wah lau, i am on Intelligent Singaporean leh!! the IS is like the "inner circle" of the plogosphere. that means, IS thinks my blog is like, quite good lah.
one part of me feels very happy. the part of me who thinks "yeah! now people know my blog damn zai lah" and the part of me who thinks "now sure got alot of people come read my blog." in fact, in addition to IS, the KTM also deemed me worthy enough to be linked to his blog. wah, talk about high praise (and increased traffic!).
that was my pride and my vanity talking btw.
yet another part of me, feels very scared. "with great traffic, comes great responsibility" said spiderman. or something like that lah. the thing i need to ask myself is, with this increase in traffic, will i be inclined to blog differently? should i blog differently? you know ah, i was thinking, how blogs with high traffic, have some element of blogging for the sake of the readers. Take for example now, when kitana and gayle goh are busy with exams, they both leave some posts of some sort indicating to their readers that they are busy and hence will not be blogging as often.
will i become like that too? (or maybe i already am?) i'm a quite slow blogger, since i take quite a few hours to publish one post, and when i'm more busy with my offline life, then obviously i dun blog so much lah. if i ever reach "popular blog" status, will this mean i must blog at least once every two days, and then those days which i don't, must send apology post to my dear readers? must i be more careful, since i dun want to offend my new audience and be careful not to say something which might tick them off? or be even more lagi careful not to say anything seditious or anything that can "wound religious or racial feelings?"
but isn't blogging is just about writing what i feel like writing?
why do i blog in the first place?
this blog started out when i was introduced to the blogosphere during the WSM incident. i wanted to start blogging because i wanted to be part of the community which criticizes the pompous and tyrannical elite. (herd mentality?) but of course, i had to do it with style. no style means your blog won't get noticed mah. so i thought then lah. that was when i came up with the purple/blue spilt persona idea.
yet, very shortly after i started blogging, i was exploring around the blogosphere, reading what people say and trying to figure out their motivations, that was when i realized, actually i don't agree with many of the WSM lambasters after all. i began to examine my own motives for blogging, and found myself guilty of indulging my own pride and vanity, and therefore perhaps in some ways, i am not unlike WSM.
i found that i wanted to blog mainly because i wanted to impress people that i can be a zai blogger. i want to be a name regularly featured by IS. i want people hundreds of people to read me everyday, say what a great blog i have and stroke my ego. i found myself disgusting. That was when i contemplated closing down the blog, but in the end i decided to continue on, if nothing but for the sake for further self-discovery.
fast forward to where my blog is now. my blue and purple personas have more or less merged (as KTM have observed), and part of me wishes i chose blue and red instead, so now i can use purple as a merged persona =P. regardless, i have decided that i will still keep the purple/blue distinction, but now as a marker of content (purple = less serious, humorous, personal anecdotes; blue = more serious). purple has much less singlish and broken grammar now, and blue is more relaxed in tone, allowing for humour and occasional singlish. stylistically and tone-wise, purple and blue are pretty much identical, and as the KTM has noted, that's not a bad thing.
i find myself posting alot of "philosophical projects" which are thoughts i always wanted to discuss with people during my student days, but never found the opportunity or the medium. admittedly, some of them are rather technical in nature, but i do believe that they have alot of implications which are relevant to the plogosphere (issues about ethics, religion etc). i just need to find a way to present my projects in a more accessible way (i.e. more layman pple can understand me).
so what now from here? i have yet to complete my journey of self-discovery, and in all honesty, i have yet to discover the real motivation behind why i blog. perhaps this blog will eventually focus more on academic philosophy and will shift out of the relevance of the singapore plogosphere. or perhaps it will die a natural death (or i just suddenly shut it down), when i discover that i no longer have any reasons to continue blogging. i cannot predict. all i know is, i will continue blogging for now and let nature take its own course.
i would like to thank the KTM for his advice and comments, which have been influential in helping me to decide my own path as a blogger. his blog is also a big source of inspiration for me.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
about my teacher-blogger list
i noticed that this blog suddenly got spike in readership, and then i found out that two of the teacher-bloggers in the list i compiled found out about my list, and wrote responses, linking my blog back. so i thought i better write some clarification about my list of teacher bloggers.
this list is compiled mainly for personal reasons. i am planning to write a post on education in the future, and i thought blogs by teachers would prove to be a very important voice about education from the ground. i decided to publish the list because i thought it would be interesting for my friends, some of whom are teachers or teachers-to-be, to read what some of their peers are saying and feeling about education. I also thought it would be a good idea to compile a list and leave it on a blogosphere, since others might find it useful as well.
the short descriptions i wrote are mainly for me to identify which blog is which. because i do not frequent these blogs, i not familiar with them mah. but nevertheless, it appears that my description of the blogs (or blog authors) were disagreed upon by two the teacher-bloggers, so i've included addendums to those blogs who they like don't think my decriptions very accurate lah. if any of you think like my descriptions is inaccurate and think i should change it, please leave me a note. i'll do something about it. but my main purpose of the list was not like to "review" these blogs lah. i don't have anything bad to say about these blogs. just compiling a list for my own research purposes only mah.
sorry if like i offended or irritated some people.
this list is compiled mainly for personal reasons. i am planning to write a post on education in the future, and i thought blogs by teachers would prove to be a very important voice about education from the ground. i decided to publish the list because i thought it would be interesting for my friends, some of whom are teachers or teachers-to-be, to read what some of their peers are saying and feeling about education. I also thought it would be a good idea to compile a list and leave it on a blogosphere, since others might find it useful as well.
the short descriptions i wrote are mainly for me to identify which blog is which. because i do not frequent these blogs, i not familiar with them mah. but nevertheless, it appears that my description of the blogs (or blog authors) were disagreed upon by two the teacher-bloggers, so i've included addendums to those blogs who they like don't think my decriptions very accurate lah. if any of you think like my descriptions is inaccurate and think i should change it, please leave me a note. i'll do something about it. but my main purpose of the list was not like to "review" these blogs lah. i don't have anything bad to say about these blogs. just compiling a list for my own research purposes only mah.
sorry if like i offended or irritated some people.
