2012, Nostradamus, Astrology, Revelations, Armageddon, Apocalypse, Ragnarok, and Whether We Can Predict the Future?

Nostradamus

~

If I was a prophet, both respected and feared, the chances that many would believe me is so very high. The chances that you would still believe me when I say that the end of the world is coming ‘soon’ would be lower but still very high. Our sun as a matter of fact can only last another 4 (point something) billion years. ‘Shortly’ after that, it would become a huge big supernova that would swallow up most of the nine planets (eight if we deduct poor Pluto) and then shrink into a black hole (so says Stephen Hawkwing). That is of course, ignoring the also well known fact that a number of horrifying natural disasters like floods, tsunamis, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, global warming (those ice caps are really melting) and earthquakes could very well wipe us out way before 4 (point something) billion years. Then there are those giant meteors which got rid of the dinosaurs! The list in endless! Mankind has no hope! The world is going to end! All of us will die (either naturally or by natural disasters)! You may very well just believe me, your humble but pretentious prophet, when I say that the world is going to end!

In 1960 the British novelist C. P. Snow said on the front page of the New York Times that unless the nuclear powers drastically reduced their nuclear armaments thermonuclear within a decade was a “mathematical certainty.” Nobody, I repeat, nobody thought that Mr Snow was so very wrong. But the ‘dismal science’, which we now know as economics would prove him wrong. Thomas Schelling in 2005 won the noble prize for his work, ‘An Astonishing Sixty Years: The Legacy of Hiroshima’. In his noble prize lecture, Schelling noted how nuclear weapons were perceived as unique when compared to ‘conventional’ weaponry. This perceived uniqueness ensured that no two superpowers would dare use nuclear weapons to blow each other up because for fear of a ‘retaliating strike’. After more than sixty years since the dawn of nuclear weaponry, no ‘unconventional’ war has ever happened between superpowers. Bargaining theory ruled (I will not nuke you if you would not nuke me first). And mankind, while possessing the power to destroy every known centre of civilization in the world has failed to do so either through intelligence or cowardice. Our world today, the information age, may be ironically one of the most peaceful ages of humanity without the fear of Persians, Macedonians, Romans, Turks, Huns, or Mongols being at our doorstep.

Wait a moment. Give me just some time to catch my breath and predict what you are going to say next. I am very well aware that you might think in your head that, “even if it has not happen, it does not follow that it will not happen.” This was exactly how Nostradamus made his predictions. Nostradamus, my equally pretentious predecessor, was a genius. He predicted everything from the rise and fall of Hitler to the fall of the World Trade Centre! I agree. Nostradamus was a genius so much so that he was so well versed in history and astronomy that he started to state that historical events would reoccur when the positions celestial bodies (planets and stars) reoccur in the future. To illustrate, the stars were in position 1 when the Mongols invaded. When position 1 reoccurs in the future, something like the Mongol invasions of the past would happen! So he started writing quatrains that contained no exact dates and are very ambiguous Hitler, claiming to know the future by studying the movement of celestial bodies.

Some people still believe in Nostradamus and many eventually will. Many people are gamblers and many people will be gamblers. For them, the Nostradamus Roulette is irresistible. Place a bet on a number (a prediction) and start spinning (each spin may be one year or more) till you hit that number and say that Nostradamus was correct! The irony of our ignorance sometimes knows no bounds and our ignorance itself is infinite. As people obsessed with gambling would gamble, people obsessed with Nostradamus would continue playing the Nostradamus Roulette. So obsessed are these gamblers that whenever they hear or see some big event, they change the interpretations of the old prophet’s work to suit the situation. This was, I would say, intentionally made easy by the old prophet himself who wrote in a style of old French that was unique and ambiguous even in his days. Even modern Frenchmen have difficulty translating his work. What hope do we English-speaking people have?

Barring old Nostradamus aside, surely astrology has some truth. Yet again, I am forced to agree to the notion of ‘some’ truth. Psychologists however, have a more sceptical outlook. The Barnum effect is the term use to describe our tendency of believing an overgeneralized but phony personality report (especially when they are favourable). P. T. Barnum once declared that a good circus had a “little something for everybody.” Astrology has more to offer by giving you a little bit of the future that you obviously should know yourself unless you have never self-reflected in your whole life. Since all of us share some personalities in common, it would not be difficult to predict another trait when the astrologer or fortune teller is certain of another trait. In saying so, I am so very explicit telling you that the astrologer or fortune teller is really interested in you (especially your shrewdness when it comes to money) than the stars, tea leaves, bird droppings, palms and tarot cards. If fortune tellers could really tell the future, what makes you think he would rather be telling your fortune than making his own fortune in the stock markets?

Last but not least are those people with nice suits, white collars and a certificate showing he graduated from somewhere (presumably important) in theology (which is really the philosophy of religion). The end days are coming or are already here says these people. So ‘soon’ that you must either repent now, donate now (this sounds so awfully familiar with the case of astrologers and fortune tellers), sacrifice now or risk living in fear of eternal retribution for the rest of your lives! God will come ‘the day after tomorrow’ and all will be consumed and all will suffer unless they repent (and donate). God will so very ‘soon’ come again although He said that no one will know when and that He will be like a ‘thief in the night’. So ‘soon’ and sure that they predicted, 30 CE, 60 CE, 90 CE, 500 CE, 1000-Jan-1, 1033, 1179, 1284, 1496, 1669, 1794, 1844-Oct-22, 1850, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, 1975, 1994, 2000, 2012 (I know I miss a few) and were wrong time and time again.

I understand that although it has not happened, it does not follow that it will never happen. I also understand that by believing so, we are all playing the Nostradamus Roulette. It matters not whether we believe or not or whether it happens or not, the truth is always independent of the individual. We are all going to die sooner or later and this we know with certainty. Those gentle and kind at heart would have nothing to fear while those evil and cruel would jump at the sight of their own shadows. Should we be like the astronomer who, when looking so intently at the stars, fall into a well right in front of him? Maybe the end of the world is drawing near. Maybe that is true enough but like Candide, I must go and work in the garden. Believe me as you will for I am your pretentious prophet and go tend your own gardens without fear in your hearts.

Prelude II – Of Knowledge and Ignorance

The Fox and the Grapes by Milo Winter

The Fox and the Grapes

A famished fox crept into a vineyard where ripe, luscious grapes were draped high upon arbors in a most tempting display. In his effort to win a juicy price, the fox jumped and sprang many times but failed in all his attempts. When he finally had to admit defeat, he retreated and muttered to himself, “Well, what does it matter anyway? The grapes are sour!”

~ Aesop Fables

The mind is like Pandora’s Box that keeps the secrets of human knowledge and intellect. It opens only to a selected few and remains closed to the common masses of society. Most of the time, the major portion of the mind’s vast and immense potential lies in wait for someone or something to harness it. Many of us fail to realize that all knowledge comes from the mind for it is the mind that weaves a web of which all data gathered from the senses are collected and synthesized. Yet the more we delve into the wide and lush fields of knowledge, the more we know of how much we do not know. Such is the nature of knowledge that, like a shy maiden, hides her face behind her veil.

Why should we, mortal beings of the flesh, go through such toils and torments for the sake of this elusive maiden that hides merely at the sight of our silhouettes? Is Athena, the Goddess of wisdom, so desirable that she is worth our efforts and patience to win her heart? Can we not choose the pleasures of ignorance rather than the pains of knowledge? For it is said that he who increases in knowledge also increases in sorrow. And it is not certain that the frog that leaves the well will be any happier than the frog that lives in the pond.

We commonly hear that ignorance is bliss. It is ignorance that bestows a great gift upon humanity in the form of presumed concealment. Through ignorance, we are able to protect ourselves from the things that we dare not know. If knowledge is the mirror that reflects the crude ugliness and mortality of the human soul, ignorance is the mask that hides the truth and bends reality into the image that is most appeasing to our eyes. Just as the dark conceals and the light reveals, so does ignorance form an eclipse over all knowledge of reality.

“Know thyself.”

~ Socrates

As long as we believe in our own existence and the existence of the reality around us, we should also believe that our lives are more than just a mere coincidence or a product of random selection. Like chess pieces on the board, each and every one of us have a purpose and a reason for being (raison d’être). Whether we play the role of puppet or puppeteer, we are all intrinsically linked by invisible strings that bind us to everything else in the world. There are reasons why things are as they are.

