“… it is possible to think that something exists that cannot be thought not to exist, and such a being is greater than one that can be thought not to exist.  Therefore, if that than which a greater cannot be thought can be thought not to exist, then that than which a greater cannot be thought is not that than which a greater cannot be thought; and this is a contradiction.  So that than which a greater cannot be thought exists so truly that it cannot be thought not to exist.” (Anselm, trans. Williams)

Basically he argues that something that exists in reality is greater than something that exists in the understanding alone (that’s debatable).  And because God is something than which nothing greater can be conceived, God cannot exist only in the understanding; he must also exist in reality. If God is that than which nothing greater can be thought to exist, then God cannot be thought to not exist.  Therefore, God must exist in reality.

I keep going back and forth between accepting this argument and objecting to it because I think there’s a difference in ontological status between something that actually exists in reality and the thought of something existing in reality. Obviously I can conceive of some being X existing in my mind. And if I try, I can also conceive of this being X existing in reality.  So, fine, if I grant Anselm the claim that existence is a property that makes something greater, then X in reality is greater than X in my mind. But even so, isn’t this is all only within the realm of my conception?  An existent being X is the of object my thought.  And this object is greater than a nonexistence being X. But I don’t buy that the properties that I attribute to things in my mind have any bearing on the properties of things in reality. Furthermore, if Anselm wants to say that existence is a property, then X in the mind and X in reality must be two different things.

Anyhow, whether this is a sound argument or just crafty word play, Anselm set forth one of the most compelling ontological arguments that has mindfucked us for a millennia.  And I just spent 4 hours reading 4 pages.

*UPDATE*
Mind officially blown.  I just finished read Kant’s critique of Anselm’s argument. Answered everything!!

“Whatever be the content of our conception of an object, it is necessary to go beyond it, if we wish to predicate the existence of an object [or being].  In the case of sensuous objects, this is attained by their connection according to empirical laws with some one of my perceptions; but when it comes to objects of pure thought, there is no means whatever of knowing of their existence, since it would have to be known in a completely a priori manner.  But all our knowledge of existence belongs entirely to the sphere of experience, and although an existence out of this sphere cannot be absolutely declared to be impossible, it is a hypothesis the truth of which we have no means of discovering” (Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Meiklejohn).

God’s existence is a hypothesis we can’t confirm, but that doesn’t take away the possibility of existence.

Win.

Over the past week and a half, I have been involved in the student/faculty/staff protests and my activism became a priority over my studies.  Personally, my fight has been about the educational rights of every single student at this university.  UCSD is a public institution and is partially funded by the state, and it is the function of the state, as Aristotle would say, to educate the people.  Education is a right, not a privilege.   The purpose of the March 4 protests across the state was to send this exact message to state government whose budget cuts are threatening the sustainability of the public education system.  With the UC Regents’ exorbitant fee hikes, an education at a UC institution becomes a class-distinguishing good available only to the wealthy.  And as minorities, who are a statistical majority in the lower-income class, are already underrepresented in the system, the fee hikes would make it less likely for them to afford a UC education.  Socioeconomic inequities are undoubtedly a significant factor in the disproportionate racial demographics across all UC campuses.  And it is undeniable that students are significantly impacted by the environment in which they receive their education.  Unfortunately for the minorities on this campus, the lack of a sense of community has recently been aggravated by ignorant actions of certain inconsiderate students/organizations.  I have noticed that there are a number of students and faculty members who consider our outrage to be an overreaction to a few jokes made in bad taste, but this view stems from a selfish complacency and mocks all of those who refuse to accept infringements on their right to education.

Every single time I have attempted to work on my paper, I found myself making very little progress.  On many occasions I felt a bit delusional from feeling as if I had some higher-calling, as if society really needed me.  My academic responsibilities as a student became trivialized, and, admittedly, I allowed my emotions run wild.  Seeing so many of my fellow students carrying on unaffected, not to mention hearing people mock the black community’s hurt, I began to reevaluate my role as a student at this campus.  As a philosophy student, I have always been taught to inquire further into the exact meaning of things, to examine the unavoidable implications behind every assertion, and it is apparent that I carry that practice beyond the academic world.

If at any point in the future I find myself in another existential crisis, I hope I can return to this moment and reexamine my struggle as a emotionally-charged (perhaps confused) student, making all attempts to fulfill self-conceived (perhaps ill-conceived) societal obligations.

