Haha, free money! Richard had the best-case scenario happening - a receipt for £100 and bank records that showed a withdrawal of the same amount. Good thing there wasn't a security camera to catch him pocketing the extra £9900.
That sense of small business honesty versus large corporation nonchalance undeniably sits with most of us. Somehow we can mentally put aside our morals and justify our petty theft against a large MNC. We know it's wrong but they won't miss it, will they? Why do we think that way? Do we feel we are victims to their exploits? Big business versus small man. Millions of dollars a day versus small change. Enough to let some morals slip.
If I ran a business, regardless of size, I’d be upset over petty theft. A Malay saying goes 'Sikit sikit lama jadi bukit' which means 'A little each time becomes a lot over time'. This saying is used to educate the young on the merits of saving. It also applies to our context too. The French rail company SCNF estimates it's lost over €200 million in unpaid fares from farejumping over a decade. Now that's a lot! Somehow I believe that there is a finite amount of money. So no matter how it plays out, someone loses.
I suppose it's a test of true honesty and self will. If it's the one that gets you past the pearly gates or not reincarnated as a worm, would that extra cash matter? It all boils down to beliefs.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
13. Black, white and red all over
Wow, seeing everything in shades of grey is something we don't normally think about. And dogs do it all the time. Knowing everything about the colour red and not having seen it makes the experience all so bizarre yet it's possible. Poor Mary.
Scientists can strip everything to its basics, explaining bonds, chemicals, reactions, processes and all else about something. The problem is that we don't experience life that way. We know red for the colour it is and not bother that the light reflected into our eyes has a wavelength between 625–740 nm. Beyond the actual colour, seeing red triggers various emotional, psychological and artistic responses too. Science can't really explain that, merely suggest the triggers and outcomes. At the same time, we can relate to Mary's predicament, though not as dramatic, in the way we read travelougues. We can read all about the sights and sounds of Istanbul and imagine, but being there allows to take in everything, from the air to the smells to the feel of the food and walls. It's just different and irreplaceable. (Damn, I need to go to Istanbul!). People feel first then analyse, we can't run away from that.
Mary will be having a hard time once she's able to see colour. Though the world will be alive and exciting, imagine if someone tells her that purple was blue. She might get it wrong forever. Unless of course she tests for wavelengths!
Scientists can strip everything to its basics, explaining bonds, chemicals, reactions, processes and all else about something. The problem is that we don't experience life that way. We know red for the colour it is and not bother that the light reflected into our eyes has a wavelength between 625–740 nm. Beyond the actual colour, seeing red triggers various emotional, psychological and artistic responses too. Science can't really explain that, merely suggest the triggers and outcomes. At the same time, we can relate to Mary's predicament, though not as dramatic, in the way we read travelougues. We can read all about the sights and sounds of Istanbul and imagine, but being there allows to take in everything, from the air to the smells to the feel of the food and walls. It's just different and irreplaceable. (Damn, I need to go to Istanbul!). People feel first then analyse, we can't run away from that.
Mary will be having a hard time once she's able to see colour. Though the world will be alive and exciting, imagine if someone tells her that purple was blue. She might get it wrong forever. Unless of course she tests for wavelengths!
12. Picasso on the beach
Art itself is an expression of one's thoughts and ideas, regardless of whether the artwork is a representation of one's surroundings or a mental picture. Art for the sake of art is a noble pursuit by passionate but usually penniless visionaries. They paint, etch, sculpt and build (as most traditional arts go). Their works are usually recognised long after their deaths, auction gavels ringing in the millions for some fortunate relative/collector. The artist's passion has become immortal.
Throw money into the equation and you get something else. There may be artists or would be artists just faking it for the money, lapping up an ‘appreciative’ but possibly deluded clientele. “Buy it now and it’ll be worth millions later” could be a line you might hear at an art gallery. Not always.
Art is subjective. Like Heidi says “One day you’re in, the next day you’re out” while Coco said “Fashion fades, only style remains the same.” Immortality is in the style. Find your own. Yes, we all want to be remembered in one way or another, in fame or infamy. Painters paint, authors write and the rest of us tag along hoping to be remembered for the way we lived our lives. In our own style.