Perhaps knowledge will reveal to us the role we are to play in reality. Perhaps knowledge will make us bear the inevitable with a smile on our face and a twinkle in our eye. As Francis Bacon has stated, “Seek ye first the good things of the mind, and the rest will either be supplied or its lost will not be felt.”  Knowledge begins by looking inwards into ourselves and into the very things that we presume to be true. We must first understand ourselves before we can ever hope to understand the world.

“Seek ye first the good things of the mind, and the rest will either be supplied or its loss will not be felt.”

~ Sir Francis Bacon

After weighing both knowledge and ignorance in my mind, I yet again renew my earlier belief that knowledge is indeed preferable than sheer ignorance. Even though a rational human being would seek pleasure and avoid pain, would it not also be rational to first accept pain in order to gain greater pleasure in our later days? If so, it would be worth all the effort to wait in faith and in patience for the beauty and wisdom of knowledge rather than to bask now in the ugliness and idleness of ignorance.

Knowledge by far exceeds the beauty of everything else in this world. With knowledge comes the acceptance rather than the discrimination of all things under the sun. In contrast, ignorance fosters hateful and vengeful desires to destroy all knowledge the mind fails to comprehend. One should consider it unwise to be like the fox in the tale who muttered to himself that the grapes were sour after failing to obtain them. As a golden rule, one should not despise  something good that one cannot get.

As the French proverb goes, to know all, is to forgive all. For only when we know, can we love. Even in hate, one must first know what is it he hates before starting to hate it. And maybe even hate itself is a form of love. For when we hate something, that object is forever in the mind of the hating subject as surely as a lover is always in the mind of his beloved. As love triumphs over hate, so will knowledge triumph over ignorance.

In its essence, the highest form of knowledge is a call to tolerance on the inconsequential things that the masses argue with great fervor and energy. Would not the world be a more peaceful and harmonious place if all men had knowledge? Why fight when we already know what must be done and what should be done? Would it not be futile to fight over things that have already been settled by knowledge and understanding? Would this not mean that knowledge is the highest virtue of all men?

The ultimate aim of knowledge is the revelation of the truth. The truth is the revelation of reality as it is, unchanged and untainted by what the mind wants it to be. The acceptance of the truth is the highest form of the attainment of knowledge and is crowned as the pinnacle of human intellectual achievement. As Schopenhauer put it, life is short, but the truth works far and long; let us speak the truth. The truth is more than just the common bag of beliefs and opinions that we hold so dear to our hearts. Throughout history, men have been prone to error and have invented many versions of ‘personal truths’ to suit their own personal desires. This we seek to avoid.

“Life is short, but the truth works far and long; let us speak the truth.”

~ Schopenhauer

True knowledge must be more than just beliefs and opinions. To hold true, any form of knowledge that is developed by an individual mind must be independent from personal senses and experiences. As long as the conditions are similar, the same action should produce the same reaction. In short, one must be able to consistently replicate the results of an experiment before one acknowledges its relevance and reliability. Having said so, let us now pursue the truth with an open heart.

~ Ee Suen Zheng

Meditation XVIII, Sextus Empiricus (AD c.200) – Outlines of Pyrrhonism

Sextus Empiricus

~ When two people meet, they unconsciously affect one another in ways the mind cannot even begin to comprehend. The meeting may be brief and uneventful with nothing fruitful happening as a result of it. But the die is cast and the wheels of time have turned. The present as we know it is now the past and the future is always just beyond reach. Looking backwards, we see the roads we travelled and everything is fated. Looking forward, we see nothing but mist and mazes.  Nothing happens out of mere coincidence and randomness. No effect is without a cause just as no cause is without an effect. For every action there is a reaction and we find that events of the past are necessary and certain. Our meeting today is inevitable.

~

Following the death of Plato and Aristotle, three schools, the Stoics, the Epicureans and the Sceptics would dominate the Greek philosophy. The similarity between all three schools was to achieve ataraxia, which can be defined as an ideal tranquillity or freedom from disturbance. For the Stoics, ataraxia is achieved by accepting misfortunes without complain when we can do nothing about it. A man that sees his son drowning would try to save him. Failing to do so he should not feel distress or unhappy as divine providence have determined it for the best. Therefore his failure is for the best.

The Epicureans on the other hand, called for a way of life directed at worldly happiness which would set the mind free from disturbance and a body free from pain. Pleasure is the goal of living and virtues are only means to achieve that goal. Lastly, we have the sceptics, philosophers that believe that we can only achieve ataraxia by ‘suspension of judgement’ and adhering to none of the dogmatic beliefs. It is philosophy of scepticism that we this meditation would deal with.

The founder of the philosophy of scepticism is a man called Pyrrho, who we believe was a citizen and a priest (some say a painter). Pyrrho refuses to commit himself to any positive belief and attempted to maintain tranquillity (ataraxia) by balancing any possible thesis with its equally possible antithesis. He maintains ‘nothing is honourable or base, or just or unjust, and that nothing exists in truth’. Our knowledge of Pyrrho comes from Sextus Empiricus whom we know virtually nothing about except that he was a sceptic and a physician. Sextus Empiricus wrote a number of works on the history of sceptic philosophy of which the Outlines of Pyrrhonism is one of them.

In the Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Sextus Empiricus compares the scepticism of Pyrrho which he deems superior and that of the Academics (sceptic philosophers from the Academy founded by Plato). He further claims that scepticism as a philosophy has its practical purposes and the tranquillity of the soul will be an outcome of one that abandons the quest of knowledge of any sorts. The Outlines of Pyrrhonism gives us some good arguments that call for the refusal to attach oneself to any dogmatic belief, namely, The Five Modes.

The Five Modes of Epochē (Suspension of Judgement)

1. 1. Disagreement

For any given topic, different philosophers are unable to reach an absolute verdict one way or another. The inability for different philosophers to resolve different philosophies and form a coherent answer would end up with a suspension of judgement.

1. 2. Infinite Regress

Due to the fact that what is offered as support for believing a given proposition is itself in need of such support, and that support is in need of another support, we have no foundation to establishing anything. The cause of A is B and the cause of B is C, what then is the cause of C? And when would this regression end?

1. 3. Relativity

The external object appears this way or that way in relation to the judging subject even though it is the same object. Three hills of different heights in a row may appear as three hills to a man staring from one angle or one big hill from a man staring from another angle.

1. 4. Hypothesis

The Dogmatists, involved with infinite regress, begin with something that they do not establish but that they deem worthy of acceptance without question or demonstration.

1. 5. Circularity

A is the cause of B and B is the cause of A. Which is the cause of which, the chicken or the egg? Another version goes, we know God from the Bible and the Bible came from God.

At the end of the day, the lack for a stable foundation of knowledge causes us to suspend all judgement and this state of balance would enable us to achieve ataraxia.

~ Ee Suen Zheng

“To every argument an equal argument is opposed.”

~ Sextus Empiricus

Meditation XVII, Chuang Tzŭ (4th Century BC) – The Book of Chuang Tzŭ

Chuang Tzŭ dreaming of a butterfly

~ When two people meet, they unconsciously affect one another in ways the mind cannot even begin to comprehend. The meeting may be brief and uneventful with nothing fruitful happening as a result of it. But the die is cast and the wheels of time have turned. The present as we know it is now the past and the future is always just beyond reach. Looking backwards, we see the roads we travelled and everything is fated. Looking forward, we see nothing but mist and mazes.  Nothing happens out of mere coincidence and randomness. No effect is without a cause just as no cause is without an effect. For every action there is a reaction and we find that events of the past are necessary and certain. Our meeting today is inevitable.

~

Ancient Chinese philosophy is very different from the philosophies of the Ancient Greeks. Due to the political upheaval and the social instability that were predominant in the ending days of the Chou dynasty (mid-eleventh century to 249 BC) before the unification of China by the Ch’in (221-206 BC), Chinese philosophical thought carries very practical characteristics. In contrast to seeking answers over epistemological questions like those seen from the works of Plato and Aristotle, Chinese philosophy is mainly concerned with maintaining political and social order. This includes studying the use of language to assess doctrines and the nature of human beings in order to provide a remedy for political and social problems.

Chuang Tzŭ was a leading Chinese Taoist thinker that is often described of developing a kind or philosophy that includes scepticism and relativism. He maintained that there are no neutral grounds to arbitrate opposing judgements made from different perspectives. The realization of this would lead to one minimizing the importance of social institutions and conventions since the distinctions between what is right and wrong is unclear. As a result, emotional involvements towards such things would lessen and place one in an ideal position to react spontaneously to situations with no preconceived goal or preconceptions of what is right and wrong.

