Who Am I to Judge?

Who am i to judge is a very common rhetoric. This rhetorical question often suggest that we are in no position to judge. Are we in no position to judge anyone? Are we in no position to judge anything? Do we lack the ability to give judgement?

Or are humans just afraid of judgement, therefore we make a contract with others to refrain from giving judgement as to prevent getting judged?

Who am i to judge? I am a man with the faculties given by nature or otherwise to make judgement. Is judgement not an important defining characteristic of our species? Do we not judge everything that we observe? Do we not give judgement to make sense of the world, to categorize things? Is saying that an apple is red not a form of judgement? Or claiming that the square root of negative one is an imaginary number a prejudice against the number negative one? Are we not racist in classifying numbers into real, imaginary, irrational, or prime (argh.. those prime nazis, calling themselves the prime)? What is wrong with judgement? Is it not a defining characteristic for us?

Other forms of judgement may be seen as more taboo to humans? Judgement regarding truth may be acceptable to most humans as truth is so remote to us or just a fairy tale as they often imply. But judgement regarding ethics, or the good? Who are we to say what is good and what is bad? Well, do we not have the ability to judge goodness just as we have the ability to judge truth, is our moral centers in the brain not just as reliable as our logical ones? Well for those who believe in a form of natural law (moral law, that is) the good is just a form of the true, what is ethical is rational. For those who believe that they are two separate things, well we still have the ability to discern both albeit independently. For those who believe that there is no truth, there is no morals as my friend once said "the truth of their mothers being human is a matter of opinion then, they should accept if i disagree with them." and of course to these people they cannot judge. Or can they? Are they not more free to judge? For there will be no objective judgement from them that can judge their judgement? Do we not have the right to judge what is good and what is bad? Do we not have an obligation to advise our fellow men of what is right and what is wrong, if we are true to our natural capacity to judge and beliefs?

Judgement regarding beauty is the most controversial. Simply because of this, they do not want to be objectively judged as ugly? Maybe i am the first suggest this, may be i should not as my friend once wrote "Do not offend the common contemporary people." But are we that weak that being called ugly can offend our being? Do we not judge the sunset as absolutely beautiful, then we must have an idea of what is absolutely ugly? Should we humble ourselves to that sunset anyway? Do we really have no capacity to judge beauty?

Who am i to judge? I am a man.

People take their own chosen medicine

Ever wonder why there are so many different kind of medicine made even though they serve the same purpose? Why does that group of people take one brand and the other take a different one?

All of this comes down to people's preference. People are driven so much by their own choices and desires. Often this leads to people having differences and polar opposite behaviours. Some people, though suffering from the same illness, choose a medicine that they think is the best there is. While others may disagree, he won't care because what he thinks is right is right.

This is affected by people's recognition of said medicine. They have heard of it somewhere, hence they have a certain connection with it. This makes it more probable for him to choose the medicine over thousand others. Also, they just don't pick because they have heard of it, surely the medicine has some sort of ability to heal the kind of illness they have.

Now, let's consider this. Let's say now the illness is people's problem. There are so many ways to help said person, but how do we know if it indeed is the treatment he needed? People deal with their problems in their own way. Often the best way that we know may not be his. I have seen a lot of people suffer because they are not able to heal their emotional damage. Even when we tried to help, it is of no use. Just like a doctor that is willing to help, he still needs the patient to come to him and ask for help. He is already a call away, why not just call out to him? Why don't you let him heal you? If your pride is getting in the way, then that is a stupid decision. But then, who am I to judge and deem you stupid? I am just a 'patient' like you.

The Self and Binary Fission

If the Self (the self that is distinct from the biological system) does not exist, if it is merely a man-made concept, an abstraction, it may come from the sense of the oneness of life and death in a biological system. We can talk of the Self, as the Self is one, the self was created, and may be annihilated, hence the one self has a beginning and an end. 

If this is the case, then the sense of self is merely incidental to our species, it is directly caused by human's method (or preferred method) of reproduction. We can stay one as we produce offspring that are genetically different and biologically independent. One can justify if a man says his offspring is not him, as it is biologically separate from the man and the man continue to be one after producing it. Therefore even after reproduction man's oneness is not disputed. He is one.

