Should We Block Ads on Youtube?

So I have made two videos on how you can block ads on youtube on your computer and also on your mobile phones or tablets. Most viewers of these videos will find these videos from searching on youtube or a search engine for information on how to block ads or they may come across it when youtube suggests it to them. To be clear, while I made the videos on how you CAN do it, it doesn’t automatically mean that I am telling you to do it, or even suggesting that you SHOULD do it. I am not telling or suggesting that you do it, or not do it.

The Experience Machine Part 2

Previously, I have explained what Nozick’s thought experiment on experience machines is about and his arguments against plugging in. If you have not watched it, please find the link, watch it first and then return here. To recap, his three arguments are and I quote:

1) “We want to do certain things, and not just have the experience of doing them.”

2) “We want to be a certain way, to be a certain sort of person.”

3) “Plugging into an experience machine limits us to a man-made reality.”

While they may seem reasonable, I have hinted at some scenarios such as wanting a holiday or to escape from a life of suffering, to be reasons why people might want to plug into the experience machine. I want to expand on that today, to argue against Nozick’s arguments and then reconcile it with what I think is the real takeaway from his thought experiment.

Meno: Plato on Ethics and Epistemology

While Plato’s Meno is ostensibly about ethics since it discusses virtue, it is also about epistemology, i.e. the theory of knowledge. Written in 385 BC,[1] the plot is about a man, Meno, who is talking to Socrates about the nature of virtue. Meno wanted to know if virtue can be taught, gained through practice or is inborn.

Can’t We be Friends? Analysing Singapore’s LGBT Struggle Through a Schmittian Lens

It is often better to be a friend than an enemy of the state. This paper uses Carl Schmitt’s concept of the political and its friend-enemy distinction to analyse Singapore’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual (LGBT) situation. While Schmitt describes the political as a domain where participants may have to engage in physical combat when pushed to the extreme, this paper applies his concepts to politicians ‘fighting’ for their political lives, to be elected. Analysing Singapore’s laws and policies affecting the LGBT using Schmitt’s concepts suggests that the conservative segments of society belong to the friend-group and the LGBT community the enemy-group, because of greater electoral support from the former due to its larger numbers. Hence, it is coherent that Singapore’s leaders have indicated that societal acceptance of LGBTs is an important criterion to change the country’s policies affecting them. Therefore, a plausibly suitable strategy is to sway the electorate so that they will decide that the LGBT community, currently an enemy, is instead a friend. The paper suggests how this can be done and the price its members may have to pay.

Mea Culpa: Why the Developed World is Responsible for the Global Poor

The global order harms the poor. Thomas Pogge argues that the causes of global poverty are systemic, refuting the notion that the misery in poor countries are mostly self-induced. We, the developed world, are the architects of the global order and continue to run it to the detriment of the global poor. Hence, we have the responsibility to fix it. This order is comprised of economic and institutional parts. By examining both parts, we can then identify the causes of the problems and propose possible solutions.

Superabundance and Excess: Is Bataille’s Conception of General Economy Credible?

Georges Bataille’s concept of general economy strikes at the core of our prevailing understanding of economics. He posits two contrasting premises in the first volume of The Accursed Share (TAS):

1) The condition of the world is one of superabundance rather than scarcity. Bataille proposes that all life and wealth derive from the sun, which is effectively an unlimited source of energy. In the general economy, what the world faces is not scarcity, as foundationally assumed in conventional economics, but superabundance. While pockets of poverty can be found, the world on aggregate has an excess of wealth.

2) However, there are limits to growth, because there is only so much space on the planet which life can occupy. Once the limits are reached, no further growth is possible. Hence the excess cannot be used for growth; it cannot be saved and it needs to be expended. The choice we have is to either expend it well or badly.

Is Bataille’s conception of general economy credible? In addition to examining these two premises, this paper investigates Bataille’s method to reconceptualise how we can understand the world by adopting a radical position on political economy so as to derive novel insights. Specifically, I analyse his idea of limits and savings, his empirical approach and his critique of scarcity and utility in conventional economics. I contrast his views of capitalism and potlatch with Jean-Joseph Goux’s critique that Bataille’s solution of consumption has already come to pass in today’s capitalist economies and George Gilder’s notion that giving is central to entrepreneurial capitalism, and propose a possible Bataillean response. I then consider Andrew Abbott’s extension to Bataille’s theory of general economy, which Abbott draws on to argue that problems of excess are fundamentally different from problems of scarcity, hence requiring their own solutions. I conclude by assessing whether Bataille has been successful in challenging conventional economics and the applicability of TAS to political economy today.

The Observer Effect

The observer effect is a phenomena in physics where just from the act of observation, the experimental results are changed. It is the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation. The instruments used to measure the data, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some way. I want to use this effect as an analogy of how, human being as actors, modify the situation, since we, like the observer, insert ourselves into the space of action, hence changing the space of action. The elements in that space react to us, as we react to them. 

The Paradox of Tolerance for the Faithful

A devout believer of a specific religion, given the strength of her devotion, is likely to hold that the doctrines of her religion are the monolithic truth, and that her gods are the true gods. Since there are many religions, they cannot all be true, if her religion is the true one. Therefore, she must conclude that the other religions must be false. There hence exists a tension between tolerance, pluralism and truth, with religious ideologies as a potential source of intolerance.

Johan De Tavernier examines this tension at the institutional, cultural and theological levels, explaining how our understanding of tolerance has evolved and can be justified. However, there is a paradox between a staunch religious belief and a tolerance for the belief of others. This paradox can be resolved if we understand that in tolerance, justice and love for others is more important than judging whose version of truth is right. I propose some practical measures that believers can take in the face of the challenge from tolerance, in line with De Tavernier’s belief that believers should avoid fanaticism, and instead adopt a quiet conviction. 