In the Book of Chuang Tzŭ, the Chinese thinker rejects the Confucian insistence on obeying conventional morality and instead holds that man should live life in harmony with the tao (Way) which is regarded as the ‘source’ or ‘sustainer’ of the world. Chuang Tzŭ also proceeds to deny that our everyday judgements amount to knowledge of reality. This view is rather in line with other sceptics like Sextus Empiricus and Michel de Montaigne. However, Chuang Tzŭ like Pyrrho is also hesitant on the ways of denial himself, “then does nothing know anything?” – “How could I know that?”

Chuang Tzŭ was not only famous for being a sceptic. He also questions the role of language in human understanding and hints the presence of linguistic relativism. For Chuang Tzŭ, languages are merely simple instruments that enable human beings to communicate more effectively. There may be, he maintains, differences between what we say and the independent reality that we live in.

_

The great tao (Way) is not to be named,

the great disagreement is unspoken,

great benevolence is not benevolent,

great modesty is not humble,

great courage is not violent

the Tao that is clear is not the Tao,

speech which enables argument is not worthy,

benevolence which is ever present does not achieve its goal,

modesty if flouted, fails,

courage that is violent is pointless.

~ The Book of Chuang Tzŭ

_

Of his most famous example of the inability of human beings to gain knowledge is his ‘Butterly Dream’.

_

Once upon a time, I, Chuang Tzŭ, dreamt that I was a butterfly, flitting around and enjoying myself. I had no idea I was Chuang Tzŭ. Then suddenly I woke up and was Chuang Tzŭ again. But I cannot tell, had I been Chuang Tzŭ dreaming I was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming I was now Chuang Tzŭ?

~ The Book of Chuang Tzŭ

_

With stories like the ‘Butterfly Dream’, Chuang Tzŭ contributed the long tradition of Chinese scepticism. In the next Meditation we will examine the sceptic philosophies of Pyrrho and Sextus Empiricus.

~Ee Suen Zheng

“I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly dreaming I am a man.”

~ Chuang Tzŭ

Meditation XVI, Aristotle (384-322 BC) – Prior Analytics and Posterior Analytics

Marble Bust of Aristotle

~ When two people meet, they unconsciously affect one another in ways the mind cannot even begin to comprehend. The meeting may be brief and uneventful with nothing fruitful happening as a result of it. But the die is cast and the wheels of time have turned. The present as we know it is now the past and the future is always just beyond reach. Looking backwards, we see the roads we travelled and everything is fated. Looking forward, we see nothing but mist and mazes.  Nothing happens out of mere coincidence and randomness. No effect is without a cause just as no cause is without an effect. For every action there is a reaction and we find that events of the past are necessary and certain. Our meeting today is inevitable.

~

Aristotle was born in Stagira in northern Greece. At age 17, he went to Athens to study at the Academy and remained there for twenty score years until the death of Plato. After the death of his mentor, Aristotle was invited to return to Macedonia to become to tutor of Alexander the Great, a job which he accepted graciously. He returned to Athens at the age of 49 and founded his own philosophical school, the Lyceum. Aristotle would stay in Athens for another twelve years until the death of Alexander the Great. Aristotle left Athens after the death of the monarch for fear of anti-Macedonian sentiments and charges of impiety (Socrates, mentor of Plato was executed for corrupting the minds of Athenian youths). He died one year later after leaving Athens at age 62, having sealed his name forever as one of the founders of Western philosophy.

The contributions of Aristotle to human knowledge are so wide and significant that he was regarded as the supreme philosopher of the ancient world bearing the nickname, ‘the master of those who know’. Both his writings and his thoughts have influenced the terminology of philosophy itself with words like syllogism, premise, conclusion, substance, essence, accident, metaphysics, species, genera, potentiality, categories, akrasia, dialectic and analytic. While his major works were centred on logic, ethics, and metaphysics, Aristotle also made substantial contributions in the fields of epistemology, physics, biology, meteorology, dynamics, mathematics, psychology, rhetoric, dialectic, aesthetics and politics.

One of his greatest contributions to philosophy was to found the science of logic. In one of his principal works called the Organon, Aristotle wrote six treatises on logic and syllogism that together with the Prior Analytics, laid the foundation for the traditional study of logic. Aristotle was the first to develop the study of deductive inference that defines syllogism as a ‘discourse in which certain things having been stated, something else follows the necessity from their being so’. Perfect syllogisms, according the Aristotle, share a certain form involving three terms, namely, two premises and a conclusion that obviously follow necessity.

Type 1	Type 2	Type 3	Type 4
All as are b   All bs are c All as are c	All as are b   No bs are c No a is c	Some as are b   All bs are c Some as are c	Some as are b   No bs are c Not all as are c

Having explained his theory on pure logic in the Prior Analytics, Aristotle proceeded in the Posterior Analytics to discuss the nature of a form of knowledge which we would come to know as ‘scientific knowledge’ or ‘scientific understanding’. Aristotle insisted that knowledge is not possible through acts of perception. A view that is makes him different from many other later day empiricists. Scientific knowledge involves an ability to explain and recognize as characteristics of knowledge a kind of necessity that unaided perception could never confer.

Unlike the accidental knowledge that we may acquire on a daily basis, scientific knowledge according to the great philosopher must be demonstrable and include the reason of why things must be as they are. In other words, scientific knowledge must enable one to deduce from basic premises and principles that are ‘true, primary, immediate, better known than and prior to the conclusion’. To prevent infinite regression, he maintained these basic premises must be indisputably true and need not be demonstrated themselves. Basic premises should include ‘definitions’ which according to Aristotle are the formulation of what things in their ‘essence’ are.

But how do we proceed to define an object or a term? Aristotle answers that a good definition must contain two parts or steps. The first step is to assign the object in question to its class or group whose members share a common characteristic with it. The second step is to indicate the difference between the object and all other members of its group and class. Hence, man is a rational animal because man shares common characteristics and needs with other animals but is unique in its ability to think. Although Aristotle believed in ‘universals’ (Jack and Jill exist but man, their class, do not), he did not believed in Plato’s ‘Theory of Forms’. He held that universals were just names with no tangible objective existence while Plato maintained that the Forms had objective existence more important and everlasting than any individual.

Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas – “Dear is Plato, but dearer still is the truth,” said Aristotle. This phrase was likely the result of his disagreement with his former mentor on the ‘Theory of Forms’. Barring the arguments between mentor and pupil and any favouritism we show to either one of them, it is important to remind ourselves that the ultimate goal of philosophy is to seek the truth. ‘All men by nature desire to know’ said Aristotle is his greatest work, Metaphysics. I would like to add that all philosophers should by nature desire to know the truth.

~ Ee Suen Zheng

“Plato is dear to me, but dearer still in the truth.”

~ Aristotle

Having explained his theory on pure logic in the Prior Analytics, Aristotle proceeded in the Posterior Analytics to discuss the nature of a form of knowledge which we would come to know as ‘scientific knowledge’ or ‘scientific understanding’. Aristotle insisted that knowledge is not possible through acts of perception. A view that is makes him different from many other later day empiricists. Scientific knowledge involves an ability to explain and recognize as characteristics of knowledge a kind of necessity that unaided perception could never confer.

Unlike the accidental knowledge that we may acquire on a daily basis, scientific knowledge according to the great philosopher must be demonstrable and include the reason of why things must be as they are. In other words, scientific knowledge must enable one to deduce from basic premises and principles that are ‘true, primary, immediate, better known than and prior to the conclusion’. To prevent infinite regression, he maintained these basic premises must be indisputably true and need not be demonstrated themselves. Basic premises should include ‘definitions’ which according to Aristotle are the formulation of what things in their ‘essence’ are.

But how do we proceed to define an object or a term? Aristotle answers that a good definition must contain two parts or steps. The first step is to assign the object in question to its class or group whose members share a common characteristic with it. The second step is to indicate the difference between the object and all other members of its group and class. Hence, man is a rational animal because man shares common characteristics and needs with other animals but is unique in its ability to think. Although Aristotle believed in ‘universals’ (Jack and Jill exist but man, their class, do not), he did not believed in Plato’s ‘Theory of Forms’. He held that universals were just names with no tangible objective existence while Plato maintained that the Forms had objective existence more important and everlasting than any individual.

Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas – “Dear is Plato, but dearer still is the truth,” said Aristotle. This phrase was likely the result of his disagreement with his former mentor on the ‘Theory of Forms’. Barring the arguments between mentor and pupil and any favouritism we show to either one of them, it is important to remind ourselves that the ultimate goal of philosophy is to seek the truth. ‘All men by nature desire to know’ said Aristotle is his greatest work, Metaphysics. I would like to add that all philosophers should by nature desire to know the truth.

Meditation XV, Plato (c.428-347 BC) – Republic

Herma of Plato

~ When two people meet, they unconsciously affect one another in ways the mind cannot even begin to comprehend. The meeting may be brief and uneventful with nothing fruitful happening as a result of it. But the die is cast and the wheels of time have turned. The present as we know it is now the past and the future is always just beyond reach. Looking backwards, we see the roads we travelled and everything is fated. Looking forward, we see nothing but mist and mazes.  Nothing happens out of mere coincidence and randomness. No effect is without a cause just as no cause is without an effect. For every action there is a reaction and we find that events of the past are necessary and certain. Our meeting today is inevitable.

~

The name Plato comes from the Greek word Plátōn which means broad. His name seems to have stemmed from him having broad shoulders and excellent physique. But it is his achievements in philosophy rather than his physical achievements that would earn him a place in history for all time.  Plato remains to this day the best known and most widely studied philosopher of the ancient Greeks. Born an Athenian and of a noble heritage, he was influenced by the old ‘gad-fly’, Socrates, in the early days of his youth. Having found his ultimate passion in philosophy, Plato left Athens in disgust after the execution of his kind and wise mentor Socrates who was executed on the pretext of corrupting the minds of the Athenian youths. This led to Plato travelling to Egypt, Italy and Sicily, before finally returning to Athens and establishing his Academy just right outside the borders of the city. The founding of this educational institution is regarded by many scholars as the start of the first university in the world.

Although the Plato was not the first of the ancient Greeks to raise the question about the nature of human knowledge, he was the first philosopher that we know of, who provided a comprehensive account on epistemological issues. In his work, Theaetetus, he also attacks the view that knowledge and truth are relative to individuals. In another work, Meno, Plato enquired how can one know things, like geometrical truths, without having to learn them. If we already know something, we cannot learn it anew; and if we do not already know it, we cannot possibility recognize it as the right answer to an enquiry, says Plato. Following this reasoning, we must already know all we can know since in every case of possible knowledge, we either already know it or do not already know it.

In his major and most complete work, the Republic, Socrates (one of the main characters in Plato’s dialogues) described the true philosopher as one who desires the whole of knowledge. Philosophers are the people that communities should have as kings (philosopher kings) because they possess knowledge that others lack and also because they stand in special relation to knowledge and goodness. Since knowledge is the highest virtue, governments headed by philosophical kings would be the ultimate political solution! Knowledge according to Socrates however, is different from mere belief and ignorance. What then is the nature of the knowledge that Socrates speaks of? For Socrates, we must be able to answer, ‘what is X?’ before we proceed to say anything about X. In other words, one must find one thing common to all the many instances and examples of X. Socrates maintained that he never found a satisfying answer to this question.

The reason for the absence of an answer to this crucial question lies in the dilemma of knowledge as articulated in Meno. How can we know things? How, then, do we manage to attach any meaning at all to words like justice without first knowing what justice really is? This problem led Plato to suppose that there must be an unambiguous example of justice which may not be in this world that we are acquainted with. How else can we know what is red if there are no examples of red things? For Plato, these examples are what we would later come to know as the ‘Theory of Forms’. Human beings are born into this world with some recollection of the Forms (perfect paradigms and universals; translated from the Greek word for ‘idea’ and to be compared with the Latin word species) and this is the reason we have some conception of what justice is although our definition of it is imperfect. This also explains why we cannot answer the question put forth by Socrates on ‘what is justice?’

Plato believed that the material world that we see is just a shadow world of the real world. The Forms are the archetypes or abstract representations of the things we see around us. These Forms are ‘general ideas’ that more permanent and more ‘real’ than the particular things perceived by our senses. For example, Man is more permanent than James, Jack and Jill. Although James, Jack and Jill would one day grow old and die, the idea of man would exist forever. As Spinoza would say, there exist a world of things perceived by sense and a world of laws inferred by thought. This world of laws can be found in the Forms that give meaning to the things we see in reality because they are like mathematics, both certain and necessary. It is only by seeking these Forms the arrangements of things in the real world according to their classes, sequences and purposes that one can attain knowledge.

One of the best known descriptions by Plato of knowledge and the Forms is the analogy of the cave. In Republic VII, Plato represents the philosophical unenlightened as prisoners chained from birth in an underground cave. Being able to see nothing but moving shadows, these prisoners take them as the whole of reality. Only by escaping the cave can the prisoners gain philosophical enlightenment. This process of escaping the underground cave is completed through the understanding of the Forms. Perhaps we are all still prisoners chained inside a cave, seeing shadows of reality but never ever truly understanding them. Maybe Plato was right and philosophical enlightenment is out of reach for many but a few. But one thing is for certain. The acknowledgement of one’s ignorance is the beginning of knowledge.

~ Ee Suen Zheng

“Philosophy, that dear delight.”

~ Plato

Meditation XIV, Epistēmē – A Brief Introduction to Epistemology

Sigmund Freud – The Science Museum, London

~ When two people meet, they unconsciously affect one another in ways the mind cannot even begin to comprehend. The meeting may be brief and uneventful with nothing fruitful happening as a result of it. But the die is cast and the wheels of time have turned. The present as we know it is now the past and the future is always just beyond reach. Looking backwards, we see the roads we travelled and everything is fated. Looking forward, we see nothing but mist and mazes.  Nothing happens out of mere coincidence and randomness. No effect is without a cause just as no cause is without an effect. For every action there is a reaction and we find that events of the past are necessary and certain. Our meeting today is inevitable.

~

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that concerns itself with the nature, scope and possibility of knowledge. It is the study of how right our beliefs and opinions really are and the extent of human knowledge. Since all of us have opinions, beliefs, prejudices and biases, the study of epistemology is relevant to all of us. What we take to be (our knowledge) must be examined not only as they are but also the manner which they came to be inside our minds. This includes the studying of the various methods that we use to acquire new beliefs and render old ones obsolete. Due to the fact that epistemology involves evaluating the methods used to acquire new beliefs and the degree of accuracy of these beliefs, it is commonly known as the First Philosophy. What use it is to seek an understanding of the world only to realize that the way we gain this knowledge is flawed? Therefore it is in epistemology that we must start the journey into philosophy proper.

Many philosophers since the days of Socrates have sought to provide a basis which would demonstrate the possibility of knowledge. The philosopher Plato had little concerns with this absolute ‘basis’ although he was interested in the nature of knowledge. He was more concerned with what distinguishes knowledge from belief. For Plato, correct belief can be turned into knowledge through fixing it by means of a reason or cause. His pupil, Aristotle, showed more interested in searching for a ‘criterion of truth’ that could be used as a basis to demonstrate the possibility of knowledge. According to Aristotle, one thinks that one has the knowledge of something when we know its reason and cause. He then proceeds further to use syllogism (if A equals B and B equals C, A equals C), a form of logic, to find the necessary truth about something. The teachings of both Plato and Aristotle would stretch late into the Middle Ages when Christian philosophers like Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine adopted them.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth century, Western philosophy was divided between the rationalist and the empiricist. Rationalists like Descartes emphasized the role of reason in gaining knowledge while empiricists like John Locke emphasized the role of experience. The philosopher Descartes employed a method of systematic scepticism in his search for certainty as a foundation for further knowledge. His method of doubt led to one of the most famous propositions in philosophy, namely, Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore I am). For Descartes, although one can doubt even one’s own existence, one cannot doubt that there exists a being that is doing the doubting. As a result, a version of his proposition starts with, I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am. He goes on further and establishes the existence of self as a thinking thing which he held to be the foundation that all further knowledge would stand upon.

John Locke on the other hand, maintained that all our ideas arise from experience although he did not think that all knowledge of truths was derived from experience. Some knowledge, he maintains, rest on intuition and demonstration. He did however; think that experience is the foundation for knowledge in that the simple ideas gained from the senses are the source of everything else that we can understand. This view is in contrast of the rationalist philosopher Leibniz who holds that there is the possibility of innate ideas that are independent of experience or a priori. Such knowledge is derived from truths absolutely necessary that exist prior to experience and demonstration.

