情为何物？人与人之间，非需要情不可？父子与母子情又如何解释？
人间为何那么多苦？人为何不知足？好人为何无好报？
我心为何打烊？爱为何不长久？结了婚为何又闹分离？爱情难道无法长久永恒？
天为何戏弄百姓？世界政治为何那么零乱？天灾又为什么有增加的趋势？
我为什么孤独一身而过？钱真得那么重要吗？我为何整天觉得自己笨手笨脚的？
我为什么又哭了？男人真的不可以落泪吗？
我是否疯了……
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Mercy
I have been debating about writing this entry for quite a while now, but I suppose the feeling innate me to write something has prevailed after all. And so, a depressing entry awaits you, the intrepid reader (no more of that ``blogder'' nonsense).
This world has no such thing as mercy. The very essence of mercy is a human created concept, just like the ideas of justice and generosity. If the natural law were to be taken at its full implication, that if we are willing to sacrifice the anthropic principle for just a moment, then it is clear that in the ``natural world'', there is really no such thing as mercy.
Reality is often a very cruel place. ``Might is right'' is a concept that is universally upheld, even in the modern societies that pride themselves on their generally strong concepts of civil rights and fairness. The only difference of course lies in the very definition of what ``might'' means in the context. In the past, even before the rise of human civilisation, ``might'' translates to being the strongest, the fastest or the wittiest; now, it translates to meaning whoever has the stronger economical, political and ethical stands, in general descending order of importance.
Then what is mercy? Mercy can be seen as an escape mechanism that the lesser privileged can use to get out of the general ``might is right'' principle. The idea is that by appealling to ``mercy'', the weak/conquered can elicit a positive response from the strong/conqueror, and can thus obtain an overall positive outcome for themselves, i.e. the ability to get away from whatever they were stuck in. Unfortunately, in the modern world where people are sticklers for rules and the such, mercy may only be appealled to, but not necessarily given.
There is no mercy in this world.
This world has no such thing as mercy. The very essence of mercy is a human created concept, just like the ideas of justice and generosity. If the natural law were to be taken at its full implication, that if we are willing to sacrifice the anthropic principle for just a moment, then it is clear that in the ``natural world'', there is really no such thing as mercy.
Reality is often a very cruel place. ``Might is right'' is a concept that is universally upheld, even in the modern societies that pride themselves on their generally strong concepts of civil rights and fairness. The only difference of course lies in the very definition of what ``might'' means in the context. In the past, even before the rise of human civilisation, ``might'' translates to being the strongest, the fastest or the wittiest; now, it translates to meaning whoever has the stronger economical, political and ethical stands, in general descending order of importance.
Then what is mercy? Mercy can be seen as an escape mechanism that the lesser privileged can use to get out of the general ``might is right'' principle. The idea is that by appealling to ``mercy'', the weak/conquered can elicit a positive response from the strong/conqueror, and can thus obtain an overall positive outcome for themselves, i.e. the ability to get away from whatever they were stuck in. Unfortunately, in the modern world where people are sticklers for rules and the such, mercy may only be appealled to, but not necessarily given.
There is no mercy in this world.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
望天
I tried looking for this version of the song online, but the best I had was by a different singer.His version is very different from what 蔡辛娟 sang---I prefer her version better since there's that strong wistful feel that he seems to be lacking. The lyrics themselves are meaningful on their own too, something that seems quite ripe for the season.
《望天》——蔡辛娟Lyrics courtesy of www.kuwo.cn.
那是我的多情
也是我的痴情
天晓得分离的苦
加在我的身上
是想你时的甜
是想你时的甜
你怨你变 我恋我颠
天知道终日的思念
化在云端难牵连
你怨你变 我恋我颠
天知道这样的思念
可是风筝断了线
哪儿是你的世界
该如何走进你的心田
为何看不到
我的山川我的岁月我的天
我的山川我的岁月我的天
哪儿是你的世界
该如何走进你的心田
为何看不到
我的山川我的岁月我的天
我的山川我的岁月我的天
那是我的多情
也是我的痴情
天晓得分离的苦
加在我的身上
是想你时的甜
是想你时的甜
你怨你变 我恋我颠
天知道终日的思念
化在云端难牵连
你怨你变 我恋我颠
天知道这样的思念
可是风筝断了线
哪儿是你的世界
该如何走进你的心田
为何看不到
我的山川我的岁月我的天
我的山川我的岁月我的天
哪儿是你的世界
该如何走进你的心田
为何看不到
我的山川我的岁月我的天
我的山川我的岁月我的天
哪儿是你的世界
该如何走进你的心田
为何看不到
我的山川我的岁月我的天
我的山川我的岁月我的天
哪儿是你的世界
该如何走进你的心田
为何看不到
我的山川我的岁月我的天
我的山川我的岁月我的天
Monday, February 14, 2011
Memories
As I said, the only friend you can rely on is yourself, and in this case, your memories.
《他的名字叫回忆》——千百惠Lyrics courtesy www.inkui.com.
