Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Monday, May 21, 2012
What's Left to Explore?
Are we approaching the end of new discoveries? We can now locate almost everything on this planet on Google Maps; string theory, which may be the theory of everything, has already been proposed; touch screens and electric automobiles are being mass produced; and almost all species of living organisms have already been documented. But if one were to ask me, so what's there left to explore? My answer: Everything, again.
I think we would only deceive ourselves by mixing access to knowledge, with knowing itself. Even with the fastest and easiest access to a wealth of knowledge (on websites like Wikipedia), without reading and understanding these resources we would be no more enlightened than our grandparents who've never had such conveniences. The fact is that your grandmother is a better cook than you - yes, because she has more experience in cooking. But she would have learned how to cook from her mother, or peers, who would have limited knowledge on cooking than what we have access to today: Youtube cooking videos.
Nevertheless, thousands of Youtube videos and websites on cooking won't make you a better cook. Only after you have seen, read and practised those cooking techniques and recipes, then only you'd be a good cook. This is why it is important to distinguish access to knowledge, with knowing itself. The fact is, we have so many things to explore for ourselves today that it's just mind-boggling even to think about simple things like how does our computer screen work?
Of course, we can't all be expected to learn nuclear physics, or study genetics - we all have other things to do. We would assign the task of exploration to explorers: researchers in their respective fields. And we may admit any new discovery to be an achievement for all mankind.
Mankind may have already made many great discoveries, but are these the ultimate truths?* That's something for each of us to explore.
*What? It's easy to imagine questioning the truths of scientific theories, etc. But how do we question the 'ultimate truths' of modern technology? Isn't the fact that these machines can function is enough to make us believe that they are 'true'? Actually there is another important question to ask about modern technology, that is if they are so good, why do they tend to break down so easily? And what would be the solution to this problem?
I think we would only deceive ourselves by mixing access to knowledge, with knowing itself. Even with the fastest and easiest access to a wealth of knowledge (on websites like Wikipedia), without reading and understanding these resources we would be no more enlightened than our grandparents who've never had such conveniences. The fact is that your grandmother is a better cook than you - yes, because she has more experience in cooking. But she would have learned how to cook from her mother, or peers, who would have limited knowledge on cooking than what we have access to today: Youtube cooking videos.
Nevertheless, thousands of Youtube videos and websites on cooking won't make you a better cook. Only after you have seen, read and practised those cooking techniques and recipes, then only you'd be a good cook. This is why it is important to distinguish access to knowledge, with knowing itself. The fact is, we have so many things to explore for ourselves today that it's just mind-boggling even to think about simple things like how does our computer screen work?
Of course, we can't all be expected to learn nuclear physics, or study genetics - we all have other things to do. We would assign the task of exploration to explorers: researchers in their respective fields. And we may admit any new discovery to be an achievement for all mankind.
Mankind may have already made many great discoveries, but are these the ultimate truths?* That's something for each of us to explore.
*What? It's easy to imagine questioning the truths of scientific theories, etc. But how do we question the 'ultimate truths' of modern technology? Isn't the fact that these machines can function is enough to make us believe that they are 'true'? Actually there is another important question to ask about modern technology, that is if they are so good, why do they tend to break down so easily? And what would be the solution to this problem?
Monday, May 14, 2012
Diet, Decaf & Non-Fat
1. Lucky Us
Shouldn't we feel fortunate that we can walk into a local superstore and choose from a variety of products that can feed, clean and groom us? Imagine for a moment living in the past, before the advent of supermarkets and shopping complexes. I don't think back then there were quite as many choices of toothpaste, shampoo, cereal, or chicken nuggets, as we have them today. Ah, but does this mean that we have more freedom than our grandparents, since we have more choice of consumer products and conveniences than they did in their time?
2. Diet Coke, Decaf Coffee & Non-fat Milk
If we quickly answer, "Yes: we are more free than our grandparents because we have more choices of food, drinks and shampoos than our forebears", then perhaps these three modern beverages (Diet Coke, Decaff coffee and non-fat milk) should make us reconsider our answer. It's not even a joke anymore - as we would be laughing at ourselves, essentially - if one were to ask: 'What's the point of drinking Coke without sugar, coffee without caffeine, or milk without taste? If we want to stay healthy, why don't we just drink plain water?'
In fact that's what other animals and plants do: consume plain water. Of course, they also require other nutrients to survive - but tasteless H20 (water) is all they need and what they drink to rehydrate themselves. Maybe some clever animals have found ways to extract fruit nectar or steal honey from hives, but most of the other living organisms depend on much simpler, plainer source of water. So why do we spend our money on these beverages that are actually no better than cheap plain water?
3. The Limits of Choice
I think we buy these drinks simply because they are available as alternatives to normal Coke, normal coffee and full-fat milk. In other words, our minds are clouded by these 'healthy' alternatives, that we tend to overlook the default option for a healthy drink, i.e plain water! So if we ask ourselves again, compared to our grandparents, do we still think that we have more freedom because we have more choices than they did in their lifetime?
In fact, our freedom are limited by having too many choices. Instead of being able to freely choose plain water as the cheapest, healthiest way to quench our thirst, we are more and more influenced to spend money to buy 'healthy alternative' beverages (e.g Diet Coke). This would not have been an issue before there was Diet Coke, as our decision would simply be to either spend on sugary Coke, or healthy plain water.
Of course, we can still opt for plain water - no one can force us to drink Diet, decaf or non-fat beverages. But doesn't it make us shudder that our decision making faculty is getting more and more clouded and compromised by these redundant choices? My point here is not to campaign against those alternative beverages - I buy and enjoy Diet Coke as well. Rather, there is a broader issue in this discussion, that is to question our apparent sense of freedom, especially with greater number of choices.