It was only later that Immanuel Kant synthesized the two opposing schools of thought by saying that although all knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it all arises out of experience. This provided a bridge that shows that the existence of a priori knowledge is quite compatible with Locke’s view that no knowledge is innate. Kant proceeded by demonstrating that there exist synthetic a priori knowledge that are necessary like those we find in mathematics. For Kant, there are limits to pure reason which human understanding cannot violate. Any attempt to do so would be hindered by the presence of antinomies and contradictions.

There are many problems that plague the study of epistemology. Among these problems include justifying beliefs that we choose to adopt. What makes a belief justified? Is it because the belief is a result from a reliable process of thought? Some philosophers claim that beliefs are justified if they are coherent with all existing beliefs. Should this be true, there would be no need for a solid foundation that we should base all our knowledge on. All that is required is that the new belief be in line with all existing beliefs. The second problem lies in the structure of how we justify our beliefs. If belief A is justified because of belief B, what justifies belief B? Consequently, there would be an infinite regress to find the cause of each belief. This of course would be an impossible task for any human.

Sceptics are keen on exploiting the weakness of our inability to provide a solid foundation which all knowledge can rest on. Sceptical philosophy founded by Pyrrho refused to acknowledge the claims to knowledge unless a ‘criterion of truth’ can be produced. Knowledge-sceptics hold that we cannot achieve knowledge and that we have no right to accept as truth any of our beliefs. Furthermore, because sceptics claim that they can always find an equally good reason against a certain belief, the balance of reasons (for and against a certain belief) implies that we cannot defend our right to our beliefs by only showing evidence that support them. Should this be true, all knowledge would be impossible!

It now falls into the hands of the philosophers to objectively look at the problems of epistemology and to understand whether there are any remote likelihood of gaining knowledge in our world. As we enter into this realm of illusions and insanity, we must stand ready to question even our deepest, darkest and dearest beliefs. Failing to do so would contradict the very nature of this enquiry and would cause us to fall short of the ultimate goal in our quest for knowledge. As we take a deep breath before plunging into the abyss, we should keep in mind that the ultimate truth of all reality belongs to the heavens and not to mortal humans. Even so, it is inevitable that we remain infatuated with the truth.

Having stated briefly introduced the study of epistemology, I would now endeavour to provide a summary of important works in the field of epistemology. The literature that I have selected for this enterprise aims to give a thorough but concise overview of nature of our human knowledge. This task, I admit, is a massive one. The writings of famous philosophers on knowledge have accumulated to piles and piles of printed material since the time of Plato and Aristotle. Some of these works are impenetrable and exceedingly time-consuming to read and study. In order to reduce this process of summarizing to something more feasible and achievable, I have narrowed down the amount writings to important selections of philosophical work.

I am well aware that many individuals may not agree with the range of selections that I will choose to include. However, I do sincerely believe that the works I have chosen would provide an individual new to philosophy the necessary starting point for understanding epistemology. There are two pitfalls in summarizing works of other writers. First, making philosophical works too brief and short would sometimes mean that the original meaning that the author intended to convey would be distorted. Second, the person summarizing may add in his own personal opinions and views on certain matters that would cause other readers to misinterpret the original meaning of things and link these misinterpretations to the original author. I hope do avoid these pitfalls as much as I can. Furthermore, I would also appreciate any individual who points out any misinterpretation on my part. This ends the Fourteenth Meditation.

~ Ee Suen Zheng

Meditation XIII, Historia – The Philosophy of History and History in Philosophy

The King’s Library

~ Our meeting today, my dear reader, is not one of coincidence, luck or blind chance. That we have met today means that we were meant to meet and our meeting could not have happened in any other way. It is inevitable that the past must be as it has been before the future can unfold. We may forget in the near future that this meeting has ever happened but we cannot change the fact that this encounter has already taken place.

~

All our thoughts regardless of whether they are still in our heads, in print or in speech are in reality an idea of the past. This is because the present is a fluid, fast moving interval that goes continuously into the abyss of an ever growing creature that we call the past. Time stops for no man and the idea of an absolute ‘now’ must be abandoned. We realize that the moment the word ‘now’ is uttered and heard, this idea of ‘now’ has already been added into our memory and into an unchangeable reality of the past. Our reality is ever-growing and accumulates in body and bulk as it moves from the past into the present and from present into the future. This is the central theme behind my last essay entitled, Khronos – The Philosophy of Time and its Implications.

If all our thoughts are products of the past, would it not mean that even our thoughts are subject to time? Surely even the brightest of us need time to think and this interval when the process of thought occurs will flow from the present into the past no matter how fast or short it is. Would this not also mean that everything we think of and speak of have already moved from the immediate interval we call the present into the realm of history? This should be especially true for written and printed material that have left the dynamic developments of our minds and enter into the static states of our books and screens. Would it not be safe to say that all works of philosophy that we know of today are in actual fact works in history?

We can feel being in the present, we are conscious of it and we experience it daily. However, we can never study or analyze the ‘present’ because whatever that is left under the microscope or telescope would be that of the past. Consider this my fellow readers, we can take a photo of the immediate present environment but once taken, it becomes a product of the past and not the present. Hence, no philosophy, thought or idea is ever ‘in’ the present. On the contrary, all philosophies, thoughts and ideas are products of the past. As a result, to understand reality as it is, we must understand the past. To understand the past, we must understand history. And to understand history, we must understand the philosophy of history.

To ask whether philosophy or history is more important is an impossible and meaningless task. This would be akin to one asking whether the chicken or egg first came into existence. An answer that we can speculate but only the heavens alone can know. The important thing to note here is that we cannot understand philosophy to its fullness without understanding history and conversely, we cannot understand history without understanding philosophy. Having said so, there are two approaches in which our human history is written and recorded. The first approach is a chronological approach in which events in history are recorded in sequence from earlier events to later events. The second approach is a comparative approach in which history is not recorded chronologically but comparatively, for example, comparing the civilization of China and that of France.

For now, we shall put aside the way history is recorded and look at its implications on philosophy.

A philosopher lives in a particular age or era and is highly influenced by his immediate surrounding environment as well as the prevalent schools of thought during his time. Understanding the historical context of a philosopher is an imperative for a better understanding of both the philosopher himself and his philosophy. Confucius advocated the restoration of traditional values and norms as a remedy for the social and political chaos of his times. Descartes on the other hand, modelled his philosophy on the mind and body dualism to make it in line with that of the Roman Catholic Church although other parts of his philosophy were not consistent with it. Both Voltaire and Rousseau were very deeply affected by the French political system and the pre-French Revolution atmosphere of their day leading to them both writing on liberty and equality.

In my opinion, it is not only important to understand the person and his philosophy, but also to understand why he philosophized in that particular manner and approach. Behold how the medieval Jewish, Christian and Muslim philosophers led to the revival of scepticism and rationalism of Descartes that led to the empiricism of Locke and the traditional English school of philosophy. Reflect also on how the Immanuel Kant’s philosophy synthesized the earlier philosophies and fostered the development of the philosophy of Hegel, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche from his own. In this manner, philosophy has built its superstructure on top of foundations of history and continues to evolve in form as new material is added to it.

It is rather ironic indeed that a great majority of men seem to love hating history. They claim it boring and long-winded, both dull and dry. So surely do they perceive its uselessness that history is always the last subject to study, its books the last to be bought and its impenetrable texts the ones’ to be read for a good night’s sleep. Ironic indeed that the same men send their children to school or go to school themselves! Do they not know that the great portion of education involves burying one’s self in a pile of historical works? Do they not realize that all we learn in college and university are from books in history and works of philosophy? To hate history is to hate education. And it does not take much philosophizing to come to the conclusion that the man who hates education is a fool indeed.

~ Ee Suen Zheng

Meditation XII, Khronos – The Philosophy of Time and its Implications

Big Ben – Clock Tower of London

~ Our meeting today, my dear reader, is not one of coincidence, luck or blind chance. That we have met today means that we were meant to meet and our meeting could not have happened in any other way. It is inevitable that the past must be as it has been before the future can unfold. We may forget in the near future that this meeting has ever happened but we cannot change the fact that this encounter has already taken place.

~

I stare at my mechanical wristwatch silently and intently. It appears alive as every second is accompanied by a small and fast movement while every minute accompanied by a larger and slower one. From the transparent back of the watch, I see parts of the escapement, a number of its 21 jewels and the movements of its spring that goes back and forth like a human heart. The human heart is the organ so akin to a mechanical wristwatch. Although our heartbeat does not beat as accurately as the ticking of a watch, its movements tell us that we are subject to time and more importantly, that we are alive.