我有一个好伙伴
他的名字叫回忆
他是一个诚挚不变的朋友
不管黎明到黄昏
或是黑夜到白昼
常会为我捕捉往日的快乐
他是如此的执着
他是这样关心我
始终住在我心深处的角落
不论我走到哪里
他就跟我到哪里
让我一点也不觉得寂寞
每当别的朋友都离去
他却会自愿留在我身边
给我安慰填补我空虚
他是我最好的朋友回忆
Saturday, February 05, 2011
Fealty
Today, another thought struck me: fealty... feverish fervour for foolishness?
While it is an obvious alliteration, the ideas that come from its utterence is something that I have been pondering about for quite a while. ``Fealty'', to the uninitiated, is the idea of loyalty or faithfulness, while ``feverish fervour'' refers to the concept of being in a state of near blind support, without the inkling of doubt whatsoever. And ``foolishness'' of course refers to this entire concept as being something that is not really meaningful nor particularly rational by most counts.
So why the sudden alliterative mood? I was thinking a little about some of the things that I had been through, and it seems to me that many of the problems that I face consists of the problems with fealty, or rather, the idea of divided fealty---conflicting sources of loyalty that interplay with each other and tear the individual asunder with the issues on which choices are considered the most correct given the circumstances. Let's take some non-politically sensitive example to illustrate this point: suppose I like a particular peson, yet I still have some remnant emotions from the last relationship that didn't just go away. Is it considered being unloyal to my feelings to accept the new person?
Or for a more politically charged version, if you are working for a company, do you entrust your entire working ability towards getting your job done, or do you be loyal to your own beliefs and ensure that you do things in a more ``sustainable'' manner, at the cost of some supposed lost efficiency?
These are hard questions to answer, and it seems that many of the problems I face in life fall roughly into this category. I have been brought up from a young age to be mindful of the global optimum case---thinking from the perspective of the greater good, which may, at times, mean that one sacrifices the self to advance society in general. Once upon a time, when someone asked me if I were willing to die if a thousand could live, I would have no hesitation.
Now I have second thoughts.
I'm not sure if this is related to the development of my misanthropic tendencies from having realised that many people in the world are just plain dumb. From the principle of the greater good then, it casts a doubt as to whether one thousand supposedly dumb people are worth the sacrifice of one able-bodied person---I believe this is a question that has no simple answer. Thus, the fealty to the populace under such an extremist view seems to suggest that it is merely foolishness on the part of the person who is intending to make the sacrifice.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that we all work towards a completely anarchist perspective where everyone is selfish. What I'm saying is that the idea of fealty itself needs more justification from the logos perspective, and that it is not always to the benefit of the self (nor of society) that people have blind fealty. An obvious case is with the recent highlighting of the extremists; no one can deny their fealty to their cause, be it religious or philosophical. But everyone can clearly see that in pursuing their fervour, they have left large swathes of society in shambles, and that cannot be a good thing.
Anyway, I think I've mumbled enough about this for now. Till the next random thought.
While it is an obvious alliteration, the ideas that come from its utterence is something that I have been pondering about for quite a while. ``Fealty'', to the uninitiated, is the idea of loyalty or faithfulness, while ``feverish fervour'' refers to the concept of being in a state of near blind support, without the inkling of doubt whatsoever. And ``foolishness'' of course refers to this entire concept as being something that is not really meaningful nor particularly rational by most counts.
So why the sudden alliterative mood? I was thinking a little about some of the things that I had been through, and it seems to me that many of the problems that I face consists of the problems with fealty, or rather, the idea of divided fealty---conflicting sources of loyalty that interplay with each other and tear the individual asunder with the issues on which choices are considered the most correct given the circumstances. Let's take some non-politically sensitive example to illustrate this point: suppose I like a particular peson, yet I still have some remnant emotions from the last relationship that didn't just go away. Is it considered being unloyal to my feelings to accept the new person?
Or for a more politically charged version, if you are working for a company, do you entrust your entire working ability towards getting your job done, or do you be loyal to your own beliefs and ensure that you do things in a more ``sustainable'' manner, at the cost of some supposed lost efficiency?
These are hard questions to answer, and it seems that many of the problems I face in life fall roughly into this category. I have been brought up from a young age to be mindful of the global optimum case---thinking from the perspective of the greater good, which may, at times, mean that one sacrifices the self to advance society in general. Once upon a time, when someone asked me if I were willing to die if a thousand could live, I would have no hesitation.
Now I have second thoughts.
I'm not sure if this is related to the development of my misanthropic tendencies from having realised that many people in the world are just plain dumb. From the principle of the greater good then, it casts a doubt as to whether one thousand supposedly dumb people are worth the sacrifice of one able-bodied person---I believe this is a question that has no simple answer. Thus, the fealty to the populace under such an extremist view seems to suggest that it is merely foolishness on the part of the person who is intending to make the sacrifice.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that we all work towards a completely anarchist perspective where everyone is selfish. What I'm saying is that the idea of fealty itself needs more justification from the logos perspective, and that it is not always to the benefit of the self (nor of society) that people have blind fealty. An obvious case is with the recent highlighting of the extremists; no one can deny their fealty to their cause, be it religious or philosophical. But everyone can clearly see that in pursuing their fervour, they have left large swathes of society in shambles, and that cannot be a good thing.
Anyway, I think I've mumbled enough about this for now. Till the next random thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)