Thomas Aquinas--Aristotle--Rene Descartes--Epicurus--Martin Heidegger--Thomas Hobbes--David Hume--Immanuel Kant--Soren Kierkegaard--Karl Marx--John Stuart Mill--Friedrich Nietzsche--Plato--Karl Popper--Bertrand Russell--Jean-Paul Sartre--Arthur Schopenhauer--Socrates--Baruch Spinoza--Ludwig Wittgenstein

Friday, 29 August 2014

IN LOVING MEMORY OF MY MOTHER
17 June 1930 - 29 August 2012 (2nd Anniversary)




I'm happy for you, mother,
Back with dad, you're together.
For recently, I heard your banter.
Recalling old times so tender.

You loved durians, I remember;
Also a super popiah devourer,
A great chocolate sundae eater,
And a fierce crab-claw crusher.

This mortal divide is no bother,
As love is the great conquerer.
Forget your gentleness, I'll never;
Cos' I'm your loyal son forever!

Sunday, 24 August 2014

THE PERSISTENT DISLIKE FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

The fifth and latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)  had renamed "Feeding Disorder of Infancy or Early Childhood" to "Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder" (also known as Selective Eating Disorder (SED)). Not only has it broadened its diagnostic criteria, it is also a reflection of the realization that the eating disorder that prevents the consumption of certain foods is not merely a phase of childhood that can be outgrown with age, but can persist throughout the adult lives of people so afflicted.

Perhaps, the most infuriating and puzzling symptom of this disorder for parents of afflicted young children and even adult offsprings is their dislike and persistent refusal of fruits and vegetables. While the World Health Organization recommends that everyone eats five portions of fruits and vegetables a day, these victims may take zero portion for months, years or even whole lifetimes!

Such a chronic lack of fruits and vegetables will have dire health consequences.

WHY THE DISLIKE?

There are a few reasons for the persistence into adulthood such child-like aversion towards fruits and vegetables:

1. Complacency.

Victims feel that they are young and invincible and are indifferent to future health problems. They assess their health by how they presently feel, not by evaluating their diet and lifestyles in the light of widely known medical evidence.

2. Victims place a higher priority on their work and social activities over  their health.

When they feel that they can hardly cope with their busy lifestyles, they eat for comfort or to merely suppress their hunger. So, they skip breakfast and eat whatever is quickest to buy and most convenient to eat. Soon, foods devoid of fruits and vegetables like instant noodles, cracker snacks, delivered fast foods and pizzas become their staple food.

3. Laziness.

Some victims spend most of their time cooped up in their rooms stuck with their computers and electronic devices, lying in their sofas or beds. To them, going to the kitchen, opening the fridge door, washing and cutting or peeling some fruits to eat seem so much of a chore. It would seem much easier to reach for the chips and chocolates on their table.

4. Never eating home meals.

Perhaps, by force of habit or as a form of rebellion, some victims eat out every meal of the day, every day of the year. Even when they are home early, they may call for delivered fast foods to be eaten in their rooms, spurning the home-cooked vegetable dishes eaten by the rest of the family.

5. An acquired taste for sugar and salt.

Victims base their food decisions on taste and appearance, not on their nutrient or health benefits. Due to the commercialization of food, widespread advertising has caused victims to associate sweet and salty foods with their modern lifestyles and reject as more disagreeable the blander and potentially more sour and bitter fruits and vegetables.

6. Ignorance.

Despite the many campaigns, advertisements, books, magazines and TV programs that inform about the benefits of fruits and vegetables, many victims choose to ignore such advice either because they lack education and do not understand the science behind them or they are bored by their repetition.

SO WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES?

It is widely known that fruits and vegetables provide numerous nutrients that help to lower the risks of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Therefore, a deficiency of fruits and vegetables may increase the risks of these serious diseases.

If we refer to the largest prospective cohort study of 500,000 participants in Europe on the relationship between diet and chronic diseases called the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Study (1993 to date), we can deduce the following key findings regarding the intake of fruits and vegetables:

1. The high potassium from fruits and vegetables prevents high blood pressure.

2. High dietary fibre (including from fruits and vegetables) protects against bowel cancer.

3. Obesity (which may be caused by a high-calorie, high carbohydrate diet in contrast to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables) increases the risk of developing a number of cancers.