When we speak of virtue, we are concerned with right actions giving rise to good states.  Activities in accordance with virtue are characteristic of virtue, so it is through a person’s actions that he is considered virtuous.  So, the good person, with respect to his own natural inclinations in his characteristic activities, is the one who acts in accordance with virtue.  Virtue is not determined by nature, but by the character one gives to his own activities throughout his life.  Thus, the moral virtues are in everyone’s power to acquire.  Achieving this requires the right feelings and actions in all circumstances where pleasures and pains are involved.  Society dictates, to an extent, the appropriate feelings and actions.  And as it is clear that society evolves over time, it is reasonable to conceive of feelings and actions Aristotle had not considered.  Legislators are constantly revising laws or drafting new ones to account for societal changes.  The formation of federal institutions, the development of corporations, introduction of organized religions, and advancements in technology all elicit new concerns.  And as the feelings and actions considered in writing laws determining honors and punishments are the same feelings and actions that define virtue, Aristotle would agree that his list of moral virtues might not include certain virtues that the modern moral agent would require.  One that I find necessary is the virtue of tolerance.

Tolerance is concerned with conviction.  Our characters are defined by certain settled beliefs, or convictions, about what we consider to be the best for society and what is best for individuals.  But the character of one person is sure to be different from the character of another, as no two people can be identical in education, upbringing, and inclinations.  So it follows that each person experiences different degrees of conviction to different things and at different times.  These feelings are telling of virtue, and the best is found where the feeling of conviction is had at the right time, concerning the right things, towards the right people, for the right end, and in the right way.  Here, where virtue lies, is the mean state between excess and deficiency.  Tolerance can be found in such a state, where one feels only the right amount of conviction and where resulting actions always accord to this amount.

The states of excess and deficiency are considered vices.  With regard to conviction, the one who feels an extreme excess of it and acts so perversely is intolerant.  The one who feels the extreme deficiency of conviction, where one lacks any convictions at all, if such a state is even possible, is characterless.

We can define tolerance as the open spirit towards the views and action of others.  So when the feeling of conviction is so great that the acceptance of the views and actions of others painful, one is in a vicious state of excess and clearly intolerant.  In the opposite vicious state, where one is characterless, one’s actions are comparable to those of a pebble on a busy street, absent of any convictions and as easily influenced one way as the other.

Tolerance is virtue of character rather than a virtue of the intellect because it is concerned with both pleasures and pains, thought apparently more concerning pains as illustrated above.  As one feels convictions, some strong some not yet settled, it is painful to act against those convictions in considering others, and it is pleasurable, or at least gratifying, to persist and project those convictions.  I am convinced that in order to be a good person, that is a virtuous moral agent, in the modern day, it is necessary to be tolerant.  However, I am not so excessively convicted to this belief as to reject any argument to the contrary.

That’s what I’ve gotten from Nagel so far.  Something is missing. Must read Bertrand Russell.

Can you come up with a legitimate reason as to why that might be a problem?  I certainly couldn’t.  I mean, we could argue that it just seems natural for us to want to appreciate what’s natural, right?  But is that just a social value we’ve been conditioned to identify with?  That what’s natural is good and what’s engineered or altered is bad?  I mean, I know some people are cautious about “playing God”, but every time we take painkillers, get surgery, take antibiotics, get vaccinations, etc., we’re playing God all the same.  So that doesn’t seem to rule out genetic engineering.  And the socioeconomic gap it would create (or widen, I would say)?  Well social inequities will result from any public good being left to the free market, but that’s no reason to reject genetic engineering; inequities can be fixed with proper redistribution and regulation.

One philosopher, Michael Sandel, appeals to the three elements he believes constitutes our moral landscape – responsibility, humility, and solidarity.  He argues that by permitting genetic engineering technologies, we would be increasing human responsibility, in that life would no longer be seen as a gift and appreciated as such because parents would play a significant role in determining what their child is like.  (But don’t parents already have that sort of power or influence?  Parents send their kids to school, hire tutors, fuel their talents, help them reach their potential.)  Furthermore, as our responsibility increases, our humility dwindles.  We derive our humility from acknowledging the aspects of life that are beyond our control and humbling ourselves to accept the good with the bad.  The more that enters our scope of control, the more that responsibility increases, and the more that humility decreases.  And finally, we owe our sense of community, or solidarity, to humility.  For those who contribute a great deal to social progress, they do it with the recognition that people’s advantages and disadvantages are largely due to chance, due to factors beyond their control.  So with our advantages is a feeling of mutual indebtedness, because some people did not win the life, or genetic, lottery the way others did and we contribute to society, actively or passively, to balance it all out (we fight prejudices and compensate victims of natural mishaps).