Philosophy is the one thing that is unavoidable for every thinking and sentient being. This I have stated concisely with certainty in Philosophos – The Inescapable Philosophy of Philosophy. Due to the importance and imperativeness of philosophy in our present day as well as in all foreseeable future, our approach to philosophy should be systematic rather than a clumsy effort of grasping the wind (Systēma – Approaching Systematic Philosophy). In the last two essays entitled, Logos – The Building Blocks of Philosophy and Paradoxos – The Philosophy of Paradoxes, I have stated the limitations of human language as a form of communication and the dangers that philosophers face when using it to express ideas. In this essay, I will put forth the other leg (the first leg being language) which firm and systematic philosophy should stand on.

Everything and anything save perhaps God alone, requires and is subject to time. Nothing conceivable by the human mind escapes this principle and nothing will. Even if time-travel become one day a possibility, the interval needed for this travel from present to past or present to future shows that we can never ever escape the chains of time. Like many other things, of which we cannot live without, time is one of the most commonly misunderstood concepts. For many of us, time is conceived as an absolute and constant flow from the past to future that is independent of the observer. In stating so, all good clocks, being both accurate and precise would agree on the time interval between two particular and distinct events. This in reality is false.

Einstein’s theory of relativity shows that time is not independent of the observer and that different clocks would not agree on the interval between two events. Suppose one clock stays stationary while the other clock flies in an aeroplane around the world during the interval of two events, the time registered on both clocks would differ in the future when they are compared. Since Einstein’s discovery, the concept of time linked with distance in space (space-time) has connected time with the relative velocities of those perceiving it. The proof of relativity is simple as it is certain. A car moving in the opposite direction of your own would appear to be moving very much faster while a car moving side by side of your own with the same speed would appear rather stationary. In both cases, the theory of relativity is justified.

Philosophy however, requires more than just the formal definitions of physics. In philosophy, time is regarded as the perception of a sequential order of all experience, the sole fundamental quantity that allows the laws of causality (cause and effect, action and reaction) to hold. Along with numbers and space, time can be considered a priori as its existence transcends that of experiences and instead is the sole element that makes experiences even possible. Hence, if there is one thing that everyone can agree upon with the concept of time, it would be its direction. While many of the fundamental laws of physics are time-reversible (for example, ice can turn into water and water into ice), many things that are subject to time are not. The growth of a tree or the breaking of a glass cannot happen in reverse as surely as one can remember the past but not the future.

Time flows in a continuous passage of existence in which events pass from a state of potentiality in the future, through the present, to a state of finality in the past. This dynamic view of time can be traced back to Aristotle that stated that the future lacks the reality of the past and present as reality is continually being added to as time passes. In other words, the reality that we know of both directly and indirectly continues to grow as time flows from past to future. Our understanding of reality is then not a static state but a dynamic movement which increases as we and the universe age. This distinguishes time, the dimension of change from the three dimensions of space.

According to Bertrand Russell, our belief in time is due to our perception of change and memory. We see the second-hand of our watch move and remember in memory that the last position of the second-hand is different from its new position. However, some people belief to this very day that time is a mere illusion created by the human mind. People like Parmenides and Zeno have adopted a static view of time of which events are deemed past in one frame of reference must be deemed future in other frames. Both philosophers held that temporal change is an illusion and therefore time is also an illusion. In the paradox of the arrow, Zeno of Elea stated that:  a moving arrow at any instant is either at rest or not at rest, that is, moving. If the instant is indivisible, the arrow cannot move, for if it did the instant would immediately be divided. But time is made up of instants. As the arrow cannot move in any one instant, it cannot move in any time. Hence it always remains at rest.

At this point, we must clearly divide measured time and experienced time. Measured time like those we see when we record, with a video camera, runners of a race can be divided into instances (in other words photos of the run). However, experienced time during which a runner runs cannot be similarly divided into instances. According to Henri Bergson, experienced time is time as experienced by consciousness which is heterogeneous, ever-changing without repeating itself and not experienced moment by moment but continuously. Illustrating his point, we cannot hear a melody by hearing a succession of disjointed notes. In other words, we cannot stop ourselves from experiencing time in the same way we can pause a video recording. In relation to the paradox of the arrow, although we can split the video recording of an arrow into individual photos of the arrow in flight so as to make it seemingly appear at rest, this cannot happen in a reality where time cannot be stopped.

The truth as we know it changes as time changes. For Aristotle, the earth was stationary and the sun, the moon, the planets and the stars moved in circular orbits about the earth. Earth was the centre of the universe. For Nicholas Copernicus, the sun was stationary at the centre and that the earth and planets moved in circular movements around the sun. It was not until Galileo with his invention of the telescope that the Copernican theory was proven. And it was not until Sir Isaac Newton’s invention of calculus that we can analyze the motions of how bodies move in space and time. Then Einstein’s theory of relativity predicted a slightly different motion than Newton and although the difference was small Einstein’s theory is considered to be the more accurate of the two.

Although the Earth was never really the centre of the universe, Aristotle lacked the apparatus needed to study the position and movements of celestial bodies. The invention of the telescope changed all this by giving man the tool to which we could observe the stars and conclude with certainty that the Earth is not the centre of the universe and that the planets rotate around the sun. Time changes not the truth that is independent of the experience but changes the truth as we know it when further data is available for the mind to analyze. Our philosophy must then not be a static state but a dynamic development where continuous re-examination of pass knowledge should be done in order to ensure that they stand the test of time.

~ Ee Suen Zheng

__

Please Proceed to the Next Meditation: Meditation XIII, Historia – The Philosophy of History and History in Philosophy

Or Go Back to the Meditations Page

Meditation XI, Paradoxos – The Philosophy of Paradoxes

Truth and Falsehood by Alfred Stevens

~ Our meeting today, my dear reader, is not one of coincidence, luck or blind chance. That we have met today means that we were meant to meet and our meeting could not have happened in any other way. It is inevitable that the past must be as it has been before the future can unfold. We may forget in the near future that this meeting has ever happened but we cannot change the fact that this encounter has already taken place.

~

Like all human inventions, language is an imperfect tool for human communication. In Logos – The Building Blocks of Philosophy, I have highlighted the importance of language as an instrument that allows human beings to communicate and work together. Subsequently, I have also stressed that although language is of unparallel importance to humanity, it contains certain imperfections to which the meaning of things can be distorted and ambiguous. In this short essay, I will provide some demonstrations of how our human language may be vague and self-contradictory.

Paradoxes are considered to be an anomaly in languages. Central to the concept of paradox is the idea of conflict. One interpretation of ‘paradox’ is a ‘statement conflicting with received opinion’. One of the most famous philosophical paradoxes is known as the liar paradox, which goes like this: Jill says, ‘I am now not speaking truly’. If Jill is not speaking truly when this is what she says she is up to, she is speaking truly. If she is speaking truly, then she must be doing what she says, that is in this case, not speaking truly. Consequently, what she says is true if, and only if, it is not true. This of course, is rather absurd.

There are many implications that the liar paradox reveals. First and foremost is the nature of truth. How can one determine the truth when a person states that he is not speaking truly? Aristotle was known to state, ‘to say what is that it is and of what is not that it is not, is true’. Yet the liar paradox shows us that the truth is often if not always elusive. For Tarski, ‘snow is white if and only if snow is white’ is the truth. Yet in reality, sentences are not always all so simple and a string of written words can be self-contradictory like the liar paradox.

The barber paradox is another paradox that shows that grammatically correct sentences can be self-contradictory. The barber in a certain village is a man who shaves all and only those men in the village who do not shave themselves. Is he a man who shaves himself? Here we see that if the barber is a man that does not shave himself, he shaves himself. On the other hand, if he does shave himself it would mean that he does not shave himself. Both ways, the sentence is totally illogical. Similar to the liar paradox, the barber paradox implies the truth may sometimes be incomprehensible even through the sentence is grammatically correct.

The next two paradoxes arise from vagueness. The bald man paradox goes like this: suppose a man has a full head of hair: if he loses one hair he will still have a full head of hair. But if he loses enough hairs he will become bald. Clearly, there is no particular number of hairs whose loss marks the transition to baldness. How can a series of changes, each of which makes no difference to his having a full head of hair, make a difference to his having a full head of hair?