4. Increased fat intake (in contrast to a high fruit and vegetable diet) increases the risk of breast cancer.

5. Dietary flavonoid (found ubiquitously in vegetables and fruits) is associated with reduced gastric carcinoma risk in women.

6. Reducing the consumption of processed meat (perhaps by correspondingly increasing fruit and vegetable consumption) can reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases and death from cancer.

7. An increase in fruit and vegetable intake reduces the risk from all causes of an early death.

8. The consumption of at least five daily servings of fruits and vegetables (together with not smoking, being physically active and moderated alcohol intake) was estimated to lengthen life by 14 years.

But, I guess with the increasing petulance of the younger generation and the undying indulgence of their parents, this will continue to fall on deaf ears.

Saturday, 9 August 2014

HOW AND WHY GOD CAN CO-EXIST WITH EVIL - PART 4

AN OBJECTIVE PHILOSOPHICAL EVALUATION

The whole effort of religion is a human attempt to try to find order from a chaotic world. We can't accept random events of suffering and evil. We disbelieve that misfortunes are chance events. We want a worldly existence full of meaning and justice, yet all evidence points to the contrary. Are we left only with the the feeling of depression and abandonment as in existential philosophy?

So, despite the foregoing explanations, questions persist. Why is there evil and suffering at all? Why are they so hard to bear? Why doesn't God prevent them? And when they happened, why didn't God relieve or remove them? Does God know about my suffering? Or is God powerless or indifferent? Does God love me at all? How can He bear to let humans He love suffer so much?Or does He even exist?

SOME BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS

1. Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)
7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Does God create evil?

2. Amos 3:6 (KJV)
6 "When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?"

Is God responsible for natural disasters?

3. 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 (KJV)
8 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:" 9 "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;"

Does God ruthlessly punish and take revenge on those who don't know him or don't obey him?

WHAT ARE WE TO MAKE OF IT?

We have 3 options:

1. We can go on asking: why can't we be free-willed beings in a world without evil, living a life of moral goodness and mutual love, cooperating with God and enjoying His glory?

2. We can accept the Christian faith as it is and trust God whole-heartedly. But, this only works if your acceptance is true and sincere. Pascal's Wager will not do.

3. For those who somehow could not accept the Bible story or could not betray their intellectual honesty, you can assume that this may be the only life you've got and make the best of it and be the best person you can be despite the uncertainty, randomness and indifference of this existence.

HOW AND WHY GOD CAN CO-EXIST WITH EVIL - PART 3

WHY GOD CAN CO-EXIST WITH EVIL
(Morally justifying God's tolerance of evil)

1. Augustinian Theodicy

In the beginning, God created a perfect world without evil or suffering. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, it allowed evil to enter the world. Evil and suffering thus become the just punishment for this original sin.

Furthermore, according to the Augustinian tradition, any killing, suffering and pain as inflicted upon an enemy when encountered in a just war is positively justified.

2. Irenaean Theodicy

Humans are created in a two-stage process: made first in the image of God whereby the potential for moral perfection is bestowed; and secondly, made in the likeness of God when perfection is actually achieved. To complete this second stage, humans need to have free will and must experience suffering. Such evil is necessary to allow humans to develop as moral agents in this process of spiritualization and soul-making.

3. Eleonore Stump's Theodicy

In her view, the natural evils of disasters, disease, old age and death work to humble humans and make them realize their own frailty and the temporary nature of their satisfaction with themselves and their worldly possessions. This may help them turn their attention to spiritual things and make it more conducive for them to accept the gift of salvation from God.

4. God's Mysterious Plan:

Like a form of predestination, all events have been willed by God. He has a plan whereby each episode of suffering and evil serves a purpose, either to punish us for our misdeeds, to teach us a valuable lesson, to test our faith or free will, to liberate us from more pain or to serve a higher historical purpose or greater good; so just trust God that everything happens for a reason. If life is considered as a whole, misfortunes fall into a certain pattern such that the suffering will not be more than you can bear, the good will eventually exceed the evil and in cases of apparently undeserved or uneven distribution of suffering, the joys of heaven will more than compensate for those. So, each episode of suffering only has a (human) meaning if we attach our own meaning to it, because ultimately, God's plan is beyond human understanding.

