Questions.... and answers?
Been a tiring day. Been out for QET today, a really easy and stupid paper. And also failed to apply for my NUS bus concessionary card due to some stupid reasons. Went to play badminton and basketball with friends after that, whoa, what a tiring experience. I was like... almost dead.... cos I played three sets of basketball games, each 6v9, I have to like defend against 7 oppositions by myself. Shacked sia.
Today is also quite an intriguing day. I am asked this question, with relation to the post about the criminal. Is there such a thing as an absolute Truth. Does relativity really exist? Before I actually answer this, I would like to emphasize that my opinion is largely influenced by an ancient philosopher called Lao Zi and after years of readings. Lao Zi once said something like this:
'In order for something to exist, there must be 'nothing' first.'
For me, there is really something called the absolute Truth, after a lot of thinking and ... thinking. That absolute Truth exists all around us, it's what we see and touch and what we dun see and touch. In fact, I believe that what I'm seeing and touching now are the absolute Truth that really existed. Precisely because 'nothing' exists in the space we are living that the absolute Truth exists. It is undeniable that these things exist. They represent the Truth that exists in this world. There is NO way to deny them. But then, it's because such physical and absolute Truth exists, therefore relativity exists too. Relativity comes from our mind, our deduction from the absolute Truth that is all around us, from what we hear from other's opinion. We deduce our relativity from the things we see, touch and hear. As simple as that. Example, a piece of A4 paper. That piece of 'thing' is called 'paper' because we gave it a name, that is 'paper'. A4 is the definition of its size. It'll not be an 'A4 sized paper' if we haven't define it. Now, here comes. Even if we dun give it the definition of 'A4 sized paper', that thing will still continue to exist. We can call it other stuffs, such as... I dun know, but we can really try to give it another name. See? That thing exists, it's absolute, but not that absolute, in fact, relative when it comes to the definition. In fact, an ancient philosopher, Zhuang Zi once said this after he had a dream about him being a butterfly:
'Is Zhuang Zi the butterfly, or is the butterfly Zhuang Zi?'
Yes, I think we can call the butterfly 'Zhuang Zi', why not? If the person who named that 'insect' 'Zhuang Zi' instead of 'butterfly', then Zhuang Zi is really the butterfly. Let's take blogging as another example. Blogging is such an absolute Truth, that you can't deny. But, a big but, a same event that has occurred to two different persons, as they record down in their blog, with their own opinion, is it really absolute? Or is it relative to the individual person who experienced the whole thing differently as the other person?
Well, another thing... As I was coming back home just now, I was asked another question. What is history and does history really exist? Again, I must emphasize that a lot of my sayings and opinions are influenced heavily from the readings over the year. If history is just about recording down what happened in the past, if history is about what just happened over my dining table and what just happened over at my opposite block, with the couple quarrelling with each other, threatening to kill each other, if history is just the past, then it exists. But if history is about understanding the past, if history is about comprehending what has happened, how it happened and why it happened, then it falls back to the question about relativity. History is nothing absolute. In fact I believe that there's no such thing as absolute history. Does historians really exist as historians or do they exist as writers, story tellers, with a definition of 'historians' being bestowed upon them. Historical facts can be manipulated and stories about the past, theories about the past are based on the manipulation of the facts. Then it really leads to another question, which I am also asked: Is there really such a thing called facts? As my arguments earlier has suggested, there is. But only the physical stuffs which I also defined as absolute Truth. These stuffs constitute the physical aspects of the past. For example, I was still typing this blog a few minutes ago. I have a computer in front of me and I am typing on a keyboard, sitting on an armchair. But is there, and if there is, going to be someone who wanna try to interpret and understand what I have done in the past few minutes... or hours, since I started typing at 2232hrs and at 0000hrs, I'm still in the middle of everything. How is that 'someone' gonna interpret and understand? Why that 'someone', if he really comes out with an interpretation and understanding, chose to interpret and understand it this way? What if someone else interepret it at a different way? This leads me to recall a very famous saying:
'The winner is the king and the loser is the thief'
I feel that history is made in such ways, to make us understand the past in the way the 'winner' wants us to. It's becoming quite evident now that such 'history' in the end, is just a story fabricated to influence our mind. Then you may ask me, is there really such a thing called history? History, to me is relative to the one who makes it and the one who reads it. To me, relative history (I coined this term cos I wanna give it a deifinition) exists, meaning that I accept that different historians understand the past in different ways, and therefore write and argue in different ways too, no matter how manipulative they are towards their 'facts' and whatever evidences they have. If I'm gonna take up their route, I would have to understand that what I am gonna write is totally of my own understanding of what happened in the past and what I'm not gonna study every single piece of information I have on my hands. I understand that I would have to be selective about the information I'm gonna use, but then I want to let it know that it's gonna be a piece of history by me, written by me, based on my understanding. It's not gonna be an absolute Truth but then, it's my understanding of the psat and therefore, it's relative history, and to me, that is good enough to justify that yes, history does really exist.