Consider next the paradox of the heap. With a single grain of sand, you cannot make a heap. If you cannot make a heap with the grains you have, you cannot make a heap with just one more. So even with 10 million grains you cannot make a heap. Obviously we can make a heap from 10 million grains of sand but the sentence above implies that we cannot. Some people may argue that the definition of a ‘heap’ must be defined before this paradox can be solved (since having 5 grains of sand can technically be made into a ‘heap’ with one grain of sand on top of four other grains of sand).

However, a version of this paradox poses a problem. 1 is a small number, and any number bigger by 1 than a small number is also small; so all numbers are small. While stating that all numbers are small is rather ridiculous, one must note that there is no clear point to which a number can be said to be either big or small. The number 100 may be considered ‘big’ when we compare it to the number 1 but ‘small’ when we compare it to the number 10,000. With no clear distinction of a big or small number, vagueness poses a stumbling block in human communications.

The implications of paradoxes are clear. It is possible to come up with a sentence both self-contradictory and/or vague without being grammatically wrong. While the bald man paradox and the paradox of the heap shows us the importance of definitions to foster greater understanding, it also shows us that coming up with accurate definitions for certain things are extremely difficult. How does one define a ‘heap’ or ‘baldness’? Consequently, the barber paradox shows us that certain things that we can invoke or create through languages can be non-existent in reality. There cannot be a barber that shaves everyone in the village who does not shave himself unless the barber himself is exempted from this clause. This means that the sentence should go: the barber in a certain village is a man who shaves all and only those men in the village who do not shave themselves ‘except himself’.

The liar paradox on the other hand, is by far the most challenging of all these paradoxes. Here we must draw a line between what is true in reality and what is true in a sentence as perceived from an external observer. When Jill says that, ‘I am now not speaking truly’, the truth in reality is that the sentence is a meaningless statement that contains no property of truth in it because it is self-contradictory. For the external observer, the liar paradox is good gibberish as it contains a meaning that can be taken both ways, either true or false. One thing is for certain, human language is far from perfect.

~ Ee Suen Zheng

__

Please Proceed to the Next Meditation: Meditation XII, Khronos – The Philosophy of Time and its Implications

Or Go Back to the Meditations Page

Meditation IX, Systēma – Approaching Systematic Philosophy

The Youth of Aristotle by Charles Degeorge

~ Our meeting today, my dear reader, is not one of coincidence, luck or blind chance. That we have met today means that we were meant to meet and our meeting could not have happened in any other way. It is inevitable that the past must be as it has been before the future can unfold. We may forget in the near future that this meeting has ever happened but we cannot change the fact that this encounter has already taken place.

~

In my last essay entitled, Philosophos – The Inescapable Philosophy of Philosophy, I argued that that the word ‘philosophy’ means different things to different people. However, the importance of philosophy is undoubtedly universal and relevant to everyone in our constantly changing world. Adding to that is the fact that philosophy is unavoidable for every individual with the capacity to think. When we have beliefs and we work to justify these beliefs, we without doubt construct a philosophy of our own. In this short essay, I will attempt to outline some of the stances that one should adopt when approaching the study of philosophy.

Each and every one of us comes to this world as an infant void of all knowledge and experience. Left alone, it is impossible for an infant raised in the Amazons to read and write English without first being thought how to do so. One does not become a Mozart or Beethoven with pure talent alone (although I would have to admit that talent plays a major part in music). Similarly, if Shakespeare was not exposed to the English language, he could not have become such a prominent figure in the world of English literature. Like an empty container waiting to be filled, we must first absorb the raw data of the world through our senses before synthesizing them with our minds to form knowledge and understanding. This process is the start of philosophy that every individual must go through.

Although every infant without mental and physical impairments are capable of using their senses to collect raw data, it is the mind that is responsible for organizing and synthesizing it into knowledge and understanding. As a child, this process that happens in the mind is an unconscious one that the child has no control of. Although this process happens naturally, children are commonly found with misconceptions in their initial understanding of the world and all its properties. This is to say that even though all children with intellectual capacity can think, it does not follow that these children can think correctly on their first attempt. Left unchecked, these mistakes and misconceptions would persist into their latter days and pose a barrier for future intellectual development.

It is common to find propositions that are accepted as being true and accurate in our childhood to be outrageously wrong as we mature in mind and stature. The ideal mission of the study of philosophy is to invoke a conscious process of identifying and rectifying these misconceptions in beliefs that we presume to be true, which are in reality false. As a child, our ignorance may be excused. As an adult, our ignorance is a sign of stupidity, intellectual impairment and sloth.

I believe that it is generally accepted that a physical structure built on top of weak foundations with the use of weak materials is a sure way to ensure its collapse in the near future. Should our structure of knowledge be built upon beliefs that are not proven, or worst, self-contradicting and vague, we can be sure that it will come crashing down like a house of cards. This realization that our knowledge may be an accumulation of a pile of nonsense would ultimately lead us to ask ourselves one question:

‘What do we know?’ or Que sais-je? as Montaigne would put it (he hints that we know so very little).

In order to answer this question, we should, in all humility, subject all our beliefs to the most stringent of tests to prove their validity. It is important during this process that we endeavour to erase all forms of bias and prejudice in order to produce a clean slate on which knowledge is to be built upon. If there is even a little evidence that a certain belief is doubtful, this belief must not be allowed to be accepted as true until it is completely cleared of doubt. But although we should expose all our beliefs and ideas to test their legitimacy, it does not follow that we should spend an impossible amount of time doubting each and every one of them. Every system of belief has core tenets or doctrines that once proven false would result in the destruction of its entire structure.

The Indian philosophers of antiquity were extremely good in questioning their own beliefs to such an extent that Hegel dismissed them as ‘dreamy’ and ‘childlike’. In Sanskrit, the term philosophy also stands for seeing. And at least as early as 1500BC, Indian ‘seers’ were known to raise questions that remain relevant to this very day. ‘What did the universe come from? Propelled by what does a directed mind fall upon its objects? By whom was life first set in motion? Urged by whom are these words being spoken?’, were some of those questions that were asked and largely left unanswered. Hegel may be right in saying that the early Indian philosophers were children. But being childlike is what we should be when we approach philosophy!

We should continue to ask childlike questions when we re-examine our deepest faith and beliefs. Only then can we make progress. Without looking into a mirror, how can one see his own face? The study of philosophy should be a mirror that reflects reality clearly without perversion.

The search for the truth of reality should not be one that is static and dogmatic. To philosophize correctly, we should realize that the process in which we turn raw data, provided by our sense-experience, into knowledge is one that should be continuous. It is a dynamic rather than a static state. The truth of reality over the ages has been seen in history as rather elusive. In the past, human beings thought and accepted that the Earth was in the middle of the universe. This was the generally accepted truth. The majority believed it. The Church leaders endorsed it. And it was wrong. We should be ashamed that it took not one philosopher but two, both Copernicus and Galileo to prove to the leaders of the Church their folly in this matter (please note that I am saying that the Church leaders at the time were at fault and not the Church as an institution).

The ultimate truth belongs to the heavens and no one philosophy can explain it in all its entirety. However, I believe that we can work to improve the precision of our knowledge indefinitely.  To do this, we must understand that doubt is the prerequisite and instrument of reconstructing a systematic form of philosophy.  Thesis and anti-thesis should produce a synthesis of wisdom. We should relentlessly reflect on our deepest faith and beliefs in humility and seek to reverse-engineer our understanding of a reality that we know is independent of our sense-experience. Continuously going back to the basics, letting go of false beliefs that we hold all so dear, broad-based readings and accurate observations are the ultimate virtues of a humble  and professional philosopher.

~ Ee Suen Zheng

__

Please Proceed to the Next Meditation: Meditation X, Logos – The Building Blocks of Philosophy

Or Go Back to the Meditations Page

International Foreign Reserves: Solving the Global Reserve Problem

The Asian financial crisis in 1997 marks an end to an era of unrestricted capital flows and unprecedented economic growth in Asia. Before the crisis, countries in Asia excluding the Middle East were export-oriented economies with huge exposures to foreign currency denominated debt (especially in U.S. dollars). Together with government-directed capital allocation like those previously seen in South Korea, these economies were fostering huge asset price bubbles and overvalued currencies. All these factors contributed in setting the stage for a very destructive financial crisis to happen.

When the Chinese yuan depreciated against the U.S. dollar by 25%, exports from China became relatively cheap compared to exports from East Asia. This economic situation raised the competitiveness of Chinese exports at the expense of East Asia and placed immense pressures on the currencies of East Asia to depreciate.

