Thinking Purely

To think purely is to disregard emotions, biases, our will, etc. However, what is good about disregarding our natural abilities in trying to achieve the truth? Maybe there is something good about it, maybe not.

Regardless, to think purely is a good exercise. If we see our rationality as a faculty that we can improve upon usage, it would be good to improve this faculty. Just like our physical muscles, we improve this quality by using them; using them in a particular way, in a pure way. An analogy is fitting here. Consider how we train our swimming, first we only use our leg to propel ourselves through the water to build up our leg techniques. Then we only use our hands when we train our hand techniques. Only then when we have mastered both can we swim skillfully. This is an example of a 'pure' training. Such training allows us to focus on a particular aspect of the thing that we want to learn. The same goes for thinking, when we detach our emotions from our thinking, we are essentially just training our thinking muscles without interruption from our emotions, such that our thinking techniques may be perfected before we synthesize it with everything else.

Perhaps a pure exercise of emotions may also be conducted. Such exercises are surely more complex and abstract, but I could think of an example. Try being moved by an art form without any thought.

Thus, here I am not proclaiming the supremeness of thought but I am merely advocating pure exercises for thinking and for emotions.

Beauty?

One can appreciate beauty without dissecting a work. But it is by dissecting, the details of an object of appreciation is made known to Man. If appreciating beauty involves appreciating each intricate details, then inevitably, beauty can only be appreciated in its entirety by dissection. But can Man really appreciate beauty in its entirety after it is dissected? After all, when Man at last desires to capture beauty in its wholeness, Man needs to take a step back from his dissection and assemble it all back together. Yet beauty cannot be captured still, since human restoration ironically can never restore an initial state, let alone the initial beauty. In the mind of Man, the work is no longer a whole but a mutilated corpse. How can we see the corpse as a man with individuality, conscious life and freedom?

The highest appreciation of beauty is without dissection. Without dissection and yet every intricate details must perceived all at once in an instance together with the whole. Only a true artist can perceive beauty with such perspective, not the art theorist.

Mathematics?

Let us consider the view that mathematics is discovered. This does not necessarily mean that mathematics is the language of nature (or reality) or that abstract (mathematical) objects exist, but it can also mean that mathematics is discovered not from reality but from our psychology.

Consider two possibilities. First Platonism in one of its forms may be true and mathematics is just discovered truths about some of these abstract objects. This cannot be proven or disproven I suppose.

The other alternative is that mathematics is a discovery of our psychology, of our rational nature. This can be illustrated by a particular example. Suppose mathematics started with counting, cavemen had a bunch of apples and they started to invent words to count, one, two, three and so on and hence there was numbers and summation, and maybe most mathematics proceeded from this. If this is the case it may seem like mathematics is an invention of these cavemen, but It would still not be an invention per se. Prior to the invention of words to describe quantities and a system of operations, there exist independent ideas in the cavemen's mind which is not derived from observation. Discreteness, hence an apple can be said to be one, categorization, hence we can add apples (things of the same category/kind), are just two examples of such ideas which exists in human's psychology (mind).

Could mathematics be the truths regarding the relationships of these ideas in human's psychology, and by discovering mathematics, we discover our psychology?

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.