HOW AND WHY GOD CAN CO-EXIST WITH EVIL - PART 2

HOW GOD CAN CO-EXIST WITH EVIL 
(Defending the logical possibility of God's tolerance of evil)

1. Alvin Plantinga's free will defense:

It is God’s decision to endow his creations with morally significant free will which is crucial if He is to have a meaningful relationship with them and to enable them to do good and love one another. But, the natural consequence is that the moral choices afforded by such free will render the elimination of much of the evil and suffering in this world impossible. That is because our free will may be misused by us and lead us to make bad moral choices to hurt each other and hurt ourselves such that we actually deserve having the resultant misfortunes. So, you can't have free will without also having evil and suffering.

2. Dualism of Good and Evil:

Good and evil are like 2 sides of a coin. You can't have one without the other. They are necessary complementary opposites with God responsible for good and Satan responsible for evil.

3. Evil does not exist:

Evil as an entity does not exist. Like coldness, coldness as an entity does not exist but is a condition of varying degrees of absence of heat. Heat certainly exists as it is a form of energy associated with the motion of atoms or molecules and capable of being transmitted. So, evil is merely the absence or deficiency in goodness and therefore has nothing to do with God.

4. Karma:

This is the principle of causality where the future of an individual is influenced by his present intentions and actions. Good intentions and good actions give good karma leading to good future outcomes while the opposite leads to suffering and evil.
HOW AND WHY GOD CAN CO-EXIST WITH EVIL - PART 1

I have 2 premises:

1. The Christian God is characterized by being omni-benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent. This premise is crucial because It is only with these qualities that God could create the world and all its creatures, be the master of all existence and be able to make good the promise of salvation and eternal life in heaven.

2. There is plenty of evil in this world. By evil, I mean both moral badness and wickedness, as well as events causing injuries, harm, misfortune, loss or destruction and illnesses that cause pain, suffering and death. This is a factual premise as evidence is readily available in history, current affairs as well as our daily personal experiences.

Perhaps, the greatest stumbling block to faith in the Christian God is the apparent irreconcilable contradictions between these 2 premises. We wonder how an all-loving God can allow his creations to suffer evil, how an all-knowing God can fail to prevent or stop evil and how an all-powerful God can be powerless against evil forces.

I shall attempt to show how and why God and evil can co-exist and evaluate the sufficiency of my efforts.

Sunday, 27 July 2014

ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

An ontological argument is one that relies on a priori assumptions about the nature of an object's existence.  In 1078, Anselm of Canterbury proposed in his Proslogion his proof of God's existence.

First, he defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived".

Thus defined, he argued that since we can conceive Him as such, this God must exist in our minds.

Now, things can exist in our minds and they can also exist in reality.

Things are greater if they exist both in our minds as well as in reality rather than in our minds only.

If God exists only in our minds, and not in reality, then God would not be the greatest Being; because another hypothetical being which may exist both in our minds and in reality would have been greater than God.

But, as already defined, God is the greatest Being ever conceived. So, God must necessarily exist both in our minds as well as in reality.

Therefore, God must exist!

Well, how convincing is that? I think the best way to evaluate it is to present a similar, but counter ontological argument below:

A COUNTER ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

This argument was apparently formulated many centuries ago to refute Anselm's proof of the existence of God.

It goes something like this:

Ok, let's accept Anselm's definition of God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived".

Part of that greatness would be because He created the Universe.

God can create the Universe either with Himself also existing in the Universe or without Himself existing in the Universe.

But a God who could create a Universe without Himself even existing in that Universe would be greater than a God who requires to exist in that Universe in order to create it.

Yet, God is the greatest Being. So, He should create the Universe without Himself existing  in it.

Therefore, God does not exist!