Monday, November 27, 2006
why can't we all just get along?
Firstly, I would like to coin the term "plogosphere". This term will refer to the subset of the blogsophere which discusses social, political or economic issues. The members of the plogosphere regularly read aggregators such as Intelligent Singaporean, Singapore Angle, and for some, Singabloodypore. To most of them, Yawning Bread, Mr Wang, Xenoboy, The Kway Teow Man, Gayle Goh and Dr Huang are household names. The plogosphere also includes satirical blogs such as Mollymeek and Lucky Tan (apologies if you think I left out some vital blogs). If you are reading this blog, chances are you have a rough intuitive idea of what the plogosphere consists of. I coin this term not to examine its characteristics, or to decide if specific blogs fit or not fit into this category, but just for the ease of further discussion, instead of having to use cumbersome phrases such as "social/political-commentary blogosphere"
Secondly, I want to talk briefly about this blog written by Thrasymachus. I was actually quite surprised I didn't find this blog sooner. As someone who is familiar with Plato, the moniker "Thrasymachus" is very interesting indeed. One can't help but wonder if it was with or without irony that he chose to name himself after someone who argued that pretty much "might is right". I personally find his blog very nice to read, especially his photo-filled "History of PAP" posts. With regards to his views, although he believes himself to be very much to be neutral, and to his credit he does seem to be critical of the incumbent government in certain issues, I personally would classify him more as leaning on pro-establishment. A rare find indeed, or am I just not looking hard enough? I also think this guy is a pretty nice chap, always insisting on a gentleman's ethic to respect and listen to all views, including detractors (of which he has many), and to give thoughtful and respectful responses. He is also (only?) 25-years old.
In my previous post about the KTM, I briefly mentioned about a "good blogger's ethic", and that it consists of thinking before you blog, and respecting all views. In this post, I am not going to blog about what is or is not a "good blogging ethic", but rather, explore why and how we disagree in the plogosphere. I must also add that I am not a student of media studies, unlike the author of this article, so all that I say right here is just my thinking aloud.
I have been thinking in recent days about the problems of a (necessarily) limited perspective, and how this translates into conflict and disagreement in the plogosphere. While I was formulating my thoughts on the issue, I stumbled unto the above mentioned blog, and read a rather lengthy conversation between Thrasymachus and Elfred in the comments of this particular post and I thought this very interesting as a sample of how people disagree in the plogosphere.
To me, one of the most interesting criticisms in the plogosphere is to accuse your detractor of being "polemic" (or "rhetorical" or "partisan"). Usually, your detractor would reply in a furious "I am NOT being polemic, this IS my argument as I would see it." and by this point, both parties would be talking past each other. Now, both parties may try to be gentlemanly and polite (as I believe Thrasymachus and Elfred have been), but no doubt frustrations arise when much effort is spent explaining and laying out your stand, yet the other side just does not seem to get it. However, most of the time, one or both parties will not try to be as polite or gentlemanly (or just run out patience), and very strong words are exchanged, usually resulting name calling, or labelling the other as "naive" or "self-centered" etc. I also believe even the very best of us have our moments of weakness, and say nasty stuff to our detractors, as shown here by both Thrasymachus (comments to Akikonomu) and the KTM (comments to Whispers of the Heart).
Why does this occur? [As for why we ended up with different perspectives, that will be the subject of another post]. Why is it so difficult to convince one side of another's point of view? Postmodern thinkers might suggest interesting worldviews where reality is subjective, as Mr Wang had suggested in a comment to my previous post. But such assumptions aside, we think, surely at most one person must be correct? And surely the correct person has the better argument, and surely the incorrect person will be able to identify that his argument is incorrect?
If you haven't read this before, take the time to read this introduction to singapore angle. I think Huichieh explains it much better than I can. Through the process of rational discourse, we are bound to have disagreements. Deeply seated disagreements about issues we feel strong about even. Precisely because they are deeply seated issues which you feel strongly about, that is why you are not likely to change your view. It appears to me that humans, by and large, when they decided their opinions about something, they are quite stubborn about it. I believe this to be true even outside of the blogosphere, and even outside of "rational discourse on substantial issues". The way we consider our views is almost always that "I am correct". I believe very few people go around with the mentality "I may be wrong", and even less go around thinking "I AM wrong". We all believe we have good reason to think that we are correct. After all, we thought about it, and fully convinced ourselves of our own point of view.
But reaching your own opinion is not really a matter of pure rational deliberation, so I believe. Professional philosophers, who earn their living by pure rational deliberation day in and day out, disagree about everything all the time. My guess is, if you learn anything from being a philosopher, you learn that pure rational deliberation is usually not enough for you to reach conclusions on most substantial matters. Usually there is something else, be it "intuitions", influences from other people, or just deeply rooted values and beliefs. And these things vary greatly from person to person.
Okay, so people disagree. And convincing each other is something not very likely (although possible) to happen in the plogosphere. So what now? I suggest we adopt the attitude of trying how to disagree gracefully. Now, this is just a suggestion. I am not trying to propose some kind of plogosphere decorum to be upheld. I am sure there are people who will disagree (hee =P) with my proposition for graceful disagreement on the basis of "what's wrong in being confident of my views?" or "why can't I just say what I want to say?".
By "graceful" I do not mean elegant or beautiful, like in "a graceful ballet dancer", but in manifesting goodwill, favor, kindness and forgiveness, such as "an act of grace" of "in good grace". How do you disagree gracefully? I do not have a template, nor do I think a template is a good idea. I believe it is possible to disagree gracefully yet sincerely. These are just a few suggestions I want to throw up:
1) Ask yourself, are you angry? If you are angry, it may be a good idea to not reply immediately out of your righteous indignation. That will likely result in further misrepresentation of your own beliefs. Instead, try to calm down, perhaps reply only several hours, or a day later.
