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.

The Different Tastes, Ideas, and Preferences

Kygrykhon created quite an interesting question. Here it is if you have not read the first introduction:

if it was necessary to be socially content, what can be discussed to cook up better conversations?

My fellow blogger, Elentic Hesiod, has touched on the first half of the question. For me, I am pretty interested in discussing the second half. "What can be discussed to cook up better conversations?". Well, firstly the question 'what' itself, is powerful enough to make oneself think and often the question 'what' triggers the mind to engage in the topic asked and thus, results in reasoning. Now, what does it mean by cook up? Does it mean to make it more interesting? Exciting? Engaging? Different people have different taste and preferences. Not all people will like the same particular topic. Some would prefer one and the rest would prefer other than that one. Perhaps, even though different people have different taste and preferences, will there be universal likings? Some philosophers think that there is a universal reason. So, is there universal like? maybe everybody likes to talk about food? I do not think so. What about life? Are all people interested to talk about life? Hmm.

Now, what does it mean by better? Does it mean one level above bad? Or just an improvement of quality of conversations? The word better can vary from person to person as each person has different mind and thoughts. 'Better' is relative to each person and doesn't it sound ambiguous as well? Better conversations. Questions will keep coming out. How, what, why and so on...

However, looking at the question overall, maybe Kygrykhon means the middle way so that everyone that is in the group will be interested enough and does not feel like wasting time? Is there such middle way? Doesn't it sound like a universal liking? Universal taste and preference? Well, just like what Elentic Hesiod said in the previous title, "A question begets questions".

The Basic Question

The most basic question is this, 'What?'. What precedes Why and How, before we ask why and how, we ask what first. But the most basic question is the most troubling of all questions. People can ask 'Why life' and go on to work and do their daily activities. People can ask 'How life' and do not even think about life anymore when they carry out their daily life. However when we ask what is life, we stop our daily life for a moment for we are questioning the most basic foundation of our daily life.

What can take many disturbing forms. The big questions like 'What is eternity and death' can trouble us greatly for we fear the unknown and the abyss. But seemingly simpler questions can be equally troubling 'What is yesterday?' Is it a real thing? Or is it just mere memory? What if yesterday does not exist, what if movement and change from yesterday is just mere illusion. 'What is the present?' Is it the only thing that is real? Is it the only place that i exist in? 'What is tomorrow? Is it just an empty thought? Does it exist, or will it exist? The existence and the possibility of non-existence of the yesterday and the tomorrow is equally unknown and disturbing to us as the existence and the possibility of non-existence of eternity and death.

The permutation of the four concepts can be more perplexing.

1 What if yesterday is death
2 What if yesterday is eternity
3 What if tomorrow is death
4 What if tomorrow is eternity

And i end this with a question, 'If we can accept the equally ambiguous tomorrow, why can't we accept eternity and death.

A Question Begets Questions

Greggory in his introduction asked the question,

if it was truly necessary to be socially content, what can be discussed to cook up better conversations?

Of course our wise and critical readers would stop reading for a moment and reflect on the conditional that the question posed. So the statement "If it was truly necessary to be socially content" makes the readers think of what is meant by being socially content. At least that was the first question that comes to my mind. What is social contentment? Is it a satisfaction that we derive from social connections (What really do we derive, do we derive an object or a change in our being)? Or is it a satisfaction that we derive from the knowledge of ourselves having social connections? After all what is social connections, does it exist as an object and hence can be possessed (if it does not, the satisfaction we derive from the knowledge of having that is a mere illusion don't you think?) , or is it just a man made idea describing existing things named persons? Of course before we ask all of this we must ask, what is contentment? But that would be a really hard thing to define, and we still have a huge number of questions even if we accept on the surface that there is such a thing called contentment that all of us have the same idea of. 

Well, moving on to another part of the conditional, "if it was truly necessary". Why do you think that social contentment is necessary at all? Is it because we are social beings? Is it because we exist in relation to others? And more perplexing still is the phrase "truly necessary", it is a grand statement don't you think? Does necessary mean that it is not contingent, not contingent to the human nature (while humans themselves are contingent being)? Maybe not that necessary, not as necessary as a necessary Being? Well, to what level is it necessary then? Do you think the word Truly here imply a connection to The True itself? So many questions did this one question beget. And we have not even look at his sons from his second wife whose name was "what can be discussed to cook up better conversations", maybe next time.

Of Ideas in Small Talks

How generic can your daily conversation be?

In fulfilling our need for social interaction, often we resort to trivia: weather, cars, haircuts, bosses and colleagues, and so on. Yet it is also undeniably true that if the conversation were merely a talk to kill time, we wouldn't want to spend a lot of time thinking about what to say, and instead pick up a topic that's related or merely close to where you are or who you are with: weather, cars, haircuts, bosses and colleagues. Hence, your conversation topic revolves around the arbitrary conditions that are neither absolute nor eternal - thus the discussion is insignificant. You feel that you are wasting your time socializing, or at least that's what it is usually like for me. Then a question comes to mind: if it was truly necessary to be socially content, what can be discussed to cook up better conversations?

The answer is: two random concept brought together in a question. Throw it into a group of unique personalities and you get an elaborate discussion.

Take an example of how this blog comes about. It was dinner time, and this group of people, off from work, decided to have yet another dinner at the McDonalds. They were totally minding their own business, eating their hard-earned fast foods when one little bastard came up with two concepts - "pursuit of happiness" and "evolutionary advantage" -  and made it a question: is the pursuit of happiness an evolutionary advantage? Then it happened: a clash of opinions, inspections on definitions from each other, conversation like never before. And when the clock forcefully brought us the farewells of the day, they thought of making their discussion more concrete: a web log.

The Questioners' Queue, then, is a platform for us to ask questions of all variety, from different perspective, to all that may read and respond. Yet it is also a platform to record our discussion, our attempts to answer these questions.Last year, I encountered an internet comic pointing out that questions are much more important than answers, for quite a list of reasons. Personally, I believe that questions and their answers have a more dynamic relations: an answered questions may or may not lead to another question, while an unanswered ones are leading us to questions regarding the foundation of our understanding. One cannot evolve without another, and hence it is important to keep eyes on both new questions and creative answers. However, as questions may be asked faster than it can be pondered over and answered satisfyingly, the evolution of questions and answer is not at an equilibrium, and questioners need to line up and wait for their answers.

Therefore, be prepared for discussions that attempts to transcend many ideas with questions all over the topic, which may and may not have an attempt at an answer. As readers, it is also possible to have your own questions answered, just by contacting one of the authors. Lastly, know that our discussion may not be interesting to everyone, but should it be?