Finally, an appeal to morality.  This outlines the apprehension that we can’t quite explain.  We feel morally conflicted in allowing genetic engineering but we can’t quite figure out why, right?  Well, Sandel wants to reconcile those feelings for you.  He suggests that humanity retains its “openness to the unbidden.  It invites us to abide the unexpected, to live with dissonance, to rein in the impulse to control.”  Openness to the unbidden, I get; leave life to chance so we can appreciate it more.  But telling me to rein in the impulse to control?  Control my impulse to control?  I feel trapped…

Here’s where Ronald Dworkin comes in.  While I completely agree with Sandel’s conception of morality, I don’t think that the solution should be to stop moving in that direction altogether.  Dworkin argues that allowing genetic engineering and blurring the chance/choice distinction could potentially send us into a moral free-fall where morality would be irrelevant.  The fear is not that genetic engineering is wrong, it is that we would completely lose sense of right and wrong.  And while the idea of comprehensive genetic engineering, or even human cloning, seems highly unlikely to Dworkin, the public’s reaction against it may be an impediment to other sorts of genuine scientific or medical advancements.  Therefore, the threat should be addressed.  It is necessary to identify what constitutes our moral framework and allow them to guide our decisions.  Dworkin’s understanding of morality is based on his principles of Ethical Individualism:

(1) Objective Importance:

- It is objectively important that human life, once begun, succeed rather than fail.
- It is objectively important that the potential of that life be realized rather than wasted.
- This is objectively important for each human life.

(2) Each person has a special responsibility to his/her own life., therefore a right to make fundamental decisions that would define, for him or herself, what a successful life would be.

We can’t keep ourselves from moving forward.  All that would be gained from walking away from the moral challenges we’ve encountered is ignorance.  The potential benefits of these scientific advancements far outweigh the reasons to prohibit them.   but we can make a conscious effort to revise our moral framework and redefine our values.  Instead of banning genetic engineering technologies, we should make reactive policies to fix the negative consequences.  Resulting troublesome social trends should be met with increased regulation to restore balance.  Basically, we just roll with the punches!

We play with fire and take the consequences, because the alternative is cowardice in the face of the unknown.

Dworkin’s right.  We do what we do until we realize it’s not working.  Then we fix it.  It’s not our impulse to control, Sandel — it’s progress.

And that was my two cents!  Honestly, this wasn’t even the most interesting topic of the quarter; it was just the only one I could actually wrap my mind around [hat tip to Dworkin].

*genetic engineering includes methods through which parents can alter their children’s genetic makeup as they see fit.  This includes sex selection and trait selection.  These technologies are a result of genetic screening technologies that have already served us for many decades (e.g. amniocentesis, where doctors perform prenatal screening on mothers to reveal genetic diseases and gender).  Currently, many of the morally troublesome issues discussed are in speculation of impending genetic technologies that would allow parents to basically create the genetic makeup of their children.  Particularly in the case of IVF (in vitro fertilization) parents could screen themselves for unfavorable genetic predispositions and select only the sperm and egg containing the desirable traits to be fertilized. Should parents have this power?  Should society?  What happens if we allow it?

一直到現在, 我還是不敢相信我又讓自己失望了. 難道我是不自量力認為自己做的夠嗎? 我明明因該把我的能力,智能,用功,和專心都表現出來. 如果我這種短線目標都能達成,那未來挑戰的成功隨之而來. 難得有機會說服我自己我的前途肯定是光彩的, 我卻又失去了. 我知道對過去的事念念不忘是浪費時間, 可是該學的還是要學. 這次的短處是我第一千萬的失望, 我到底要如何改變呢? 我那一方面不足?

反正生命就是這樣子, 無論我們做的多好(或是有做好的錯覺), 一定還會有進步, 成張, 學習的餘地. 我認同自己做的真的是不夠.  真的很想要保證不會再有任何不夠情形, 可是我對自己讀書方面的期望沒有之前那麼高了. 我不會放棄我要進前十名法學院的目標, 可是我必須做心理準備. 接下來這一年半的努力或許還是無法彌補這三年來的失敗. 就算我在找回我之前的信心, 我還是沒有辦法把成績單上的 B 跟 C 抹掉.