2) Ask yourself, have you tried to understand what the other side is saying, or are you merely trying to find the weak spots where you can attack? Remember that to understand what the other side is saying goes beyond reading the words, try to identity his/her mentality, his/her approach, and his/her argument, whether or not you think it correct.
3) After you have written your reply, read it again before posting. Check if you are really answering his criticisms, or if you are just reiterating your previous points. If you find yourself reiterating, perhaps you are not truly understanding the criticism? If so, reply that you do not understand.
4) Upon re-reading your reply, ask yourself if you have replied in a way which is an accurate representation of your own views, yet is phrased in a non-offensive and respectful manner? If you suspect that you are not a good judge of whether or not it is non-offensive enough, you may want to ask a friend to judge for you.
5) Most importantly, tell yourself that it is okay to disagree. It is not necessary (and indeed it may be impossible) to convince your detractors. That is not due to a lack of reasoning on the other side , or lack of conviction on yours, but such is just the nature of rational discourse. People just do not agree.
But disagreement is not a good reason why we can't all get along.
Secondly, I want to talk briefly about this blog written by Thrasymachus. I was actually quite surprised I didn't find this blog sooner. As someone who is familiar with Plato, the moniker "Thrasymachus" is very interesting indeed. One can't help but wonder if it was with or without irony that he chose to name himself after someone who argued that pretty much "might is right". I personally find his blog very nice to read, especially his photo-filled "History of PAP" posts. With regards to his views, although he believes himself to be very much to be neutral, and to his credit he does seem to be critical of the incumbent government in certain issues, I personally would classify him more as leaning on pro-establishment. A rare find indeed, or am I just not looking hard enough? I also think this guy is a pretty nice chap, always insisting on a gentleman's ethic to respect and listen to all views, including detractors (of which he has many), and to give thoughtful and respectful responses. He is also (only?) 25-years old.
In my previous post about the KTM, I briefly mentioned about a "good blogger's ethic", and that it consists of thinking before you blog, and respecting all views. In this post, I am not going to blog about what is or is not a "good blogging ethic", but rather, explore why and how we disagree in the plogosphere. I must also add that I am not a student of media studies, unlike the author of this article, so all that I say right here is just my thinking aloud.
I have been thinking in recent days about the problems of a (necessarily) limited perspective, and how this translates into conflict and disagreement in the plogosphere. While I was formulating my thoughts on the issue, I stumbled unto the above mentioned blog, and read a rather lengthy conversation between Thrasymachus and Elfred in the comments of this particular post and I thought this very interesting as a sample of how people disagree in the plogosphere.
To me, one of the most interesting criticisms in the plogosphere is to accuse your detractor of being "polemic" (or "rhetorical" or "partisan"). Usually, your detractor would reply in a furious "I am NOT being polemic, this IS my argument as I would see it." and by this point, both parties would be talking past each other. Now, both parties may try to be gentlemanly and polite (as I believe Thrasymachus and Elfred have been), but no doubt frustrations arise when much effort is spent explaining and laying out your stand, yet the other side just does not seem to get it. However, most of the time, one or both parties will not try to be as polite or gentlemanly (or just run out patience), and very strong words are exchanged, usually resulting name calling, or labelling the other as "naive" or "self-centered" etc. I also believe even the very best of us have our moments of weakness, and say nasty stuff to our detractors, as shown here by both Thrasymachus (comments to Akikonomu) and the KTM (comments to Whispers of the Heart).
Why does this occur? [As for why we ended up with different perspectives, that will be the subject of another post]. Why is it so difficult to convince one side of another's point of view? Postmodern thinkers might suggest interesting worldviews where reality is subjective, as Mr Wang had suggested in a comment to my previous post. But such assumptions aside, we think, surely at most one person must be correct? And surely the correct person has the better argument, and surely the incorrect person will be able to identify that his argument is incorrect?
If you haven't read this before, take the time to read this introduction to singapore angle. I think Huichieh explains it much better than I can. Through the process of rational discourse, we are bound to have disagreements. Deeply seated disagreements about issues we feel strong about even. Precisely because they are deeply seated issues which you feel strongly about, that is why you are not likely to change your view. It appears to me that humans, by and large, when they decided their opinions about something, they are quite stubborn about it. I believe this to be true even outside of the blogosphere, and even outside of "rational discourse on substantial issues". The way we consider our views is almost always that "I am correct". I believe very few people go around with the mentality "I may be wrong", and even less go around thinking "I AM wrong". We all believe we have good reason to think that we are correct. After all, we thought about it, and fully convinced ourselves of our own point of view.
But reaching your own opinion is not really a matter of pure rational deliberation, so I believe. Professional philosophers, who earn their living by pure rational deliberation day in and day out, disagree about everything all the time. My guess is, if you learn anything from being a philosopher, you learn that pure rational deliberation is usually not enough for you to reach conclusions on most substantial matters. Usually there is something else, be it "intuitions", influences from other people, or just deeply rooted values and beliefs. And these things vary greatly from person to person.
Okay, so people disagree. And convincing each other is something not very likely (although possible) to happen in the plogosphere. So what now? I suggest we adopt the attitude of trying how to disagree gracefully. Now, this is just a suggestion. I am not trying to propose some kind of plogosphere decorum to be upheld. I am sure there are people who will disagree (hee =P) with my proposition for graceful disagreement on the basis of "what's wrong in being confident of my views?" or "why can't I just say what I want to say?".