The waves of currency selling came and countries with huge short-term debts in U.S. dollars, found that they were unable to service their debts. This caused a round of capital flights out of the region. The Thai baht, Indonesian rupiah, Malaysian ringgit, Philippine peso and South Korean won depreciated 40 percent to 80 percent apiece! By the end of the Asian financial crisis, countries in East Asia found their banking systems and economies heavily disrupted.

Source: IMF

There are many hard lessons learnt during the Asian financial crisis of 1997. Among them was the need for a strong central bank to be a lender of last resort during times of financial distress. Besides that, the crisis also highlighted the danger of international capital flows that could exit a country as fast as they could enter it. Furthermore, foreign currency denominated debts are highly volatile and can be the cause of negative external shocks to a country’s real economy. The answer to these problems was simple. Central banks should accumulate large international foreign reserves to act as a cushion against detrimental external shocks to the economy.

Source: IMF, Economist

East Asia has since then emerged from the ashes with the fervour and determination to not repeat the same mistakes of the 1990s. Most of the countries that were severely affected have seen their Real GDP increase to overtake the levels seen before the Asian financial crisis. However, this economic revival is not without a cost. According to data obtained from the International Monetary Fund (2009), serious current account imbalances have accompanied the economic recovery seen in the countries of Asia. The reason for these persisting imbalances is due to the relatively undervalued Asian currencies measured according to their purchasing power parity.

Source: Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute

In the interval between the Asian financial crisis to the Sub-prime mortgage crisis, countries in Asia have been keeping their currencies artificially low. This made exports from Asia relatively cheap and have worked to foster larger accumulations of international foreign reserves. According to Alan Greenspan (2007) the East Asian economies have dramatically remedied their shortfall of foreign exchange reserves and reduced their borrowings denominated in foreign currencies. The international foreign reserves in emerging Asia have doubled to US$ 1 trillion from 2000 to 2003. To date, the foreign exchange reserves of China and Japan alone amount up to US$ 3 trillion!

In recent years, countries in Asia have realized that their international foreign reserves are more than sufficient to act as a cushion against external financial and economic shocks. Governments across Asia have since then utilize these surpluses of funds by transferring assets from central banks and other government institutions to sovereign wealth funds (SWT) which would then use these funds for further investment in the financial markets. According to the International Monetary Fund, the current estimated assets under the management of sovereign wealth funds are around US$2-3 trillion. This is an astronomical figure considering that the total amount of assets under the management of hedge funds is around US$ 1.9 trillion.

Source: Bloomberg

Over the years, the role of Asian central banks has evolved. While having twin objectives to promote sustainable economic growth and to maintain price stability, central banks are now no longer restricted to domestic monetary policy (open market operations, overnight policy rates, reserve requirements and discount rates). Through sovereign wealth funds, governments in Asia and their central banks have gained excess to financial markets and have invested in equities, sovereign debt, corporate debt, real estate and infrastructure. In the recent sub-prime mortgage crisis, we see sovereign wealth funds like Temasek Holdings and Abu Dhabi Investment Authority buy into foreign banks like Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) and Citigroup.

The Asian financial crisis can sometimes be seen to be a blessing in disguise as many countries in East Asia, like China and Malaysia, have found themselves better able to withstand detrimental external shocks to their economies in the recent global economic slowdown. However, having large international foreign reserves may also prove to be a problem. Recent data indicates that Asian countries have pumped in their liquidity into low yield U.S. treasury securities. China, Japan and OPEC countries alone hold more than US$ 1 trillion of U.S. treasury securities.

According to Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz (2007), the United States cannot live within its means and borrows some US$ 2 billion a day from poorer countries! This situation is weird indeed as money is flowing uphill, from the poor to rich. To illustrate this further, the trade surpluses in exports are being recycled back into the United States by buying U.S. treasury securities. In other words, poor Asian countries are financing the huge budget deficits of the United States! The reason for this is that US treasury securities, especially short-term US treasury bills, are highly liquid. This means that they can be sold quickly whenever Asian countries need cash. Furthermore, the United States is attracting world reserve funds because it is the world’s number one military and economic power. Yet with the US dollar volatile as it is, would it still be wise to hold onto US treasury securities?

Source: IMF (2008)

They are numerous challenges that we will face in the coming years of the next society. We are likely to see the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries becoming economic powerhouses. The economies of both China and India have both respectively emerged from the global economic slowdown relatively unscathed and are projected to continue to grow rapidly. According to Peter Drucker (2002), virtual banks are also becoming increasingly significant as E-commerce activities create virtual money. Islamic financing have also grown immensely with estimates from Standard and Poor stating that around US$ 750 billion assets are under shariah-compliant management. Last but not least, the Guardian (21 July, 2009) states that the world is reaching a landmark in aging population as the global population of 65 and over is set to outnumber children under the age of five.

The liquidity that Asian central banks have accumulated opens many opportunities on the road ahead. First and foremost, investments in the telecommunication industry would increase worker productivity and encourage countries like Malaysia to become a regional financial centre. According to last month’s Economist magazine, China is now the largest mobile telephony market while India is the fastest growing one. Second, third world countries have underdeveloped infrastructures. Development, for example, in public transportation like roads and rails would encourage more trading activities.

Third, prices of commodities both in agriculture and raw materials are likely to increase in the near future because of inflation and supply shortages. Besides that, international foreign reserves can also be invested in higher education and to build schools. Peter Drucker (2002) noted the decline in manufacturing and the increase importance of knowledge products such as education which have tripled in cost in recent years. Lastly, some of the surplus reserves can be used to establish countries like Malaysia as an Islamic banking hub. This would enable Malaysia to take advantage of the petro-dollars coming from the Middle East.

To facilitate these developments, Asian central banks or sovereign wealth funds can support local commercial banks or help companies that are involved in these activities. This can be done by helping them raise capital through the purchase of their bonds or equities. The upside of this approach rather than investing directly in these areas is that Central banks or sovereign wealth funds would be insulated from adverse forces affecting these industries.

Bill Gates once said that success is a lousy teacher because it seduces smart people into thinking they cannot lose. As Asian economies have weathered the global economic downturn more successfully as compared to the Asian financial crisis we are reminded by Peter Drucker that only the fairy tale ends, ‘happily ever after’. What we need now is to continuously improve our economic systems by working together for a better future. In saying so, we need to find new opportunities to invest our excess international foreign reserves.

~ Ee Suen Zheng

Reflection

I search for my own reflection,

In mirrors, windows and calm waters.

For I fear that a misconception,

Have arisen from my own desires.

_

That I see myself in the light,

Without my flaws and imperfections.

With such virtues and might,

I fear my mind a self-created delusion.

_

The truth lies in my still-life,

Hidden from view in my soul and spirit.

Like other truths it seek to strife,

To remain concealed without any merit.

_

Yet I search for it and it hides from me,

My reflection escapes me for all eternity.

_

~ Ee Suen Zheng

Inviting Someone Else’s Flaw

‘Xi Shi was one of the most famous beauties in Chinese history and legend. It was rumoured that she was presented by the King of Yue to the King of Wu. According to legend, she mesmerized the king so completely that his country’s government weaken and to the extent that the Kingdom of Yue was able to conquer the Kingdom of Wu’.

Once, Xi Shi was suffering from heart-burn. She kept both her hands on her chest, frowned and knitted her brows all day long. Even so, everyone all said that she looked beautiful.

In the same village was an ugly girl who concluded that Xi Shi’s beauty came from her frowning and knitting her brows. Quite foolishly, she tried to imitate Xi Shi by frowning and knitting her brows whenever she met other people. When the villagers saw this ghastly sight, they all avoided her.

~ Zhuang Zi

~

_____________________________________________________________

Fear

The Gates of Hell

That which lurks in the shadows,

In my thoughts and the shards of my memory.

A beast that roams my mind’s meadow,

Invading the soul of my deepest sanctuary.

_

Its claws extended all knifes of sin,

Eyes burning with such hatred, spite and malice.

Wings that threaten to enfold my being,

The possession of my soul its triumphant chalice.

_

I ran at the sight of its very presence,

Into the darkness, into the past, and into hell.

But after me it came stronger in essence,

Taunting me further with its strong putrid smell.

_

I wish that the beast would die or disappear,

For no beast is as horrifying as pure fear.

_

~ Ee Suen Zheng