Padd Solutions

Converted by Falcon Hive


Many things are more deterministic than we think. We are not so different from who we used to be. Even societies may persist with their old ways, unbeknownst to its members, long after the reins have changed hands.

Simply put, we are constrained by our past choices and directions—a phenomenon known as path dependency. We cannot simply change the direction in which we are moving at any time of our choosing because we cannot will away the present consequences and implications of the past.

Hence, while we often wonder why a problem cannot be fixed, the answer can be found in history.

Why is creativity and entrepreneurship so underdeveloped in this society, for example? That is to a large extent a colonial legacy. Colonial governments were focused on the extraction of resources and the development of trade in the colonies for the benefit of the empire. These required the establishment of strong bureaucracies and civil services to administrate the territories in a stable and efficient way. Hence, education in a colony was geared towards training local elites to be obedient but skilled administrators, not towards developing critical thinkers, leaders and entrepreneurs. This system was then found to be convenient by the new government of the independent colony, who continued to have need of able administrators and to desire stability and quick prosperity. The system, therefore, remains entrenched.

So there's the answer. We cannot so easily abandon what we were—the past casts long shadows on any probable future.

Water to whine

@ 07:46 0 comments


There are no such things as miracles on demand.

The number of people I know who believe in miraculous healing powers, administered by almost anyone, supposedly at almost any time of their choosing, is actually rather alarming. Magical thinking is a pretty universal phenomenon, but I'd also attribute the prevalence of such beliefs here to a cultural predisposition towards superstition. Still, it boggles the mind how so many intelligent, well-educated young people could buy into this.

I have no prima facie problems with faith. I respect a lot of people who have faith. To me, even though the tenor of many people's beliefs seems to indicate the opposite (the popular stance is to subordinate reason to faith), faith can co-exist with reason. But for that to happen, we must first discard the fantastic but convenient elements that are so popular precisely because they act as the opiate of the masses—after all, who doesn't want to have magically easier lives?

If miracle healing is a real thing, and a fairly commonplace one at that, the social and economic repercussions would most certainly spill over to other parts of society. It wouldn't be just a thing mostly discussed in circles of people who do not question its veracity. It would have major implications on mass healthcare. Surely if people sincerely mean well when they administer these supposed powers and there are many people willing to be healed (Lord knows they are—if it works, faith is no object to many who really want to be rid of their pain and suffering), we would see waves of healing ripple through society. We would see scientists studying the phenomena in droves and not simply conduct the occasional inconclusive studies that cannot prove that it is more than a placebo.

But that is not happening. Why? Perhaps because miracle healing is only 'proven' when examined through the lens of personal empirical observation that is influenced by the desire to believe that it is real in the first place. And modern life can be so alienating and objectifying, that it is no surprise people want to believe there is more—that they can do something where modern technology often fails, and that there is an almighty Nanny take care of your every need from high above.

That is not what I respect in faith, and it is a juvenile form of faith that I don't think any thinking person of faith should endorse.


Recently, someone asked, "Do the humanities have a future?" They certainly do have a future, but I'm not optimistic it would be something that I would consider to be good.

Not everyone thinks the same way, though. In the first place, their notion of what is good for the humanities is different. Some cite the proportionately higher numbers of humanities graduates employed in management roles as a sign that the humanities are in a good place. Others reporting less stellar outlooks note that someone with a humanities degree still tends to earn more than someone without a degree, and that when the economy picks up, questions regarding the future of the humanities will die down again as graduates have a much easier time finding work.

However, these seem to be rather odd things to say where the humanities are concerned. In modern society, common wisdom has it that education and industry should function symbiotically, with schools feeding industry with the manpower and skilled personnel that it needs. But the humanities often impart a very different worldview, one where human life is far richer than simply work life; one where the goal of learning is not just to make money or to become a useful cog in the industrial machine.

If one takes the lessons from the humanities seriously, then one would be quite ill-suited for the kind of life where economic concerns are to be privileged above everything else. One would therefore be at a disadvantage in an environment driven overwhelmingly by competition for economic advancement. Thus, someone who has a bad career progression in modern industrial society, or someone who is consumed by internal conflict, seems quite a natural product of education in the humanities today.

So if the success of the humanities is to be measured by society by how well their graduates are advancing themselves economically, then I'd say that the future of the humanities is bleak indeed. How can it be otherwise, when they are made to produce what they were ideologically never supposed to produce?


Some people claim to appreciate creation, but they don't seem to grasp just how vast the universe is. 

Our awesome sun, the local star, is about as large as 1.3 million Earths. There are about 300 billion stars in our galaxy, the Milky Way. There are at least one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe. 