By "graceful" I do not mean elegant or beautiful, like in "a graceful ballet dancer", but in manifesting goodwill, favor, kindness and forgiveness, such as "an act of grace" of "in good grace". How do you disagree gracefully? I do not have a template, nor do I think a template is a good idea. I believe it is possible to disagree gracefully yet sincerely. These are just a few suggestions I want to throw up:
1) Ask yourself, are you angry? If you are angry, it may be a good idea to not reply immediately out of your righteous indignation. That will likely result in further misrepresentation of your own beliefs. Instead, try to calm down, perhaps reply only several hours, or a day later.
2) Ask yourself, have you tried to understand what the other side is saying, or are you merely trying to find the weak spots where you can attack? Remember that to understand what the other side is saying goes beyond reading the words, try to identity his/her mentality, his/her approach, and his/her argument, whether or not you think it correct.
3) After you have written your reply, read it again before posting. Check if you are really answering his criticisms, or if you are just reiterating your previous points. If you find yourself reiterating, perhaps you are not truly understanding the criticism? If so, reply that you do not understand.
4) Upon re-reading your reply, ask yourself if you have replied in a way which is an accurate representation of your own views, yet is phrased in a non-offensive and respectful manner? If you suspect that you are not a good judge of whether or not it is non-offensive enough, you may want to ask a friend to judge for you.
5) Most importantly, tell yourself that it is okay to disagree. It is not necessary (and indeed it may be impossible) to convince your detractors. That is not due to a lack of reasoning on the other side , or lack of conviction on yours, but such is just the nature of rational discourse. People just do not agree.
But disagreement is not a good reason why we can't all get along.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
how much will you sacrifice to be superstar?
the past few week or so I sick lah, so never blog. actually last week, i was watching project superstar (ha, now you all know i watch such trashy shows on tv) and something happened on that show which set me thinking. one of the female contestents, Kewei, was disqualified from the competition despite making it into the top 12 female contestents. She was disqualified becuase she did not quit her current job, and as a result failed to accomodate the filming schedule of the TV programme. now this got me thinking because i find myself asking, "how come she never quit her job ah?"
when me was watching singapore idol earlier this year (yeah lah, yet another trashy show), i couldn't help but notice there was always a mantra spoken "as long as you believe in yourself, anything is possible". "keep working hard". "don't stop chasing your dream". And similar phrases of encouragement were espoused in earlier seasons of singapore idol and project superstar, i'm sure. now this got me thinking. why did kewei take part in the competition, if not to pursue a dream? and if that dream is worth pursuing, surely it is worth quitting your current job over? unless of course, you think its not a dream worth pursuing. meaning, either kewei thinks that the chances of her winning are so low that it is not worth losing her job over, or she thinks that even if she does win the competition, she does not want to lose her current job because of it.
based on her performance in the qualifying round, and blessed with her jamie-teo looks, myself and my peers thought she had quite a good chance at the competition. but of course, i know not what she was actually thinking. maybe she decided that she just didn't want to go through with the rest of the competition liao. maybe from the start she had no intention to be "superstar", but just wanted to put her own abilities to the test and see how far she could go. maybe lah. no one knows. but what i want to do, is draw attention to the tension between two conflicting values: "pursue your dreams" and "do the practical/pragmatic thing".
this blog is written by lily goh. lily goh was the deaf girl who took part in the first Singapore Idol (appeared in episode 1), and praised by the judges for her step of courage. since then, she recieve sporadic media coverage, often highlighting her never-say-die spirit, her determination to pursue her dreams despite the obstacles she faced. lily hopes to become a deaf-performer, a percussionist musician not unlike Evelyn Glennie, whom she has met twice. if u read her blog, you can see that she is still determined to pursue that dream, even if it means making sacrifices such as taking time to take music lessons, and thus having less time to earn income. yet, lily is but human. she clearly expresses her frustrations at the obstacles she faces, the family and friends who do not support her dream, of her slow progress towards her goal, of being rejected my music schools because of her deafness. Still, she does not give up. Perhaps she believes, as do many of us, that a life is not worth living when you give up what you care the most about, and if that happens then you end up having nothing to live for.
that however, is only half the story. you see ah, i am also a musician. in fact, i play the exact same instrument as lily goh and evelyn glennie. it is also my dream to become a professional percussionist (and teach in a university/conservatory). but i know that currently, i am eons away from achieving that dream, but still, i am closer than lily is to achieving that dream. i am already moderately proficient in the instrument, but lily goh is only a beginner. based on my musical opinion (which it must be noted that i am not a professional hor), lily's dream is very very difficult to achieve. even more so because she is in singapore. and even even more so, because she is deaf.
so how? what should i tell her, should i even tell her anything? i've been told by the leader of my musical group not to approach lily. doing so will offend her current instructor, and since the music community is small in singapore, politics need to be carefully played. so i cannot approach her. fine. which still doesn't answer the question: if i am given a chance to talk to her, what do i want to say to her?
the more conservative side of me might tell her "be responsible for your own life. if you are truly aware of how massive the task is before you, then perhaps it is in your best interests to stop chasing fairytales. not everyone can be singapore idol. not everyone can be evelyn glennie. you still have your mother to look out for, and your own livelihood and sustenance to be responsible about." the more liberal side of me might tell her "never give up on your dreams. you only live life once, and if you decide to give up on your dream, regret will forever lace your life." is there even a right or wrong answer?
i believe there probably is. the problem is, none of us know the "right answer". we can only give opinions. and our opinions are already very heavily influenced by whatever ideals of values we already believe in (conservatism or liberalism). perhaps i ought not to give advice, even if i am given the chance to. despite that i can probably help her more than her other friends can due to my unique position, the fact remains that i will have no idea if my own opinions are in close vincinity of what would be the "right" action for her to take. And since the rest of her life is at stake here, how could i make such a decision flippantly? i may as well just tiam tiam and not say anything.