What is the purpose of art? Looking at it, be it a painting or sculpture, should invoke a response. That is it I think. No response, no art. It could be a case of people not looking and just passing by, and hence not feeling anything. There’s art in all things –from the way lines criss-cross in a aerial view of a city to the way leaves wither to the crow’s feet on my father’s face. Art is everywhere we choose to find it. If Roy was just watching and reveling in Picasso’s work, he might find a glimmer of that feeling in the art he observed. He really didn’t need to think of the money or fame of possessing a Picasso original. Picasso is just another guy with deft hands and a great imagination. But what did Picasso want an observer to feel?
When the waters came and washed away the work of a genius, would it matter to the genius? I doubt. He had done his deed and given himself in that moment. Not to preserve the work forever but revel in its execution. To have an observer revel too.
Throw money into the equation and you get something else. There may be artists or would be artists just faking it for the money, lapping up an ‘appreciative’ but possibly deluded clientele. “Buy it now and it’ll be worth millions later” could be a line you might hear at an art gallery. Not always.
Art is subjective. Like Heidi says “One day you’re in, the next day you’re out” while Coco said “Fashion fades, only style remains the same.” Immortality is in the style. Find your own. Yes, we all want to be remembered in one way or another, in fame or infamy. Painters paint, authors write and the rest of us tag along hoping to be remembered for the way we lived our lives. In our own style.
What is the purpose of art? Looking at it, be it a painting or sculpture, should invoke a response. That is it I think. No response, no art. It could be a case of people not looking and just passing by, and hence not feeling anything. There’s art in all things –from the way lines criss-cross in a aerial view of a city to the way leaves wither to the crow’s feet on my father’s face. Art is everywhere we choose to find it. If Roy was just watching and reveling in Picasso’s work, he might find a glimmer of that feeling in the art he observed. He really didn’t need to think of the money or fame of possessing a Picasso original. Picasso is just another guy with deft hands and a great imagination. But what did Picasso want an observer to feel?
When the waters came and washed away the work of a genius, would it matter to the genius? I doubt. He had done his deed and given himself in that moment. Not to preserve the work forever but revel in its execution. To have an observer revel too.
11. The ship Theseus
My first reaction was 'what's with these rich people? Mad ah?'
Then I put my thinking cap on. So this ship has been rebuilt with many new parts, and all the old bits have gone into making a new ship. Since the crazy rich guy wants the ship with all the deep gory history, then our friendly neighbourhood henchman should be after the ship rebuilt with the old authentic albeit morbid bits. It's the genuine, real deal isn't it?
What's written is true. Imagine that 1979 BMW is up for sale. Sentimentalists might buy the car for the old world charm and style. At the same, some folks wouldn't give a hoot for this 'old piece of junk'. The acquirer's motivation must prevail.
So far, the context surrounds stuff, actual, physical stuff. People on the other hand are a different story. We change. It's inevitable our psyches and mindsets are altered by the way we live and grow up. Some changes are quick like hair colour, others happen over decades like a heart attack from accumulated artery deposits. This also means that the people around us, our family, friends, colleagues, sports buddies will be affected in some way or rather by these changes. But to claim that these changes make us less genuine cannot be true. I am who I am but I do different things and think differently. But it's genuinely me. People might come up and say 'You're not the same person' but yeah I ain't. But it's still me.
Then I put my thinking cap on. So this ship has been rebuilt with many new parts, and all the old bits have gone into making a new ship. Since the crazy rich guy wants the ship with all the deep gory history, then our friendly neighbourhood henchman should be after the ship rebuilt with the old authentic albeit morbid bits. It's the genuine, real deal isn't it?
What's written is true. Imagine that 1979 BMW is up for sale. Sentimentalists might buy the car for the old world charm and style. At the same, some folks wouldn't give a hoot for this 'old piece of junk'. The acquirer's motivation must prevail.
So far, the context surrounds stuff, actual, physical stuff. People on the other hand are a different story. We change. It's inevitable our psyches and mindsets are altered by the way we live and grow up. Some changes are quick like hair colour, others happen over decades like a heart attack from accumulated artery deposits. This also means that the people around us, our family, friends, colleagues, sports buddies will be affected in some way or rather by these changes. But to claim that these changes make us less genuine cannot be true. I am who I am but I do different things and think differently. But it's genuinely me. People might come up and say 'You're not the same person' but yeah I ain't. But it's still me.
10. The veil of ignorance
Interesting predicament - equality vs meritocracy. It's nice that everyone gets their 'fair' share in the grand scheme of things. But then humans are greedy and lazy, naturally. So expect some people not to pull their 'fair' weight when it comes to work. So do these slackers deserve the equal amount of reward as everyone else?
