does not pay to wallow in solipsism, and I do not know what is truth anyway. Let us continue!

Following on, allow me to explore relativity in wealth. My interest was raised when a fellow World History student voiced some sentiments on the module's forum last semester. He declared that he would rather he lose $5 and the other guy to lose $10, than for himself to gain $5 but the other guy gain $10. Brutally direct, a trait I admire.

Certainly sounds mean at first hearing, but it qualifies for further examination - Indeed, if there were only two people in that economy, his desire would be the only rational (quantifiable) one. For any starting sums of cash, losing less than the other party would shift a higher potential for resources to his side, since money has no intrinsic value of its own.

The same reasoning may be adaptable to a bipolar world, but how many of us are global superpowers? If there were any unaffected third party, he would come out the biggest winner. Surely, such an attitude would be self-defeating on a personal level, and one who pursues it must be content to lose ground to billions while overhauling a few.

Ludicrous as that may sound, it actually may still be a sound strategy, for the vast majority of humans do not "live in" the world at large as much as they "live in" a (far tinier) community. I could care less that another person in Nebraska, USA, won a new luxury yacht, but be comparatively spurred on far more if an acquaintance bought a car on his own merit.

Fortunately, I would expect that it is generally easier (and nicer!) to improve oneself, than to expend the effort to attack a sufficient number of competitors to achieve an equivalent result. Unfortunately, there are also plenty of organizations that are small enough for negative tactics to dominate. If it is any consolation, such destructive environments should be eventually self-defeating against more cooperative teams, assuming the resources affected in the internal struggles are drawn from overall productivity.

From this, I was wont to ask myself - Is it not possible, then, to make the poor richer, and the rich also richer? For oft it happens that, trite as it may sound, men prefer to fight over a pie when the means to bake another lies right before them. Many a time, poverty and want arises not from the nonexistence of food and goods, but from political apathy or outright corruption.

Here, it remains an open question whether there is a form of governance that is naturally superior to existing ones in maintaining a reasonable equity, though as to what that means, let me just say that it may take many rounds of voting in a democracy - due to the selfishness and shortsightedness of the average person, who would undoubtedly be grievously insulted if told that to his face.

But, that average person is me. That person is you (angry?). Therein lies the complication, of a perfect system to serve manifestly imperfect individuals. It could be that many of us may profess to be willing to make sacrifices for the greater good, and to this I cite an experience in a Communications class. Our lecturer, Mr. Gallo, asked - Who amongst you is totally unbiased against other races? While we dithered over what shade of socially correct white lie to give, he spared us that sin. None! It is just improbable that a normal Chinese would feel as comfortable day-to-day in a heavily Indian cultural setting, and vice-versa. I hasten to add that that would hardly be considered racism, obviously.

So it is that people will always look out for themselves, what could be called a Win paradigm from the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. We would like to benefit, and while we may not wish ill on others (in contrast with my History module mate, though only in monetary terms), we are often not especially bothered by their fate. As mentioned in The West Transformed, my European History text, in reference to the Luddites: "...But those who have to bear the burden of change by losing their jobs and their status understandably have fought against it. For these workers, who like us have only one life to live, the future efficiencies of the free market were an abstraction for which they did not wish to sacrifice their dignity and their survival."

Okay, there is such a thing as Win-Win also, (my old school motto!) but what do you know, people are lazy too. And when will we all reach the moral heights implied for it to become commonplace, Even for Confucius, "...At fifteen my mind was set on learning. At thirty my character had been formed. At forty I had no more perplexities. At fifty I knew the Mandate of Heaven. At sixty I was at ease with whatever I heard. At seventy I could follow my heart's desire without transgressing moral principles...". That sure took some time...

There is an innovative suggestion the source of whom I have improperly forgotten, of a system of government whose characteristics are selected by the populace as a whole, however with the provision that they all be reborn upon its institution, and randomly placed in a station for life. Thus, there is every incentive to draft a fair constitution, that all bound by it may thrive and be prosperous.

Sadly, even ignoring the implausibility of on-demand reincarnation, it may be that people in general are less rational and greater gamblers than the proposers of this utopian theory may have supposed, for many could suppose themselves Kings and Lords, or at least some minor nobility, and shut themselves out to the possibility of enslavement. The results of an anonymous survey on whether people consider themselves "smarter/better than average" would probably be interesting. I am willing to wager that the findings will show that vastly more than half of us are superior to the rest.

Certainly, making people as a whole satisfied could be a fruitless endeavour. One could say that a typical lower-middle classman in a developed country has access to treatments that emperors could have died for, just a century or two ago. A manual labourer can soar in the air between continents, his word can travel faster and further than the winds; But does those wonders, and many more besides, make him happy? (Not that emperors were known to be particularly delighted people, of course) Perhaps our learned scholars may soon be forced to admit that all our vaunted technology is only chasing the rainbow, since at the end it is keeping up with the Joneses that counts.

Or is it? If we could simulate a Matrix that would make us all heroes, might we be able to resist the pull? Perhaps there would have to be some sacrifices on the order of psychological deepness that could be supported, but this is all unvarnished speculation. So let me invoke a magic that is indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced technology, and offer to all and sundry the promise of an eternity (maybe utilizing Frank J. Tipler's Omega point) of fulfillment, supported without any perceptible drain on true resources.

As to why we have never seen aliens, this could be a plausible explanation. Since detection appears dependant on the discovery of radio (or other broadcasting mediums) by our green bug-eyed friends, it seems to imply that they would have to be at a certain stage of advancement even to put out an interstellar Welcome sign. Not thinking too much of the odds that they are in fact light years ahead of us, (especially given the vast differences that the last century has made for us) and whether they may very reasonably view us as exotic poultry, is it not possible that fc in Drake's equation is in fact zero because all consciousness leads eventually to a tailored virtual reality? Or maybe they are in fact observing us through some channel we have yet to discover, blind as a Neanderthal to the spectrum of electromagnetism?

All wild guesses, worthless! As the oracle of Delphi says it, it must be true - that Socrates was the wisest of all men, from his most humble of skills - not to think he knows the things that he does not, in truth, know; Which, regrettably, included the knowledge that what most people hate most is a big-mouthed smart alec, and that he would be served up a double Hemlock on the rocks for his pains.



comments (0) - email - share - print - direct link
trackbacks (0) - trackback url


Next: Search For 3 Day Week


Related Posts:
On Economics
Final Push
Come Ten Twenty Issues
Shiftless
Economics Thus Far
Back to top

Copyright © 2006-2025 GLYS. All Rights Reserved.