the wrong actions, even if borne out of good intensions, would be just as damaging. but i think ah, we humans are too preoccupied with what's right and what's wrong. because i so afraid of helping her to make the wrong decision, then i would rather not have such a responsibility. i wash my hands clean lah. but yet i wonder lah, maybe its not so much about making the right or wrong decisions. maybe its about how hard we try to help ourselves, and help each other. i still very much want to help this girl, because i feel for her plight (and in some ways i share it), and because perhaps nobody else is in the same unique position i have to help her. does it matter if i eventually help her to make the "wrong decision"? perhaps life is not about decision making based on projected outcomes, but decision making based on what matters to one's heart, be it dreams or practicality.
that is why i believe, being superstar was never something which mattered in kewei's heart. and if so, good for her that she decided not to quit her job.
when me was watching singapore idol earlier this year (yeah lah, yet another trashy show), i couldn't help but notice there was always a mantra spoken "as long as you believe in yourself, anything is possible". "keep working hard". "don't stop chasing your dream". And similar phrases of encouragement were espoused in earlier seasons of singapore idol and project superstar, i'm sure. now this got me thinking. why did kewei take part in the competition, if not to pursue a dream? and if that dream is worth pursuing, surely it is worth quitting your current job over? unless of course, you think its not a dream worth pursuing. meaning, either kewei thinks that the chances of her winning are so low that it is not worth losing her job over, or she thinks that even if she does win the competition, she does not want to lose her current job because of it.
based on her performance in the qualifying round, and blessed with her jamie-teo looks, myself and my peers thought she had quite a good chance at the competition. but of course, i know not what she was actually thinking. maybe she decided that she just didn't want to go through with the rest of the competition liao. maybe from the start she had no intention to be "superstar", but just wanted to put her own abilities to the test and see how far she could go. maybe lah. no one knows. but what i want to do, is draw attention to the tension between two conflicting values: "pursue your dreams" and "do the practical/pragmatic thing".
this blog is written by lily goh. lily goh was the deaf girl who took part in the first Singapore Idol (appeared in episode 1), and praised by the judges for her step of courage. since then, she recieve sporadic media coverage, often highlighting her never-say-die spirit, her determination to pursue her dreams despite the obstacles she faced. lily hopes to become a deaf-performer, a percussionist musician not unlike Evelyn Glennie, whom she has met twice. if u read her blog, you can see that she is still determined to pursue that dream, even if it means making sacrifices such as taking time to take music lessons, and thus having less time to earn income. yet, lily is but human. she clearly expresses her frustrations at the obstacles she faces, the family and friends who do not support her dream, of her slow progress towards her goal, of being rejected my music schools because of her deafness. Still, she does not give up. Perhaps she believes, as do many of us, that a life is not worth living when you give up what you care the most about, and if that happens then you end up having nothing to live for.
that however, is only half the story. you see ah, i am also a musician. in fact, i play the exact same instrument as lily goh and evelyn glennie. it is also my dream to become a professional percussionist (and teach in a university/conservatory). but i know that currently, i am eons away from achieving that dream, but still, i am closer than lily is to achieving that dream. i am already moderately proficient in the instrument, but lily goh is only a beginner. based on my musical opinion (which it must be noted that i am not a professional hor), lily's dream is very very difficult to achieve. even more so because she is in singapore. and even even more so, because she is deaf.
so how? what should i tell her, should i even tell her anything? i've been told by the leader of my musical group not to approach lily. doing so will offend her current instructor, and since the music community is small in singapore, politics need to be carefully played. so i cannot approach her. fine. which still doesn't answer the question: if i am given a chance to talk to her, what do i want to say to her?
the more conservative side of me might tell her "be responsible for your own life. if you are truly aware of how massive the task is before you, then perhaps it is in your best interests to stop chasing fairytales. not everyone can be singapore idol. not everyone can be evelyn glennie. you still have your mother to look out for, and your own livelihood and sustenance to be responsible about." the more liberal side of me might tell her "never give up on your dreams. you only live life once, and if you decide to give up on your dream, regret will forever lace your life." is there even a right or wrong answer?
i believe there probably is. the problem is, none of us know the "right answer". we can only give opinions. and our opinions are already very heavily influenced by whatever ideals of values we already believe in (conservatism or liberalism). perhaps i ought not to give advice, even if i am given the chance to. despite that i can probably help her more than her other friends can due to my unique position, the fact remains that i will have no idea if my own opinions are in close vincinity of what would be the "right" action for her to take. And since the rest of her life is at stake here, how could i make such a decision flippantly? i may as well just tiam tiam and not say anything.
the wrong actions, even if borne out of good intensions, would be just as damaging. but i think ah, we humans are too preoccupied with what's right and what's wrong. because i so afraid of helping her to make the wrong decision, then i would rather not have such a responsibility. i wash my hands clean lah. but yet i wonder lah, maybe its not so much about making the right or wrong decisions. maybe its about how hard we try to help ourselves, and help each other. i still very much want to help this girl, because i feel for her plight (and in some ways i share it), and because perhaps nobody else is in the same unique position i have to help her. does it matter if i eventually help her to make the "wrong decision"? perhaps life is not about decision making based on projected outcomes, but decision making based on what matters to one's heart, be it dreams or practicality.
that is why i believe, being superstar was never something which mattered in kewei's heart. and if so, good for her that she decided not to quit her job.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
teacher bloggers (for own reference)
Revival of a Singapore Teacher's Life
A primary school teacher in a "well-known school". Honestly expressive about her(?) problems and disappointment with her circumstances, but pledges to help her students to reach their fullest potential.
[Addendum: She has since blogged that she is not "disappointed", only "consciously aware" of her circumstances]
Mis-Educators
Light-hearted posts authored by boredslacker, who has her personal blog separate from this one. Appparently she is in NIE, but gives lots of tuition by the side.
Trisha Reloaded
Familiar to those of us who frequent Intelligent Singaporean, Trisha teaches in a secondary school, and is a also a "struggling but cheerful mother, pragmatic wife, lover of gadgets and all things that have a computer chip in it".
