Archive for November, 2013

On Greatness

Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. ~Twelfth Night, Shakespeare.

Greatness is that big, strong idolatry you feel in your heart when you are in awe of something overwhelmingly powerful and mind-blowing. It is usual something positive instead of negative/dark that can be related to the sublime. I am talking about idolatry, or more easily about influence because every great writer I know of read and was inspired by many other great writers. It’s strange to think that Hegel’s dialectic influenced Marx; Freud’s psychoanalytic theories (especially dreams) influenced Kafka; Homer and Virgil influenced Dante and countless, countless other examples. A more contemporary reference would be to Murakami being heavily influenced by Kafka.

These are tangible influences that can still be seen in their writings today, so it becomes strange to me to realize that these great writers and thinkers at one point, was a student like me, and was studying works of great masters in the process of coming up with their own theories and/or thoughts. The idea that they didn’t just sit in a room and write a great volume of philosophy feels eerily strange to me, to know that I am walking down that same path many others have trodden on and that there are many others walking side by side me, to reach… well to reach knowledge for knowledge’s sake I suppose.

But in the midst of reveling and being humbled in the shadows of giants, today I would humbly like to celebrate 2 poems I stumbled upon, of Nietzsche’s, from the poetic prelude in The Gay Science.

38 The Pious Retort

God loves us, because we are made by him,

“But man made God!” say the refined.

Should he not love what he designed?

Should he, because he made him, now deny him?