Well, I have said enough, and really, I have enjoyed myself writing down all these statements over the past two hours. Think I'm getting back my knack for essay writing. Till then, that's all, folk.
Today is also quite an intriguing day. I am asked this question, with relation to the post about the criminal. Is there such a thing as an absolute Truth. Does relativity really exist? Before I actually answer this, I would like to emphasize that my opinion is largely influenced by an ancient philosopher called Lao Zi and after years of readings. Lao Zi once said something like this:
'In order for something to exist, there must be 'nothing' first.'
For me, there is really something called the absolute Truth, after a lot of thinking and ... thinking. That absolute Truth exists all around us, it's what we see and touch and what we dun see and touch. In fact, I believe that what I'm seeing and touching now are the absolute Truth that really existed. Precisely because 'nothing' exists in the space we are living that the absolute Truth exists. It is undeniable that these things exist. They represent the Truth that exists in this world. There is NO way to deny them. But then, it's because such physical and absolute Truth exists, therefore relativity exists too. Relativity comes from our mind, our deduction from the absolute Truth that is all around us, from what we hear from other's opinion. We deduce our relativity from the things we see, touch and hear. As simple as that. Example, a piece of A4 paper. That piece of 'thing' is called 'paper' because we gave it a name, that is 'paper'. A4 is the definition of its size. It'll not be an 'A4 sized paper' if we haven't define it. Now, here comes. Even if we dun give it the definition of 'A4 sized paper', that thing will still continue to exist. We can call it other stuffs, such as... I dun know, but we can really try to give it another name. See? That thing exists, it's absolute, but not that absolute, in fact, relative when it comes to the definition. In fact, an ancient philosopher, Zhuang Zi once said this after he had a dream about him being a butterfly:
'Is Zhuang Zi the butterfly, or is the butterfly Zhuang Zi?'
Yes, I think we can call the butterfly 'Zhuang Zi', why not? If the person who named that 'insect' 'Zhuang Zi' instead of 'butterfly', then Zhuang Zi is really the butterfly. Let's take blogging as another example. Blogging is such an absolute Truth, that you can't deny. But, a big but, a same event that has occurred to two different persons, as they record down in their blog, with their own opinion, is it really absolute? Or is it relative to the individual person who experienced the whole thing differently as the other person?
Well, another thing... As I was coming back home just now, I was asked another question. What is history and does history really exist? Again, I must emphasize that a lot of my sayings and opinions are influenced heavily from the readings over the year. If history is just about recording down what happened in the past, if history is about what just happened over my dining table and what just happened over at my opposite block, with the couple quarrelling with each other, threatening to kill each other, if history is just the past, then it exists. But if history is about understanding the past, if history is about comprehending what has happened, how it happened and why it happened, then it falls back to the question about relativity. History is nothing absolute. In fact I believe that there's no such thing as absolute history. Does historians really exist as historians or do they exist as writers, story tellers, with a definition of 'historians' being bestowed upon them. Historical facts can be manipulated and stories about the past, theories about the past are based on the manipulation of the facts. Then it really leads to another question, which I am also asked: Is there really such a thing called facts? As my arguments earlier has suggested, there is. But only the physical stuffs which I also defined as absolute Truth. These stuffs constitute the physical aspects of the past. For example, I was still typing this blog a few minutes ago. I have a computer in front of me and I am typing on a keyboard, sitting on an armchair. But is there, and if there is, going to be someone who wanna try to interpret and understand what I have done in the past few minutes... or hours, since I started typing at 2232hrs and at 0000hrs, I'm still in the middle of everything. How is that 'someone' gonna interpret and understand? Why that 'someone', if he really comes out with an interpretation and understanding, chose to interpret and understand it this way? What if someone else interepret it at a different way? This leads me to recall a very famous saying:
'The winner is the king and the loser is the thief'
I feel that history is made in such ways, to make us understand the past in the way the 'winner' wants us to. It's becoming quite evident now that such 'history' in the end, is just a story fabricated to influence our mind. Then you may ask me, is there really such a thing called history? History, to me is relative to the one who makes it and the one who reads it. To me, relative history (I coined this term cos I wanna give it a deifinition) exists, meaning that I accept that different historians understand the past in different ways, and therefore write and argue in different ways too, no matter how manipulative they are towards their 'facts' and whatever evidences they have. If I'm gonna take up their route, I would have to understand that what I am gonna write is totally of my own understanding of what happened in the past and what I'm not gonna study every single piece of information I have on my hands. I understand that I would have to be selective about the information I'm gonna use, but then I want to let it know that it's gonna be a piece of history by me, written by me, based on my understanding. It's not gonna be an absolute Truth but then, it's my understanding of the psat and therefore, it's relative history, and to me, that is good enough to justify that yes, history does really exist.
Well, I have said enough, and really, I have enjoyed myself writing down all these statements over the past two hours. Think I'm getting back my knack for essay writing. Till then, that's all, folk.
Comments
Post a Comment