Flying Low
Authored by Piper, an unhappy teacher in a secondary school, an Arsenal fan and an FFXII addict, (and also not someone unfamiliar to Intelligent Singaporean). I have a hard time imagining the Piper to be a female, but apparently she is.
[Addendum: Piper has also blogged in response to what is written here. She says that she is actually pretty happy where she is, and is not unhappy. She just believes things could be much better.]
A Pedagogue's Progress
English and History graduate from Dartmouth College. Currently in NIE, and judging from the 2 year gap between graduation and enrollment in NIE, kungfuzi is also probably a PSC scholar.
Voice of a Young Singaporean Teacher
Teacher in a secondary school, and devout Christian. So devout that he(?) would rather go for his Christian cell group and miss his school's annual dinner. Which probably didn't go well down with his Head of Department.
Wind in my Head
This teacher seems to be a GP teacher in a JC, possibly in a school with through-train. Her blog does not say much about her work, but is a joy to read. She is also a "WoW widow and despises the game with every fiber of the body."
To See a World in a Grain of Sand
This was once a blog, but apparently this teacher's students (primary school it seems) found the blog and spammed insults, and she ended up moving the blog to a new location (which I cannot locate). Most disheartening an affair.
Blogging from my Mackie
A Mac user, and currently a student in NUS, but who hopes to become a teacher. Perhaps is already an MOE scholar/award holder.
Stressed Teacher
A secondary school teacher in an all-girls school. Very well written. This is actually my favourite blog among them all.
Soul Education
Not a blog with a huge archive, but clearly authored by a teacher who was unhappy with his/her circumstances and recently got his/her transfer accepted to another school.
[Addendum (07/10/07): Many of these blogs are no longer updated or even around. As there is still a number of people who regularly visit this post, let me point you towards a new blog that has, I think, a more extensive list of teacher bloggers. ]
A primary school teacher in a "well-known school". Honestly expressive about her(?) problems and disappointment with her circumstances, but pledges to help her students to reach their fullest potential.
[Addendum: She has since blogged that she is not "disappointed", only "consciously aware" of her circumstances]
Mis-Educators
Light-hearted posts authored by boredslacker, who has her personal blog separate from this one. Appparently she is in NIE, but gives lots of tuition by the side.
Trisha Reloaded
Familiar to those of us who frequent Intelligent Singaporean, Trisha teaches in a secondary school, and is a also a "struggling but cheerful mother, pragmatic wife, lover of gadgets and all things that have a computer chip in it".
Flying Low
Authored by Piper, an unhappy teacher in a secondary school, an Arsenal fan and an FFXII addict, (and also not someone unfamiliar to Intelligent Singaporean). I have a hard time imagining the Piper to be a female, but apparently she is.
[Addendum: Piper has also blogged in response to what is written here. She says that she is actually pretty happy where she is, and is not unhappy. She just believes things could be much better.]
A Pedagogue's Progress
English and History graduate from Dartmouth College. Currently in NIE, and judging from the 2 year gap between graduation and enrollment in NIE, kungfuzi is also probably a PSC scholar.
Voice of a Young Singaporean Teacher
Teacher in a secondary school, and devout Christian. So devout that he(?) would rather go for his Christian cell group and miss his school's annual dinner. Which probably didn't go well down with his Head of Department.
Wind in my Head
This teacher seems to be a GP teacher in a JC, possibly in a school with through-train. Her blog does not say much about her work, but is a joy to read. She is also a "WoW widow and despises the game with every fiber of the body."
To See a World in a Grain of Sand
This was once a blog, but apparently this teacher's students (primary school it seems) found the blog and spammed insults, and she ended up moving the blog to a new location (which I cannot locate). Most disheartening an affair.
Blogging from my Mackie
A Mac user, and currently a student in NUS, but who hopes to become a teacher. Perhaps is already an MOE scholar/award holder.
Stressed Teacher
A secondary school teacher in an all-girls school. Very well written. This is actually my favourite blog among them all.
Soul Education
Not a blog with a huge archive, but clearly authored by a teacher who was unhappy with his/her circumstances and recently got his/her transfer accepted to another school.
[Addendum (07/10/07): Many of these blogs are no longer updated or even around. As there is still a number of people who regularly visit this post, let me point you towards a new blog that has, I think, a more extensive list of teacher bloggers. ]
Friday, November 24, 2006
3 arguments against altruism
I was discussing the issue of altruism with a friend, and she said I should blog this, since others might find it helpful. In this post, I will discuss the arguments of Bishop Joseph Butler, a theologian and philosopher of the 18th century, and most of this is taken from his work "Sermons on Human Nature." Butler was largely writing in response to Thomas Hobbes, who wrote that humans are self-interested and materialistic, and any ethical theory needs to appeal to the self-interest of humans.
In talking about altruism, Butler identifies 3 separate views which argue that altruism cannot exist. The first view, is the view that believes an altruistic act is a psychologically motivated act, and the motivation behind that act does not contain any trace of self-interest. Many people like this description of altruism because it is the most "selfless" version. Let us consider the case where a fireman is sacrificing himself to safe a little girl from a burning building. According to the first critic, if you claim that the fireman is doing an altruistic act, you are committed to saying whatever motivations the fireman has for performing that act, none of them are self-interested. Butler claims that for such an extreme definition of altruism, practically everyone will agree that no such version of altruism exists, there is no disagreement, and such critics of altruism are setting up a straw man.