Is it likely that amidst all of this, we are the only sapient beings to have ever graced the universe? Isn't it simply cosmic arrogance to assume that there's one creator who made all of this just for us? That this creator babysits us and personally tends to our every need? And that he has an enemy, an antithesis, who attacks us personally? 

I think that's a laugh. 

That is not to say that secular thought escapes this problem. Since the Enlightenment, secularism is still plagued with the idea that humanity is the pinnacle of all life, which has partly resulted in our modern psychology of extreme socioeconomic (and sociopathic) narcissism.

How I wish I lived a thousand or a few thousand years from now, when we have finally learned that such thinking is follywhen we have discovered greater secrets of the universe that allows us to grasp, once and for all, that it is false. That spirit of discovery, the willingness to learn things that are beyond the scope of our everyday lives, would seem to be both the proper spiritual and scientific attitude.

Is that even conceivable to those for whom the End is always nigh? To even speak of a thousand years from now in front of some would appear to be heresy. As heliocentrism perhaps was a long time ago in an age far, far away.

O tempora, o mores!

@ 15:59 , , 0 comments


I was recently asked one of those questions by old people that went like this: "Is it true that young people these days are more sensitive and need to be handled gently?" My reply was that that really isn't true, or at least that's beside the point. What is true is that the younger generation today expect to be treated with respect. And, obviously, not all young people are pampered, witless kids anyway.

Certainly, the hollow and delusional pronouncements made by the dreamier ones, like the many vacuous 'Gen Y manifestos', don't do anything to help. What needs to be done is to give a proper account of the general trends in which the younger generations find themselves, and not speculate about how individual upbringing contributes to the collective character of the youth.

Complaining that young people don't have the right qualities, that they are lazy and addicted to easy living, is a recurring behaviour and tradition that dates back to ancient times. Socrates was supposed to have said, "Children nowadays are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannise their teachers." And such quotes from the ancients, whether or not they are verifiable, have been trotted out for centuries, suggesting that concerns about the morals and behaviour of youth are certainly not a new thing.

In this light, all the talk about the "entitled generation" seems myopic, even navel-gazing. And it overlooks the fact that the younger generations do deal with their own problems, as such perks as stable employment and certainty increasingly become a thing of the past.

What is actually happening, then, is that society seems to be getting more used to living with the idea of democratisation.  Our political and social systems are beginning to cast off the mantle of the old patriarchal, authoritarian structures, and the wide availability of information today means the elders have less of a monopoly on knowledge through their experience. This means the youth of today feel less need to be silent and quiescent before their elders and their ‘betters’. Consequently, they expect more respect from their fellow human beings and have less unquestioning respect for authority. That is why shouting at them doesn't have the effect that you were expecting.

It seems to me a positive thing if people respected each other more no matter who they are. Thus, it seems that this is something that the older generations can learn from the youth of today. Are they willing to accept this, though, or will they stick to their guns? How they react would show which generation is in fact the better one.


 

Notorious tiger mom and law professor Amy Chua wrote recently on the drivers of success. Particularly interesting is the seemingly paradoxical interplay between a superiority complex and a perpetual sense of insecurity. The former underlies and induces the latter, creating a constant need to prove oneself and live up to the belief in one's greatness.

As is the case whenever psychology is transposed onto socio-cultural phenomena, Chua's account is problematically simplistic and may not actually be accurate at all. But at least on the level of the individual, there's some truth in the magic of that interplay. Nevertheless, there's a caveat—it's a double-edged sword that can cut you as much as it can help you cut a path to success.

The motivation that the interplay between a superiority complex and the sense of insecurity evokes is indeed quite strong. But it can also induce despair and a subsequent retreat from a challenge in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance that might occur in the event of failure. In other words, rather than be proven not as superior as you believe yourself to be, you might prefer to avoid difficult things.

And that's not yet accounting for its effects on happiness. Last year, a study showed that social media use is correlated with lower levels of happiness, as users compare the positive images of other people's lives that they see with their own invariably imperfect lives. I imagine a similar problem also applies here: While success and hard work do induce happiness, the constant feeling of inadequacy that often results from comparing oneself to others in trying to maintain the belief in one's superiority would undoubtedly have a negative impact on one's happiness.

So, ultimately, the question is, is it worth it? Would you trade happiness for success? Or is it the case that, recalling J.S. Mill's distinction between happiness and contentment, success brings the ultimate happiness that can overcome the perpetual pain felt during the journey?

These are not questions that neat, simplistic recipes for success can answer.