A man is created as a biological system at the point of conception. This creates the sense of beginning to the individual organism. With a definite beginning, not just continuous emergence, man can say that he starts as one, as that one has an exact starting temporal coordinate. 

 

And how does death contribute to the sense of Self? Death puts an end to a biological system. The biological system does not just slowly change into something entirely different (of course entirely is an exaggeration here), but it stops, also at a definite temporal coordinate.

A whole new picture will emerge if man, like a number of simple bacteria, reproduce by binary fission. He is no longer definitely one, or discrete, he is also eternal (may never actually die), maybe at this point calling him a he or even an it is no longer appropriate, as his oneness is vague, just as the number of clouds in the sky is vague. When the man reproduce by binary fission, he splits into two, both being equally him, and he or they continue to split indefinitely. He is not one, not anymore. Perhaps a dramatic visualization of this can be found in the movie "The Prestige",  can we still say that Angier is one after each of his show, how about his sense of Self? 

What about, the lack of proper conception, the lack of proper death, and evolution of this man, if he reproduce by binary fission. The lack of conception means his beginning may be pointed out in a certain coordinate since the emergence of life on earth, the primordial cell, to the emergence of his species, or even just when his 'parent' split. And evolution or rather random mutation will cause a whole new problem as the biological system is not exactly conserved, but it is conserved in some sense, the difference between the 'parent' and the man will only be as different as my right hand epidermal cell to my left hand epidermal cell. Because of this slow process of evolution, the beginning and the end of the Self can be pointed out, but we will need an arbitrary standard of the continuity of the Self. So will there be a self if man reproduce by binary fission?

Humour Me

What makes something humourous? What is the value in humour? Is there an aesthetic value in humour? What is the true nature of humour.

A parallel can be drawn with thrill. What is thrill? What is the value in thrill? Is thrill just another form of pleasure, its value being the pleasure that thrill brings? What is the true nature of thrill?

Here is a bold and interesting assertion :
Thrill is pleasure in contradiction. Humour is beauty in contradiction.

We feel thrill when we enjoy (hence experience pleasure in) contradictions. The roller coaster or rock climbing is thrilling as it is dangerous and yet not dangerous. Committing illegal acts is thrilling as it is not desirable (ethically) and yet we desire it. Likewise, doing an ethical act that contradicts our feelings is also thrilling. Thrill is pleasure in contradiction (with non-pleasure).

We find something humourous also because we find contradiction, while perceiving its beauty. Humour can be found in literature or other works of art, which in itself contain the value of beauty, aesthetic value. But humour itself is not identical to beauty just like thrill is not identical to pleasure. There is a something that is not pleasurable when we feel thrill just like there is ugliness in humour. So will humour always contain ugliness?

The Universalization of Monarchism, Which Leads to Anarchism

Here is a conversation that i overheard in the bus

Monarchism has its merits. The entropy of a closed system increases with time. Systems decay, systems fail. The system of governance based on the abstract ideology of democracy (ideology here being a derogatory term) fails over time, just as the system based on the authoritarianism of the one party fails. Systems fails, but Man is not a system. Man is a free agent, Man is a saint or Man is a sinner, but is not merely a system. Man can decay, but Man can progress, but more importantly Man can decay, then progress, then progress then decay, then progress, then stagnate, then progress he can put commas wherever he wants, he is free.

Trusting governance in the hand of one man then should be the wiser choice, for he is not bound to decay, unlike systems. After all shouldn't "Man rule Men, not laws" Then monarchism should be seen as something inherently higher than any system of governance. Monarchism should be seen as a universal good.

Then this principle should be universalized, all man should uphold this principle. But in our overly-egalitarian society, who can be the monarch? We do not  have one nor do we have someone with the potentiality to be our monarch. What then shall we do, wait until the 'promised' monarch comes? But each of us should realize that we may be that promised monarch. To be responsible to our belief then, is to develop the virtues of a Monarch. Each of us must then be ready if we are called or summoned to be the monarch, we need to develop the virtue of a Monarch now.

What does that mean if each of us becomes a worthy monarch? We will then have no need of laws or even a Monarch over us. We would then be our own monarchs. " Better is one who ruleth his spirit then he who taketh a city." We then would be anarchists. No state, no laws, no kings, only our duty to the the natural law and us before our God.