Every society is made up of different kinds of people. We grow up subject to the rules and norms of the world around us. We are moulded into the productive or contributive (or the opposite) members of society. (I know this is simplifying things quite a bit as there are many, many factors that shape our lives but let's take this road before I end up with a thesis.) Wars and political manouvres have been played over the way we contribute to society. Communism came about because the farmers felt that the elite were oppressing them with taxes and secret police. The Soviets and some countries today have social systems that provide benefits to all, regardless of employment of contributive status. The 'dole' in Australia means they
In Singapore, the philosophy of meritocracy prevails. This socio-political ideology was put in place because the powers that be needed to provide equal opportunity to all races that made up the tiny island. Meritocracy meant that those that wanted to be all they could be could be all they could be. But that also means that Singaporeans couldn't afford to fail. After some years, the powers that be were enjoying a great booming economy but at the same time, there was a slice of the population that wasn't doing too good. So the government, keen on improving everyone's lives, does quite a bit to lessen the burden of the less fortunate or low-wage earners. We can't leave them behind. It's not fair distribution to one and all but it helps to even the general playing field.
So what should the Martians do? Here's what I think. Pick a leader by consensus. Get him/her to decide what needs to be done to survive. Delegate tasks and ensure they get done. Split the rewards into an 'everyone' set and 'bonus' set. Decide what over and above performance entails for the bonus rewards. Be fair and honest, distribute the 'everyone' rewards to all. Tell everyone what the 'bonus' rewards are for and get everyone to vote the people who deserved to get extra.
Every society is made up of different kinds of people. We grow up subject to the rules and norms of the world around us. We are moulded into the productive or contributive (or the opposite) members of society. (I know this is simplifying things quite a bit as there are many, many factors that shape our lives but let's take this road before I end up with a thesis.) Wars and political manouvres have been played over the way we contribute to society. Communism came about because the farmers felt that the elite were oppressing them with taxes and secret police. The Soviets and some countries today have social systems that provide benefits to all, regardless of employment of contributive status. The 'dole' in Australia means they
In Singapore, the philosophy of meritocracy prevails. This socio-political ideology was put in place because the powers that be needed to provide equal opportunity to all races that made up the tiny island. Meritocracy meant that those that wanted to be all they could be could be all they could be. But that also means that Singaporeans couldn't afford to fail. After some years, the powers that be were enjoying a great booming economy but at the same time, there was a slice of the population that wasn't doing too good. So the government, keen on improving everyone's lives, does quite a bit to lessen the burden of the less fortunate or low-wage earners. We can't leave them behind. It's not fair distribution to one and all but it helps to even the general playing field.
So what should the Martians do? Here's what I think. Pick a leader by consensus. Get him/her to decide what needs to be done to survive. Delegate tasks and ensure they get done. Split the rewards into an 'everyone' set and 'bonus' set. Decide what over and above performance entails for the bonus rewards. Be fair and honest, distribute the 'everyone' rewards to all. Tell everyone what the 'bonus' rewards are for and get everyone to vote the people who deserved to get extra.
Monday, February 12, 2007
9. Bigger brother
Pierre puts the math together seconds before participants respond in reality - that's not so bad. Yes, it means a computer can piece together circumstances related to time, space, environment and conditions to come up with a result that happens to be the actual decision from the affected person. But seriously, a few seconds before won't make much of a difference. If Pierre was applied to a hostage situation, then maybe we'll see dramatic possibilities from precognition.
Free will is perhaps, as written, the spontaneous decision-making at the moment of choice. Otherwise, isn't it just great planning? Knowing what my colleagues will eat for lunch on a Monday is the result of weeks of hanging around the same people for Monday lunch and seeing patterns in behaviour. That's it. If the order is or isn't expected, it is still free will on the part of my colleague. The choices are more or less the same, and faced with these, my colleague chooses wan tan mee. If it isn't wan tan mee, then the pattern of preference is broken for that week. No biggie.
Is Pierre going to do the same - seek patterns and make judgments? If a participant on the show tends to be passive and inclined to follow the opinion (as a character trait), then we would expect a particular outcome in certain situations, would we not? It may be a set of chemicals in the brain that trigger this response but isn't it rather a kink in the participant's nature through natural (or unnatural, as the case may be) development?
I've no real issue with a computer predicting human responses to situations. We've been doing that in the fields of economics, sociology, politics, psychology and medicine with various degrees of success. We become predictable as humans. We develop to follow order and systems, so it is inevitable that all the cogs, wheels and cycles click and mesh.