4. Freedom to Live
Freedom can be defined in many ways. Here, the freedom I'm thinking of is about being able to achieve something - e.g to get what we want, to have what we need. Our basic needs are simple: food, shelter & 'reproduction'. We may lament over hungry Somalian children who are not able to fulfil even these basic needs. But let's also lament our own predicament that by having too many choices of food, shelter and 'reproduction', we find ourselves trapped in a rat race.
Shouldn't we feel fortunate that we can walk into a local superstore and choose from a variety of products that can feed, clean and groom us? Imagine for a moment living in the past, before the advent of supermarkets and shopping complexes. I don't think back then there were quite as many choices of toothpaste, shampoo, cereal, or chicken nuggets, as we have them today. Ah, but does this mean that we have more freedom than our grandparents, since we have more choice of consumer products and conveniences than they did in their time?
If we quickly answer, "Yes: we are more free than our grandparents because we have more choices of food, drinks and shampoos than our forebears", then perhaps these three modern beverages (Diet Coke, Decaff coffee and non-fat milk) should make us reconsider our answer. It's not even a joke anymore - as we would be laughing at ourselves, essentially - if one were to ask: 'What's the point of drinking Coke without sugar, coffee without caffeine, or milk without taste? If we want to stay healthy, why don't we just drink plain water?'
In fact that's what other animals and plants do: consume plain water. Of course, they also require other nutrients to survive - but tasteless H20 (water) is all they need and what they drink to rehydrate themselves. Maybe some clever animals have found ways to extract fruit nectar or steal honey from hives, but most of the other living organisms depend on much simpler, plainer source of water. So why do we spend our money on these beverages that are actually no better than cheap plain water?
3. The Limits of Choice
I think we buy these drinks simply because they are available as alternatives to normal Coke, normal coffee and full-fat milk. In other words, our minds are clouded by these 'healthy' alternatives, that we tend to overlook the default option for a healthy drink, i.e plain water! So if we ask ourselves again, compared to our grandparents, do we still think that we have more freedom because we have more choices than they did in their lifetime?
In fact, our freedom are limited by having too many choices. Instead of being able to freely choose plain water as the cheapest, healthiest way to quench our thirst, we are more and more influenced to spend money to buy 'healthy alternative' beverages (e.g Diet Coke). This would not have been an issue before there was Diet Coke, as our decision would simply be to either spend on sugary Coke, or healthy plain water.
Of course, we can still opt for plain water - no one can force us to drink Diet, decaf or non-fat beverages. But doesn't it make us shudder that our decision making faculty is getting more and more clouded and compromised by these redundant choices? My point here is not to campaign against those alternative beverages - I buy and enjoy Diet Coke as well. Rather, there is a broader issue in this discussion, that is to question our apparent sense of freedom, especially with greater number of choices.
4. Freedom to Live
Freedom can be defined in many ways. Here, the freedom I'm thinking of is about being able to achieve something - e.g to get what we want, to have what we need. Our basic needs are simple: food, shelter & 'reproduction'. We may lament over hungry Somalian children who are not able to fulfil even these basic needs. But let's also lament our own predicament that by having too many choices of food, shelter and 'reproduction', we find ourselves trapped in a rat race.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Neurotic Avengers
 |
| (Image source) |
It's not hard to detect neuroses in all those "superheroes" in The Avengers. In this film, we meet with the narcissistic Iron Man, angry Hulk, megalomaniac half-brothers Thor and Loki, and PTSD-stricken Captain America. And of course, there's also Black Widow and Hawkeye.
In their own comic book or film, the plot is usually about the superhero's own journey to overcome or accept his own neuroses, perhaps more than about fighting evil forces. Whereas in The Avengers, it gets more complicated, when all of them come together not just to fight evil, but more importantly, to face their own issues and those of others. This is perhaps why a child's logic of "why can't heroes just work together and defeat evil once and for all" is hard to materialise. Only adults can understand this.
Let's make some analysis of these superheroes.
Iron Man, with his self-absorbed personality, characterises the self-made modern man who uses his intellectual capabilities to develop high-tech solutions to his problems. However, just like our modern society, Iron Man would later discover that the greatest threat to our existence is no longer Nature, but it is human technology itself. In the climax of this film, Iron Man had to sacrifice his life not to fight against alien invaders, but in order to save human race against the destructive force of its own making - nuclear weapons.
Hulk, I think can also be seen as another archetype of the modern man. Behind a nerdy harmless scientist, we find his repressed anger manifesting itself as an uncontrollable destructive alter ego. We may assume that we are less aggressive than our ancestors, when our aggression has only been channelled to non-physical actions - e.g violence in video games. The resolution for Hulk was simply to accept that destructive alter ego as part of his whole being - as he remarked, "That's my secret Cap, I'm always angry".
Thor and Loki, really suffer from what is known as the God Complex - believing themselves to be infallible, immortal and almighty. In fact, they really were born as gods. However, they would soon discover that there are bigger forces working beyond their control. Their plans go awry, and even their godly powers could not save them. Eventually, they have to learn that they are not gods after all, at least not in this reality.
Captain America, for me, may be the least interesting character in The Avengers. He is not only misplaced in time, he is also the only one still troubled by the past. His lesson would be to leave the past and live the present - as he does so eventually, by cooperating with other "real superheroes" who have more skills, powers and intellect than him. The fact that he still fancies himself a Captain not just showcases his leadership charisma, but also his desperate constant need of approval.
The Avengers is surely entertaining and great fun to watch in the cinema. But I find even more satisfaction in watching it as there are so many superheroes in this film for me to analyse and to understand why we enjoy watching them at all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