That inference limps, it has a cloven mind. 

~~~

57 Choosy Taste

If it depended on my choice,

I think it might be great

To have a place in Paradise;

Better yet — outside the gate.

I took these from Walter Kaufmann’s translations of Die fröhliche Wissenschaft. Can’t believe my tiny bit of knowledge of the German language has come in handy! 😀

On Equality

In my previous post, was a YouTube clip on Milton Friedman giving his argument for capitalism based on a very basic tenet — capitalism does not aim for equality but can naturally drive man closer to it, but on the other hand socialism will only dream of equality but cannot achieve anything tangible in reality. Basically, he is holding a practical stance on “achieving [economic] equality”.

I’d personally like to take a step back and question the basic assumptions behind the idea of equality.

1)  Is equality a value? Why is it valued?

2) Is equality just man’s fantasy? Can it be achieved?

3) Is every individual man similar in value to another? In other words, is man born equal?

4)  What does “equal” mean? Equal in talents? Equal in capabilities to produce value? Equal just in terms of the value of their lives? Is the value of a murderer’s life equal to the value of an average man’s life or a doctor’s life? How does this translate to economic equality?

4) Should we try to achieve equality even in the case where man is not born equal?

4) Is economic inequality inherently perverse? What if every man had all their basic needs met, despite there being a tremendous amount of economic disparity between the rich and the poor — would this still pose a problem for society?

Friedman argues in a lot of his videos/lectures that capitalism has done more good for all of mankind than any other system put in place. He argues that despite the terrible working conditions in London, say during Charles Dickin’s time, one needs to compare the economic state of the people before and after the industrial revolution to see if those people were better off or not after the introduction of machines to propel capitalism forward. One contemporary example would be the exploitation of cheap labor in China. In this case, the question we should ask ourselves is: were these people better or worse off with this new employment? If they are not currently exploited for cheap labor, would they be employed in the first place? In my opinion, I think cheap labor is better than no labor. But of course, I have not done much research on this issue so I’m not sure what these people would have been doing otherwise. I do not think that they were physically forced to take on these jobs, and that this was probably their best option at the time.

One also cannot deny the kind of economic prosperity capitalism has provided for countries like America, Britain etc. and the BRIC countries nowadays. With economic prosperity, global standards of living have increased tremendously over the years and the increasing longevity of people in developed nations are a testament to that. And yes, it is inherent in the case of capitalism that this economic progress comes at a cost where standards of living increase for every socio-economic level, however the economic disparity increases (exponentially?) as well. If huge economic disparity is the cost society must endure in exchange for lifting the general population out of poverty, then is it not morally right to utilize capitalism this way? What does it matter if one is rich and the other is poor if both people are better off than before capitalism had its way? In other words, what is it about the idea of equality that really stirs us up despite us being relatively better off than before? Would we be happy if the whole country was equally as poor? Are we willing to give up higher standards of living in the name of equality?

> I will post another post on being happy in a more equal but poorer society, some other time.

Milton Friedman

Wow, I have been watching some YouTube clips on interviews with Milton Friedman, and they have completely blown me away. Despite the fact that he is not a libertarian, hearing his thoughts at first made me assume that he was one, simply because he detracts from what a stereotypical Republican is in contemporary American society (or maybe I just need to read up more to understand contemporary/past American politics). There seems to be a sense of morality that goes hand in hand with his economic reasoning that steers the middle way for reconciling the debate between [economic] equality and freedom.

Kind of reminds me of Kant, who is said to steer the middle path between the Enlightenment rationalists and the believers in pure faith, through the co-existence of the phenomenal and the noumenal world.

I am looking forward to reading some of his classic texts such as Capitalism and Freedom.

Pulsating

When we are truly living,

life floats by like a dream!

Is it because we have been living in the mundane for so long,

that we start calling it our reality?

Reduction

I remember when I was younger, people would always ask me questions that required a single answer.

For e.g.

What’s your favorite color?

Who is your best friend?

What’s your favorite place in the world?

Favorite book? Dish? Song? etc.

And I remember giving quite distinct answers to most of those questions. More and more so I realize now, my answers are becoming more complex to the point that one might think me elusive. One could claim perhaps the questions being posed are more complex, but I don’t think that’s the reason. Am I then just over-complicating things? Maybe, but also not quite me thinks. I think it’s that as my feelings and thoughts are maturing, I am beginning to understand myself better, and well simply put how can any self be simple? The more I understand myself, the more complexity I see in such a narrow range of frame.

Irreducibility. 

Because just like how when you reduce a sauce down in cooking, whatever is left over will be thicker, denser, and more intensified than before despite the reduction in quantity; this refinement, this funneling, and straining can only produce something irrevocably on point, and irreversible.

Irreversibility.

Why that’s the scariest part of life isn’t it?

Libertarian Moral Cases for the Free Market

READ ME: Libertarianism Beyond Nozick

I found this article truly delightful and enlightening to read, precisely because I’ve been struggling to see how the libertarian take on the free market could be ethically justified, given that capitalism (and everybody who partakes in the system) is often oblivious to the “social violence” it leaves behind (see Zizek’s last two paragraphs). 

Quote(s) that hit home:

Libertarianism is not a comprehensive ethical philosophy. It does not claim that all actions that you should be free to do are equally virtuous, or even morally permissible. Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It is a theory about the proper size and scope of the state, and about the proper spheres of force and freedom in our lives.

 

Accordingly, libertarianism as such has no answers for many of our most important moral questions. Rather, it holds that individuals should be left free, as much as possible, to answer those questions for themselves, in their own way.

 

Libertarians do not deny the importance of community any more than they deny the importance of moral virtue. What they deny is the necessity or appropriateness of centralized state coercion in bringing about either.

 

The libertarian vision of a society is one of free and responsible individuals, cooperating on their own terms for purposes of mutual benefit. It is a vision that draws its support from a wide variety of moral and empirical beliefs with deep roots in the public political culture. And it is one that contemporary critics of the market would do well to take much more seriously.

On the Majority (in Democracy)

In this post I have already mentioned my general thoughts on democracy. And it seems that I am not the only one who thinks this way: I saw that a contemporary version of Henrik Ibsen’s Enemy of the People was playing in BAM this weekend, and I felt compelled to go and watch it live (YouTube videos of the English version available here). This was my second European avant-garde play I have watched at BAM (the first one was Nosferatu). I must say I have never quite seen any play like this (in style and presentation), so it was an overall positive fresh experience for me. The play also happened to weave in quotes from The Coming Insurrection and touched upon the various strands of discontents voiced (a la global Occupy movements) post-2007 recession and US government bailout.

Thought of the day:

With a majority always comes a minority. That means social exclusion, period.

I must say that when the Occupy movements first started, I didn’t think much of them. I pitied these people who I thought were probably involuntarily unemployed and frustrated, or drew a bad hand of cards at birth, or were too lazy to work hard and find better work. Hence, why they had the time and were willing to camp out in the middle of the day (or for days even) to protest over something (the system) that a majority of people think will never change. Some of my classmates (especially in the business school) thought them too idle and shouldn’t waste their time fighting the system, but instead go out and try to make ends of meet instead of wasting their time loitering in a park.

But coming from a developing country and having seen poverty in abundance first hand, I knew better than to believe these people were living bad or poor lives because they were just lazy. For some of them, that might be the case; for the other lot who work hard or try for years to grow out of poverty yet cannot because of their personal circumstances, because of low minimum wages, because of bad education, because our society often only values test results as a measure of intelligence, and almost requires us to acquire an oftentimes expensive formal education in order to be deemed useful to society, and then tell us that a degree is not enough to acquire a good job when you’ve already taken out $200,000 worth of loans to get that piece of paper — you start to really wonder how you can truly be successful in life, and more importantly why we need to be “successful” this way and not measured in other ways.

Some of the quotes that really stood out to me in the play (I am paraphrasing because some of this stuff is not from the original play’s text):

“I feel bad telling them lies in school. We tell our children that they have equal opportunities in life, and then start grading them and separating them from each other in preparation for social exclusion in the real world.” –Katherine Stockmann (a school teacher)

“The most dangerous enemy of truth and freedom among us is the Liberal majority! The majority may have might on its side but not right.” –Dr. Stockmann (“whistle blower” warning about the dangers of the town’s new economic ‘blessing’)

” “I AM WHAT I AM,”  is not simply a lie, a simple advertising campaign, but a military campaign, a war cry directed against everything that exists between beings, against everything that circulates indistinctly, everything that invisibly links them, everything that prevents complete desolation, against everything that makes us exist, and ensures that the whole world doesn’t everywhere have the look and feel of a highway, an amusement park or a new town: pure boredom, passionless but well-ordered, empty, frozen space, where nothing moves apart from registered bodies, molecular automobiles, and ideal commodities.” –Dr. Stockmann (quoted directly from The Coming Insurrection)

Of course, they were trying to sell us that long block quote from the very beginning of the play. And despite the fact that they were sort of shoving it down our throats “here, this is the medicine to achieve the wake-up call my friend!”, I resonated with it because that is how I have felt about downtown Kuala Lumpur as well as Singapore/Hong Kong my whole life. This “passionless order” is the most painful thing to see happen in a country you love. You can educate society to adapt to a world where economic competition is of utmost importance; tell them that everything must be sacrificed in order to build a developed nation with a strong middle class; measure one of the highest GDP in the world, yet ironically still hear the haunting echoes and longing of the meaningful past in an empty nation where numbers measure unhappiness. < Sorry Singapore, that your development had to come at a price.