For the sake of argument, lets consider what such a definition of altruism would imply. Among the motivations why the fireman would want to save the girl, even though knowing full well that he may die in the process, is the motivations "saving the girl is the right thing to do" or perhaps "saving the girl is my job". A critic may then argue that the fireman acts out of knowing that he is doing the right thing, or doing his duty, and knowing that he is doing the right thing is self-interested. I personally think that such an argument needs further elaboration before it can work, i.e., one needs to connect the link how "knowing that he is doing the right thing" to self-interest, but it is not difficult to come up with some psychological claim about a sense of emotional or moral fulfillment (fulfilling a desire to "do the right thing"). Even so, I think the onus is on the critic to establish that such a sense of moral fulfillment is indeed the psychological motivation behind the fireman saving the girl's life. It will not be incoherent for the fireman to claim that he saved the girl's life not out of any personal fulfillment of any kind (say, he was depressed), but if he did not do so the girl will die. Another take on the argument is that even though the fireman died in the process, if he had chosen to not save the girl and not die, he would suffer from so much guilt and remorse it is better in his self-interest to end his life to save the girl. This argument strikes me as intuitively unlikely, although the critic can always claim such to be the basis of the fireman's "instinct" to save the girl's life.
The second argument against altruism is an assertion of psychological egoism. This is the claim that all humans are motivated by self-interest, and self-interest alone. This is a popular belief among many of us sometimes, when we get too cynical and disillusioned with the people around us. Butler provides a very clever and interesting argument, which most philosophers believe to have convincingly refuted such a formulation of psychological egoism. First, it is necessary to distinguish between what is known as a first-order desire, and a second-order desire. A first order desire is any basic desire, such as "I desire chocolate flavored ice-cream". A second order desire is a desire about desires. Such as "I desire to fulfill all my desires". The claim of psychological egoism is that humans are only motivated by their self-interest, i.e. the only thing they desire, is to pursue their self-interest. What constitutes "self interest"? A very plausible formulation is the fulfillment of one's own desires. If you are interested in something eg. fame, wealth, or whatever, that is only because you care about somethings and desire those things. Therefore, that the second order desire "I desire to fulfill all my desires" is what motivates all humans all the time, seems to be a plausible formulation of psychological egoism.
Butler then notes that if that is indeed all that you care about, then you have no other desires, other than that particular second order desire (about fulfilling your desires). But the thing is, if you have no other desires, then your second order desire has no other desires to act on. You would have no motivation to do anything. Consider a parallel example. Imagine a universe that lives only 3 angels. Each of these angels have only one psychological motivation: a second order desire to fulfill the desires of other persons (let's call this "selflessness"). However, each of these angels have no other desires, nothing else they care about, other than the second-order desire to fulfill other persons' desires. None of these angels will be motivated to do anything, since for the first angel to display her selflessness, she needs to help the 2nd or 3rd angel fulfill their desires, but they each have no first order desires for her to help them fulfill. They each have a second order desire, but she cannot help them fulfill that desire, because she herself has no first order desires than she can allow the others to help her fulfill. Similarly for the psychological egoist, if all he cares about is the fulfillment of his own desires, but he has no first-order desires, then he will not have any motivation to act on anything.
What does this mean? This means that there must exist first-order desires, in order for the second-order desire to have any motivational push. But first order desires are not self-interested. That you desire to eat chocolate flavored ice-cream is not self-interested. That you desire to fulfill that desire to eat chocolate flavored ice-cream (the second-order desire) is the one which is actually self-interested. Let us consider another example. Assume I care for the football club Manchester United (which I really don't). That I desire for the well-being of the club Man U is a first order desire (this is what is meant for "I care for Man U"). If I desire of the fulfillment of this desire, that is a second order desire, eg. I desire that Man U will defeat Chelsea in tomorrow's game, since defeating Chelsea is a fulfillment of my desire for the well-being of Man U. I may have self-interested reasons for the fulfillment of the second-order desire (I will be upset if Man U loses), and I may be motivated to help bring about that state of affairs (bribe Chelsea players) but I do not have a self-interested reason for the first-order desire. I care about Man U because I just do. It is not coherent to argue that I care for Man U because it is in my self interest to do so.
The third argument against altruism, is a reformulation of psychological egoism in response to the previous criticism. This formulation allows for first-order desires, but among the first-order desires, the critic maintains that within the list of first-order desires that we have, the desire for the well-being of other individuals is not existent. In other words, we can care about many things, but we do not care about other people. Butler thinks that empirically, we know this is not true. I too, believe that it is quite plainly true, that people care for other people. Most parents care very much for their children, for example. Of course, critics may further want to explain that such are not indeed real desires, but only an illusion of so. Such that mothers do not really care about their children, it is an inbuilt biological response. Of course, such an argument will probably have much difficulty explaining how an "inbuilt biological response" is indeed not a "real desire" for the well-being of the child.
Empirically, we are often led to think that humans are all inherently selfish. I personally find it hard not to think that way when we interact wifh the ugly Singaporean everyday. Nevertheless, such observations does not really entitle us to believe that altruism (selfless intensions and behaviour) is philosophically impossible. It's probably just not practised very often.
In talking about altruism, Butler identifies 3 separate views which argue that altruism cannot exist. The first view, is the view that believes an altruistic act is a psychologically motivated act, and the motivation behind that act does not contain any trace of self-interest. Many people like this description of altruism because it is the most "selfless" version. Let us consider the case where a fireman is sacrificing himself to safe a little girl from a burning building. According to the first critic, if you claim that the fireman is doing an altruistic act, you are committed to saying whatever motivations the fireman has for performing that act, none of them are self-interested. Butler claims that for such an extreme definition of altruism, practically everyone will agree that no such version of altruism exists, there is no disagreement, and such critics of altruism are setting up a straw man.