很不幸又來到這個時候了. 學期初, 很有把握.  學期中, 又返回老榜樣, 忘了對課堂內容的熟悉和了解是日漸累積的. 還有學期末, 承認期中考時的差錯和盡力的補回來.  如果我少掉中間那一步, 我就會成功了嗎?  那當然.  問題是, 我這種人不知不覺的就會把重心放在很容易迷失的地方.

媽媽勸我常常唸觀世音菩薩. 我有時候相信, 可是有時候覺得求救神不誠實, 也並沒有讓我更接近目標. 我看還是要靠自己囉.

“We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.”

That’s what Winston Churchill said.   So, give something.  Give a dollar to a homeless man.  Give some time to charity work.  Give a helping hand.  Give someone a shoulder to cry on.  Give your parents your appreciation.  Give someone lost some advice.  Give someone confused some attention.  Give someone you don’t trust the benefit of the doubt.  Give your enemies a chance.  Give a discouraged friend some hope.  Give someone disillusioned some resolution.  Give your disapproval, if it is your place to do so.  Give yourself a chance.  Give someone else an opportunity.  Give yourself a day off.  Give your best friend a handwritten letter.  Give your siblings some guidance.  Give your future some thought.  Give a stranger some kind words.  Give your heart away.

Literally, give anything.  But most of all, give yourself some credit. We give and give everyday, we just don’t realize that we’re contributing to society and to each other’s lives in more ways than one.  Some of us constructively, and too many of us destructively.  Everything you do and say affects what everyone else does or says. So give yourself appropriate credit, but also give yourself a moment to think about the kind of impact you have in this world with the words you say and the actions you take. Your fleeting moment of anger or impulse may end up being the resounding echo of disapproval hanging over someone else’s head. Be honest, but be considerate. Give yourself a chance to be inspirational. And how else to inspire but to inspire with love?

Anyways, but it’s 2AM on a Saturday night here in Taiwan.  Inspiration finds you at the oddest hour.  But the point is, give love.  I’ll leave you with another Winston Churchill mantra I’ve been living by for as long as I can remember:

Before you can inspire with emotion, you must be swamped with it yourself. Before you can move their tears, your own must flow. To convince them, you must yourself believe.

Clever guy.

Diane Von Furstenberg said this to Whitney on the City.  What an adorable little metaphor.  I love DVF!!

I’m taking 3 ICLP (Int’l Chinese Learning Program) classes Mon-Fri from 1PM-4PM:

1. News and Viewpoints 新聞與觀點
2. Thought and Society  思想與社會
3. Practical Audio/Visual Level 5 視聽華語

I have quizzes every day, and at this point, the material is doable.  All I need to work on is not turning into a complete idiot when professors put me on the spot.  Here’s an anecdote you’ll love:   during the interview segment of the placement test, I told my interviewers that I’ve been a frequent visitor to Taiwan because I have a lot of 夫[fu]妻 [qi] (husbands/wives).  Yeah, I meant to say 親[qin]戚[qi] (relatives).  An embarrassingly amount of laughter followed.   Seriously, my mind goes completely blank when teachers ask me questions.  Believe it or not, it’s like I’M SHY..  It’s gotta be a joke.  Or a phase.  There just needs to be an explanation.  Honestly, I think I just get really self-conscious around my Chinese teachers because I don’t want to come off as a  know-it-all, so I watch myself a lot.

So in addition to the language classes, I’m also taking two regular NTU 台大 courses

1. Seminar – Comparative Enterprise and Financial Law (Mon 10:20 – 12:00)
2. International Marketing Management (Tues 9:10 – 12:10)

Sorry the names of my classes are so pretentious.

I’m definitely taking the classes seriously.  And I’m learning so much so fast.  Is that strange?

I promise to update in a few days with the really juicy details.  I’ve only been here for 3 weeks.  I’m still adjusting, so give me some time.  You won’t be disappointed by what I’ve been up to though.  And I’ve got pictures galore!  =)

“You can be mad as a mad dog at the way things went; you can swear and curse the fates. But when it comes to the end, you have to let go.”

A-fucking-MEN!

We all come across unfavorable circumstances.  And things rarely ever turn out the way we want them to.  But as much time as we spend being angry or feeling wronged, when it comes down to it, we have to let go and move on.  That’s not to say you give up all hopes for the future.

BY THE WAY, the guy in the movie who got struck by lightning 7 times made the film THAT much greater.

And here is a picture of Buster

hello buster!