Free will is perhaps, as written, the spontaneous decision-making at the moment of choice. Otherwise, isn't it just great planning? Knowing what my colleagues will eat for lunch on a Monday is the result of weeks of hanging around the same people for Monday lunch and seeing patterns in behaviour. That's it. If the order is or isn't expected, it is still free will on the part of my colleague. The choices are more or less the same, and faced with these, my colleague chooses wan tan mee. If it isn't wan tan mee, then the pattern of preference is broken for that week. No biggie.
Is Pierre going to do the same - seek patterns and make judgments? If a participant on the show tends to be passive and inclined to follow the opinion (as a character trait), then we would expect a particular outcome in certain situations, would we not? It may be a set of chemicals in the brain that trigger this response but isn't it rather a kink in the participant's nature through natural (or unnatural, as the case may be) development?
I've no real issue with a computer predicting human responses to situations. We've been doing that in the fields of economics, sociology, politics, psychology and medicine with various degrees of success. We become predictable as humans. We develop to follow order and systems, so it is inevitable that all the cogs, wheels and cycles click and mesh.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
8. Good god
Wow. To some it might seem Plato should have been struck by lightning!
(Some years ago in school, my class discussed religion. Our teacher asked a question that rather disturbed her attentive audience - Did God create man, or did man create God? The basis for the latter was that man needed a supernatural being to explain the unexplainable phenomena around him. It was disturbing to think about rocking the fundamentals of religion. Here we go again.)
Man has the ability to decide what is good or bad, in most simple cases anyway. Do not steal, do not lie, do not hurt etc. Our conscience allows us to weigh the rationality of situations and actions to prescribe them as good or bad. How is our conscience inherently able to make this determination? A god-given ability? Maybe. If we are able to decide good or bad, does it also mean we can go against what we currently know to be good or bad based on God's word? Are we then going against God? Will God be upset or will He be happy that we are able to think for ourselves?
Let's not forget that it is also our upbringing that allows us to define right from wrong. Racist parents will likely have kids that feel the same way.
Different religions present varying versions of higher beings. There merciful gods, sympathetic gods and even vengeful gods. Some gods are presented with flowers, others with animal sacrifice. Given these differences, the message to their followers is likely different too. 'Good' to one person may not be the same as 'good' for another (granted there are also general key similarities in all religions). A good god that makes you do bad things? (Hmmm, i shouldn't be able to put that sentence together.) Then followers wouldn't know the difference. Would witnesses of other religions and atheists be able to identify the 'lack of good'? With caution, yes.
This situation also begs us to ask the questions - Are atheists evildoers? My answer is no. In fact, rational atheists should be able to provide a perspective untainted by religious constraints (if religion can be applied to the situation at hand).
(Some years ago in school, my class discussed religion. Our teacher asked a question that rather disturbed her attentive audience - Did God create man, or did man create God? The basis for the latter was that man needed a supernatural being to explain the unexplainable phenomena around him. It was disturbing to think about rocking the fundamentals of religion. Here we go again.)
Man has the ability to decide what is good or bad, in most simple cases anyway. Do not steal, do not lie, do not hurt etc. Our conscience allows us to weigh the rationality of situations and actions to prescribe them as good or bad. How is our conscience inherently able to make this determination? A god-given ability? Maybe. If we are able to decide good or bad, does it also mean we can go against what we currently know to be good or bad based on God's word? Are we then going against God? Will God be upset or will He be happy that we are able to think for ourselves?
Let's not forget that it is also our upbringing that allows us to define right from wrong. Racist parents will likely have kids that feel the same way.
Different religions present varying versions of higher beings. There merciful gods, sympathetic gods and even vengeful gods. Some gods are presented with flowers, others with animal sacrifice. Given these differences, the message to their followers is likely different too. 'Good' to one person may not be the same as 'good' for another (granted there are also general key similarities in all religions). A good god that makes you do bad things? (Hmmm, i shouldn't be able to put that sentence together.) Then followers wouldn't know the difference. Would witnesses of other religions and atheists be able to identify the 'lack of good'? With caution, yes.
This situation also begs us to ask the questions - Are atheists evildoers? My answer is no. In fact, rational atheists should be able to provide a perspective untainted by religious constraints (if religion can be applied to the situation at hand).
7. No one wins
This is a tough one.