For the sake of argument, lets consider what such a definition of altruism would imply. Among the motivations why the fireman would want to save the girl, even though knowing full well that he may die in the process, is the motivations "saving the girl is the right thing to do" or perhaps "saving the girl is my job". A critic may then argue that the fireman acts out of knowing that he is doing the right thing, or doing his duty, and knowing that he is doing the right thing is self-interested. I personally think that such an argument needs further elaboration before it can work, i.e., one needs to connect the link how "knowing that he is doing the right thing" to self-interest, but it is not difficult to come up with some psychological claim about a sense of emotional or moral fulfillment (fulfilling a desire to "do the right thing"). Even so, I think the onus is on the critic to establish that such a sense of moral fulfillment is indeed the psychological motivation behind the fireman saving the girl's life. It will not be incoherent for the fireman to claim that he saved the girl's life not out of any personal fulfillment of any kind (say, he was depressed), but if he did not do so the girl will die. Another take on the argument is that even though the fireman died in the process, if he had chosen to not save the girl and not die, he would suffer from so much guilt and remorse it is better in his self-interest to end his life to save the girl. This argument strikes me as intuitively unlikely, although the critic can always claim such to be the basis of the fireman's "instinct" to save the girl's life.
The second argument against altruism is an assertion of psychological egoism. This is the claim that all humans are motivated by self-interest, and self-interest alone. This is a popular belief among many of us sometimes, when we get too cynical and disillusioned with the people around us. Butler provides a very clever and interesting argument, which most philosophers believe to have convincingly refuted such a formulation of psychological egoism. First, it is necessary to distinguish between what is known as a first-order desire, and a second-order desire. A first order desire is any basic desire, such as "I desire chocolate flavored ice-cream". A second order desire is a desire about desires. Such as "I desire to fulfill all my desires". The claim of psychological egoism is that humans are only motivated by their self-interest, i.e. the only thing they desire, is to pursue their self-interest. What constitutes "self interest"? A very plausible formulation is the fulfillment of one's own desires. If you are interested in something eg. fame, wealth, or whatever, that is only because you care about somethings and desire those things. Therefore, that the second order desire "I desire to fulfill all my desires" is what motivates all humans all the time, seems to be a plausible formulation of psychological egoism.
Butler then notes that if that is indeed all that you care about, then you have no other desires, other than that particular second order desire (about fulfilling your desires). But the thing is, if you have no other desires, then your second order desire has no other desires to act on. You would have no motivation to do anything. Consider a parallel example. Imagine a universe that lives only 3 angels. Each of these angels have only one psychological motivation: a second order desire to fulfill the desires of other persons (let's call this "selflessness"). However, each of these angels have no other desires, nothing else they care about, other than the second-order desire to fulfill other persons' desires. None of these angels will be motivated to do anything, since for the first angel to display her selflessness, she needs to help the 2nd or 3rd angel fulfill their desires, but they each have no first order desires for her to help them fulfill. They each have a second order desire, but she cannot help them fulfill that desire, because she herself has no first order desires than she can allow the others to help her fulfill. Similarly for the psychological egoist, if all he cares about is the fulfillment of his own desires, but he has no first-order desires, then he will not have any motivation to act on anything.
What does this mean? This means that there must exist first-order desires, in order for the second-order desire to have any motivational push. But first order desires are not self-interested. That you desire to eat chocolate flavored ice-cream is not self-interested. That you desire to fulfill that desire to eat chocolate flavored ice-cream (the second-order desire) is the one which is actually self-interested. Let us consider another example. Assume I care for the football club Manchester United (which I really don't). That I desire for the well-being of the club Man U is a first order desire (this is what is meant for "I care for Man U"). If I desire of the fulfillment of this desire, that is a second order desire, eg. I desire that Man U will defeat Chelsea in tomorrow's game, since defeating Chelsea is a fulfillment of my desire for the well-being of Man U. I may have self-interested reasons for the fulfillment of the second-order desire (I will be upset if Man U loses), and I may be motivated to help bring about that state of affairs (bribe Chelsea players) but I do not have a self-interested reason for the first-order desire. I care about Man U because I just do. It is not coherent to argue that I care for Man U because it is in my self interest to do so.
The third argument against altruism, is a reformulation of psychological egoism in response to the previous criticism. This formulation allows for first-order desires, but among the first-order desires, the critic maintains that within the list of first-order desires that we have, the desire for the well-being of other individuals is not existent. In other words, we can care about many things, but we do not care about other people. Butler thinks that empirically, we know this is not true. I too, believe that it is quite plainly true, that people care for other people. Most parents care very much for their children, for example. Of course, critics may further want to explain that such are not indeed real desires, but only an illusion of so. Such that mothers do not really care about their children, it is an inbuilt biological response. Of course, such an argument will probably have much difficulty explaining how an "inbuilt biological response" is indeed not a "real desire" for the well-being of the child.
Empirically, we are often led to think that humans are all inherently selfish. I personally find it hard not to think that way when we interact wifh the ugly Singaporean everyday. Nevertheless, such observations does not really entitle us to believe that altruism (selfless intensions and behaviour) is philosophically impossible. It's probably just not practised very often.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
got such thing as "prodigy blogger" or not ah?
i just read Gayle Goh's post on GST hikes. since in one of my earlier posts i sort of said something not so nice about Gayle Goh, i want to compensate by saying nice things now. shame on me for bullying this nice 18 year old girl!
she said her post took her 9 minutes to blog. wah lau. damn zai lah. for me, a post that length takes about one hour plus. probably becoz my england not always very powderful, got idea but dunno how to say, so think long long. then when start blogging that time, started saying something, but by the time blog finish say another thing. then spend many hours type liao ah, read already still think i not very clear. sucks to be a blogger lah. unless you as zai as gayle lah. or maybe just i louzy? =(
she also "urged everyone to look at things objectively". heh =). wise words indeed, despite coming from one so young.
she said her post took her 9 minutes to blog. wah lau. damn zai lah. for me, a post that length takes about one hour plus. probably becoz my england not always very powderful, got idea but dunno how to say, so think long long. then when start blogging that time, started saying something, but by the time blog finish say another thing. then spend many hours type liao ah, read already still think i not very clear. sucks to be a blogger lah. unless you as zai as gayle lah. or maybe just i louzy? =(
she also "urged everyone to look at things objectively". heh =). wise words indeed, despite coming from one so young.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