Thursday, 24 July 2014

WORLD DILIGENCE DAY 24/7

Readers of this blog would know that this is the 2nd World Diligence Day that we are celebrating, having been inaugurated on 24th July 2013 by myself.  The occasion is for us to pay a tribute to all the hardworking people of the world who work hard almost 24/7 to bring better lives to their families.    It does not matter what their station or nature of work is, for as long as they work honestly and diligently for positive reasons, they are worthy of our respect.

Monday, 21 July 2014

RENDEZVOUS 
Sadao Watanabe (1985) 

Let me introduce some nice jazz music to you. This is Sadao Watanabe's 1985 album called "Rendezvous". It is very mellow and relaxing. Please enjoy.

http://youtu.be/XTJ5PjKOg28

Tracklist
1 Rendezvous                               5:12
2 Fire Fly                                       5:43
3 If I'm Still Around Tomorrow       4:21
4 Cool Breeze                               4:43
5 Here's To Love.                          4:37
6 Maraval                                      4:31
7 Love Me As I Am                       4:57
8 I'm Yours.                                   4:44

Sunday, 20 July 2014

THE DISSONANCE BETWEEN STATISTICS AND THE FEAR OF FLYING

ROSY STATISTICS VS FLYING PHOBIA

Call it pteromerhanophobia, aerophobia, aviatophobia, or aviophobia, but whatever the big term, it is the pure fear and anxiety about flying that grip us whenever there is a high-profile plane crash. Just as we are about to accept MH370's mysterious disappearance into the Indian Ocean last March, we now have to confront the utter destruction of MH17 by a missile in Eastern Ukraine 3 days ago!

The statisticians never stop to reassure us that it is plain silly to worry about plane crashes. If you are boarding a plane today, there is apparently only a 0.00001% chance that your plane will crash. Put, another way, plane crashes occur at the rate of one per 1.2 million flights.

If you take one flight a day, you would on average need to fly every day for 10,000 years before being involved in a fatal crash! Dying in a plane crash is a 1 in an 11 million lottery because even if involved in a crash, 95.7% of passengers survive! It has even been suggested that it is far more likely to die in the taxi that is bringing you to the airport as your chance of dying in a car crash is much higher at 1 in 5,000!

RATIONALITY VS EMOTIONALISM

Yet, 40 percent of plane passengers will experience some  kind of fear at one time or another while flying. Are these 40% silly? Why are the above rosy statistics not comforting enough for so many people?

I think the reason is not that these people are irrational. People are fearful not because plane crashes are statistically frequent but because of the very fact that they occur at all. In fact, unlike statisticians,  people have very different ideas of what "rare" and "frequent" means.

For example, in 2013, there were 12 commercial air crashes killing a total of 185 people. And so far in 2014, it had been even more deadly, killing 555 in 4 incidents.

So, in the last 18 months, 740 people had perished while on board a commercial plane, working out to roughly 1.37 deaths every day since January 2013. Each of these 740 people must have thought that their chance of dying was a minuscule  1 in 11 million, but yet it happened ...

According to data from Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives, if we look at all aircrafts (not just commercial jets), there were 138 plane crashes in 2013 (462 deaths), and 155 in 2012. These average out to 11.5 crashes a month in 2013 and 12.9 a month in 2012; or about 1 crash every 2 and a half days over those 2 years. So, plane crashes  are not "rare" events.

MISSILE VS PLANE

Now, this latest crash of MH17 on the 17 July 2014 has a different dimension because it was the result of a deliberate attack. In fact, MH17 was the 13th commercial plane to be attacked by gunfire or missile since 1980.

When passenger jets which typically travel at 800 km/hr are attacked by missiles, they are unable to defend themselves or take evasive action because a missile like the one fired from the Russian-made BUK-M2 system would be traveling at about 1,000 metres per second! That's why there was no chance of escape or survival.

CONCLUSION

Bearing all the above in mind, I ask: is the fear of flying justified? For myself, I try to avoid plane travel not because I disbelieve the statistics. I have complete faith in them, especially the part about 40% of all plane passengers having fear and anxiety. To me, having a 40% risk of worrying about my mortality is no way to live. This is just one statistic that is too high!