War is bad. It brings out the worst in mankind. Despite the rules of war which both sides should stick to so that atrocities don't take place, we all know that it is easier said than done.
When soldiers far away from home, away from the people they care about, with their lives under threat, are very unlikely to care whether the enemy is treated humanely, regardless if they are innocent civilians. They probably hope that the enemy, civilian or otherwise, was just dead. it's cleaner that way? Less paperwork maybe?
Sacks has to choose between the lesser of 2 evils, both similar in outcome but different in execution (appropriate yet wrong word to use). Sacks is a victim of unfortunate circumstances and a lack of morals among his superiors. Does it nonetheless make Sacks blameless for his actions? No. Does it make Sacks a better person in possibly making his acts less painful for the victim? Yes. Brownie points in heaven, his superiors couldn't care less. Bet he'll go mad from the guilt later (veterans' syndrome). If Sacks objected, he'd be a martyr for morality. Not many would give a hoot, branded a treasonous outcast. It's hard to be the good guy sometimes.
War is bad. It brings out the worst in mankind. Despite the rules of war which both sides should stick to so that atrocities don't take place, we all know that it is easier said than done.
When soldiers far away from home, away from the people they care about, with their lives under threat, are very unlikely to care whether the enemy is treated humanely, regardless if they are innocent civilians. They probably hope that the enemy, civilian or otherwise, was just dead. it's cleaner that way? Less paperwork maybe?
Sacks has to choose between the lesser of 2 evils, both similar in outcome but different in execution (appropriate yet wrong word to use). Sacks is a victim of unfortunate circumstances and a lack of morals among his superiors. Does it nonetheless make Sacks blameless for his actions? No. Does it make Sacks a better person in possibly making his acts less painful for the victim? Yes. Brownie points in heaven, his superiors couldn't care less. Bet he'll go mad from the guilt later (veterans' syndrome). If Sacks objected, he'd be a martyr for morality. Not many would give a hoot, branded a treasonous outcast. It's hard to be the good guy sometimes.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
6. Wheel of fortune
Marge saw things wrongly. But as most people do, she tried to make connections between events. 'First 5 red, then the next spin would end up black. 6 black'. As written, she failed to grasp the mathematical probability of each individual event and accept that each event (spin of the roulette wheel) was independent of each and every other spin.
People make connections to make sense of the stuff they can't control. So if my knees ache, the must be rain coming, and other less than scientific explanations. Connections between and patterns in the occurrence of events allow us to appease the hauntingly apparent illogic of it all. Especially where fortune is concerned.
In Singapore, there's a number lottery that happens 3 times a week . It's called 4D. Some people believe they can predict the winning numbers from the winning numbers that have come before, in the hopes history repeats itself. For example, if 1234 was a winning number on Saturday and 4321 was a winning number on Sunday, many gamblers will make association and devote it to memory or their little notebook. So you can guess what number an 'attentive' gambler may bet on if ever 1234 won again. It's same thing Marge did - spot supposed patterns and make a 'perfectly logical' connections. Some signs make sense, other don't and never will.
Have you heard of the guy whose car engine died each time he went to a particular store to buy vanilla ice cream and only vanilla ice cream? Initially it was the curse of the flavour. But somewhere out there came a plausible, scientific explanation. Go Google it.
People make connections to make sense of the stuff they can't control. So if my knees ache, the must be rain coming, and other less than scientific explanations. Connections between and patterns in the occurrence of events allow us to appease the hauntingly apparent illogic of it all. Especially where fortune is concerned.
In Singapore, there's a number lottery that happens 3 times a week . It's called 4D. Some people believe they can predict the winning numbers from the winning numbers that have come before, in the hopes history repeats itself. For example, if 1234 was a winning number on Saturday and 4321 was a winning number on Sunday, many gamblers will make association and devote it to memory or their little notebook. So you can guess what number an 'attentive' gambler may bet on if ever 1234 won again. It's same thing Marge did - spot supposed patterns and make a 'perfectly logical' connections. Some signs make sense, other don't and never will.
Have you heard of the guy whose car engine died each time he went to a particular store to buy vanilla ice cream and only vanilla ice cream? Initially it was the curse of the flavour. But somewhere out there came a plausible, scientific explanation. Go Google it.