~~~

Going off on a tangent:

One of the characteristics of modernity (as has been discussed briefly in my college class), is that it becomes hard to pinpoint or blame who or what is causing social change or damage to our “humanity”. Is it those “greedy corporations”, those “corrupt politicians”, those “foreigners”, that are to blame for the suffocating lives we live in? Is it just a by-product of modernization through industrialization and capitalism? Is it capitalism itself? Maybe, or maybe not. The point is that there is no one face or specific object we can point to and say “you’re the culprit!” At least with a tyrannical dictator or monarch, we can focus our energies towards something specific and lay the blame directly on them. With the rise of modernity, the “enemy” seems to arise from nowhere and yet from everywhere. Maybe it is indeed, capitalism itself — if that is the case then we are screwed and revolution will be painful and will have to start from within.

 

Awakening

Been trying to go to as many cultural/educational events this sem. I seem to have awoken a sudden sense of urgency (panic; emergency) within me to learn all I can before I go into industry. Jotting them down here so I can recall some of the things I have learned.

Summary of Events:

  • Plays: Waiting for Godot, Shakespeare in the Square: Hamlet, Nosferatu
  • Films: Godard (A Woman is a Woman), Wong Kar Wai (2046), David Lynch (Mulholland Drive), Zizek (Pervert’s Guide to Cinema, ~ Ideology)
  • Seminars: Dictatorship (NYU Post-colonial Studies), Translation (NYU Institute of Public Knowledge)
  • Readings: Hannah Arendt (Totalitarianism), Declaration of Human Rights, Tan Twan Eng (The Gift of Rain), Mary Shelley (Frankenstein), Rousseau (Confessions), Goethe (The Sorrows of Young Werther), Büchner (Lenz), E.T.A. Hoffmann (The Sandman), Freud (Mourning and Melancholia; stuff from the Freud Reader)
  • Websites: openborders.info, bleedingheartlibertarians.com

Notes:

  • Waiting for Godot – first time watching an absurdist play was interesting. I definitely felt very young in the crowd of at least early 30s/very late 20s. Also had a feeling that the themes and ideas in this play will produce a delayed reaction and identification later on in my life. It is only just a matter of time before it hits me.
  • Hamlet – reminds me of the good old days with Ms. Anne. Always a pleasure to watch something you have studied before.
  • Nosferatu – the stage setting and props felt quite unique and avant-garde to me. The play didn’t have very good reviews even though the director is famous in Poland. Was quite uncomfortable reading the subtitles then shifting my eyes back down to the action on stage. However, the play was just gorgeous to look at it looked like a film set more than a play’s.
  • 2046 – Gawd, this was mind-blowing. The color contrasts were mesmerizing and the interweaving between his present, his past, and others’ stories was quite successful imo. Have to watch this a few times more to get more out of it.
  • Dictatorship Seminar – the idea that democracy can be dictatorship-like never occurred to me until then. Also kept me thinking about the idea of states and nationalism in general.
  • Translation – this was definitely an enjoyable event for me. Ronell was there, which always makes me happy! Talking about the difficulties of translating/untranslatability, and the need for translation to be done in a more contemporary context in order to keep them alive. Made me think about my untranslatable experience as somewhat feeling like an immigrant in my own country. The experience of being a child of immigrants…the uncomfortable space we occupy.
  • Readings: I am struggling to engage with primary texts without a professor’s guidance. Out of all my readings so far, I have understood and dealt with Freud’s “Mourning and Melancholia” the most. Am quite fascinated with psychoanalytic theory and would love to pursue that a little more seriously in my free time. Hoffmann’s “The Sandman” and Goether’s “Werther” also struck a strange chord in me that I know will reverberate continuously within my subconscious/unconscious?
  • Websites: I guess you could say I am having a hard time reconciling my study of Economics with ideas of social justice. So far only the libertarians (with their various strands) are offering me an emotional “way out”, though I have not read enough of their works to be thoroughly convinced.

Summary of My Summary:

  • My primary interests seem to include critical theory (in general? some other stands, or maybe just psychoanalytic theory? I am unclear about this atm), political philosophy (liberty vs equality; states and nations; nationalism and open borders), staging of beauty
  • I have much to learn more, both in terms of quantity and depth. A lot of this stuff you cannot just learn in college, or rather college doesn’t necessarily expose you to enough despite your 3/4 years there. For example, nobody can hold your hand when you dive into the world of primary texts. There are guides and lectures, but the immediate and painful learning experience you get by confronting the texts head on just cannot be substituted by anything.
  • Am excited for my last sem in college. Am planning to take a handful of classes that hopefully can guide my study even further. For now, my course list consists of: Modern Italian Literature, International Economics, Intro to Comp. Lit. (the Other), Ethics and Society (Philosophy dept), Major Texts in Critical Theory.

On Revolution

Found this very interesting clip posted on the NYU Libertarians FB page.

Questions I have:

1) What is the definition of a true revolution?

2) Is heavy taxation and distributive systems (aka welfare state) the answer?

3) What is the libertarian stance on the disappointments in the form of global Occupy movements after the government bailouts?

 

Will venture to answer them later on. For now, buona notte tutti!

On Capitalism – Preliminary Thoughts

These are my preliminary thoughts regarding capitalism. They originated about 2 months before this publish date. At the present, I am studying the works of Marx through Heilbroner’s “Teachings From The Worldly Philosophy” which includes excerpts from the primary texts in addition to his own commentary (this is in contrast to his more famous book that gives a nice summary of the “worldly philosophers” but opted to leave out the more inaccessible primary texts). Here goes my heuristic learning:

My definition of a capitalist is a person or class of people (since they are more than just a few and share many same characteristics, opinions, lifestyles etc.) that owns a lot* of capital.

*Undefined but you get the idea.

Suppose also, that there is only a fixed amount of money in a closed economy where money doesn’t flow in or out of the system/country. It is in the interest of the capitalist is to accumulate even more capital by investing in various projects or financial instruments/markets. The rest of the people in the country are primarily interested in living good, healthy lives and having enough to support their families, without the drive to earn more than they need to. Since the capitalist is interested in accumulating more and more capital, while the rest of the people are less interested in pursuing that goal, what happens in the end is an accumulation of capital and wealth in the hands of capitalists instead of the rest. This is because there is only a fixed amount of money in the economy as I have already stated above. Thus, capitalism is a zero-sum game where one person/class wins, the other party loses.

Where does this break down? Well some people want to become capitalists too and earn more money, but they are stuck in a rut. They either come from poor backgrounds and couldn’t find a decent job, or have a job that doesn’t pay enough because they didn’t realize what they would have to earn to live the lifestyle they wanted.

Should we say that a lot of average people chose a harder life for themselves because they could have picked better corporate jobs?

Should we blame them for wanting to do what they wanted instead of what would make them money?

Should we blame some for being lazy and not chasing the lifestyle they want?

Should we blame the government? Labor market? Corporations? Any business? for not paying higher wages to employees?

Should we blame profit maximization? Shouldn’t it be a right for companies to maximize profits?

Are there enough capitalist positions to be filled in this world?