5. The pig that wants to be eaten
The pig is strange. If it volunteered to die, then it is going against nature - most living things fight to live. Is the pig too dumb to accept its reality, its existence? Unlikely, especially if it can talk. If it was explained to the pig that it was to be eaten, it must be disappointed to say the least. Accepting that fate and knowing that death would be painless and humane (how ironic), it goes ahead with slaughter - rather big of the pig don't you think? Goes against nature, I say. Those who object to cruelty to animals would be ok with this outcome - it's a happy ending for all, consumer and pig. Nonetheless, vegetarians who want the benefits of meatlessness would still continue to eat vegetables. No change there. I don't think vegetarians are driven to stick to their strict diet because animals suffer. They still kill cockroaches and slap mozzies to death.
What if the pig wanted to change its mind? Will the pig be set free?
If the pig was genetically engineered to accept the end game, to be ok with its murder for human consumption, was the genetic modification or brain rewiring the cruel act instead? Hence the developers of the GM pig hold the ultimate responsibility of not allowing the pig to have a choice. Does the pig deserve freedom of thought or the right to choose? To feed the world, no. To respect animals, no animal should be eaten.
What if the pig wanted to change its mind? Will the pig be set free?
If the pig was genetically engineered to accept the end game, to be ok with its murder for human consumption, was the genetic modification or brain rewiring the cruel act instead? Hence the developers of the GM pig hold the ultimate responsibility of not allowing the pig to have a choice. Does the pig deserve freedom of thought or the right to choose? To feed the world, no. To respect animals, no animal should be eaten.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
4. A byte on the side
People generally define infidelity on a moral and ethical level. So the idea of being unfaithful is enough to point fingers at. Yes, no crime may have happened or no contact had taken place but pre-meditation is enough for me. Pre-meditation in murder cases drags the killer deeper in trouble; forethought of an affair in marriage may go 'unpunished' as longs as it is not expressed. If Wifey found out, she might come after Dick with a knife. Too bad. So going ahead with virtual sex would be wrong for Dick.
3. The indian and the ice
Ignorance is often to blame for disbelief. Mankind usually needs to see things happen, experience them before acknowledging the reality of things. If enough people acknowledge this event/thing/occurrence, it is more likely that the nay-sayers will come to believe in the truth. Sort of a herd instinct, faith based on majority opinion or the opinion of the trusted ones. This is also how we study and teach, especially at the primary and secondary school levels, especially for Physics and Chemistry. High school kids won't see molecules or see chemical bonds in organic fuels - they read, study and accept, and pass exams in the trust that that is the truth - the truth built on the basis of sufficient believers. So it isn't Dhara's fault for doubting Mahavir, not yet.
2. Beam me up
Yes, we do perceive our psychological continuity to be more important than any physical continuity. This is evident in our ideas behind ghosts and of mythological punishments (where sorcerers turned men into frogs, toads and other creatures where the victims knew of their transformation) - the psychological form transcended the physical form. Even modern day films use such hyper-physical identity transformations (there was a movie where a man and woman switched bodies, a teenage girl and her mom did the same - titles of which i can't remember, haha). So, it is agreed that a person heart-mind-soul are more important then their bodies. The body is a container to support these things. As long as the death of the heart-mind-soul is deemed more substantial than the death of the body, then there is no murder. No end or loss of memory, no break in continuity of experience, no end of 'life'.
1. The evil demon
The basis of argument and reason has to be our ability to rationalize. If we are able to rationalize our thoughts in whatever realm we are in, whether controlled by an evil demon or not, then these thoughts must be the truth. If we are certain of this evil demon's dominion over us, then we must be able to know that this truth we believe now, in what forms it manifests, may change its state later. This knowledge is now the truth behind the truth, and it is what we must apply when we rationalize our arguments later.
A Book That Snorted Out To Me
.jpg)
Titles that stop you in your tracks. That's what this book did to me. In Singapore, it was marketed with yellow cover, red title copy and an image of a pig. If that doesn't stop a genuine book browser, little else will. Most people would probably pick the book, flip through the pages, and make a decision not to buy it because it's a thinkers' book. Philosophy is a big word that scares many people. The closest philosophical thought many may relate to is "To be or not to be, that is the question", although its roots are hardly philosophical (Shakespeare wasn't it?). "I think, therefore I am" could be next best. Anyway, my point is the book isn't for everyone. In this sunny island, it may not do so well (Sorry Julian Baggini).I started this blog to put down my own ideas and thoughts for each of the 100 thought experiments found in The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten and 99 Other Thought Experiments. Having read the first 6 chapters, I revisited them and wrote my ideas down on paper on the train ride home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)