Ockham’s Connectedness of Virtues

William of Ockham (d. 1347) posits that moral virtue is an ethically-charged habit caused by moral acts that inclines or disposes us to perform similar acts. It is a feedback loop of acts leading to habits leading to further acts which then further reinforces the habit. This is contrary to the Independence of Act-Opportunity Principle where even if we have the opportunity to have one virtue, say temperance, it does not mean we will have the opportunity for other virtues such as justice. The act-opportunities are independent of one another. Since habits come from doing an act, if we never have the chance to act justly, then according to this principle, we will not be able to develop the virtue of justice, since no opportunities to act justly will mean no acts of justice. No acts of justice mean we do not form the habit of being just, leading to not acquiring the virtue of being just.

The Myth of Science

By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42526072

Is Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment still relevant? It was written in the midst of the second world war and aiming to explain why “humanity, instead of entering a truly human state, is sinking into a new kind of barbarism.”[1] Is its prognosis of how “thought in its headlong rush into pragmatism is forfeiting its sublating character, and therefore its relation to truth”[2] still accurate?

Learning to Love the Shit-Stirrer

By London Stereoscopic Company - Hulton Archive, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30913285

The liberty to speak one’s mind is not absolute, nor is it necessarily the highest priority when it conflicts with other values. John Stuart Mill believes that free speech is valuable in creating a dynamic, creative and progressive society, even as he acknowledges the need for limits in situations such as when a society is under threat from enemies[1] or when speech can lead to harmful actions.[2] While we may seem to be able to speak more freely today than in Mill’s time, there remain threats to free speech, with the decline of the mainstream media, attacks on and detention of journalists[3], the rise of echo-chambers on social media platforms reducing the access to alternative views, and the prevalence of fake news. There are potentially also chilling effects[4] from laws putatively put in place to prevent harm but may stifle free speech, such as hate speech laws in Europe and Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act.

Multi-Dimensional Man

By Copy of Silanion, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7831217

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.[1] Even though The Republic was written by Plato 2,400 years ago, a modern reader will sympathise with the everyman notions of justice presented by Socrates’s interlocutors in Book I who believe that:

1) Justice is “to speak the truth and to pay your debts.”[2]

2) Justice is “giving to each man what is proper to him.”[3]

3) Justice serves the “interest of the stronger.”[4]

This essay will focus on the third idea of ‘might makes right,’ Socrates’s argument against it, and formulate an alternative response of the multi-dimensional man, which Socrates may find hard to resist.

Is Surveillance Justified?

Photo by Erin Song on Unsplash

“He sees you when you’re sleeping. He knows when you’re awake. He knows if you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake!”[1] The words from the Christmas jingle reflect what most parents know – the threat of surveillance is sufficient to keep their children in line, at least for a while until Christmas is over. While adults know that there is no Santa Claus watching every move we make, the reality is no less sinister.

The Non-Neutrality Thesis and What Designers Must Do

Our lives are saturated with technologies. These technologies range from the simple, such as clothing, to the complex, such as airplanes. They may be firmly established, such as the refrigerators found in most homes. They may be new, like cryptocurrencies which are much hyped but still niche. They may belong only in the future, like nuclear fusion power plants which are currently being researched. They may only be conceptual or not even conceived yet. Nonetheless, the conduct of human life is so deeply intertwined with technological artefacts that we barely notice, though if they suddenly vanished, we would be paralysed.

The proof of this is how our lives grind to a halt during a power outage. Things we take for granted to work, such as the television or the lights, cease to do so, and we turn to earlier technologies such as matches and candles to light our way. In this way, technology is integral to our way of life and its effect on the human condition is profound. This paper will consider the moral status of technology given its deep relation to the human condition. I will argue against the neutrality thesis, after which I will outline what more must designers of technologies do, given the moral status of technologies.

To Give or Not to Give, There is No Question: Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”

Even the most fortunate among us are no strangers to misery. In “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, Peter Singer sings an empathic ditty, throwing down the gauntlet for anyone better off than the worst off to give, and to keep giving till it (almost) hurts. While he uses the 1971 East Bengal famine as his ‘call to arms’, his arguments can be extended to any form of desperate need such as disaster-relief, extreme poverty, or any number of the miserable conditions afflicting our fellow men. His clarion call may sound a little too shrill for most in 1972 to stomach, but his arguments remain unfortunately relevant today, perhaps even more so, considering the desperation of refugees fleeing terrible conditions only to face unwelcoming host countries and the increased tempo of natural disasters such as tsunamis, earthquakes and volcano eruptions afflicting first and third world nations alike.

Man's Need for Freedom, Individuality and Agency

The core of our humanity lies at the intersection of our freedom, individuality and agency. The first section of this essay examines human freedom by studying Mill’s On Liberty and Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. The second section examines individuality and agency using both texts and Kierkegaard’s Either/Or, II.

Mill examines the freedom of man in relation first to the tyranny of rulers and then society, arriving at three liberties he considers necessary for a truly free society. Kant’s moral law, the categorical imperative, complements the freedom Mill envisions. It is not derived from nature, society or god but from reason, which allows man the freedom to act morally, though as rational beings, they may seem to only be able to choose the ‘right’ path. With freedom as the foundation, man can then pursue his individuality and exercise his agency. Mill argues that freedom comes with responsibility and argues for diversity in people’s ways of life, while Kierkegaard’s ethical man exercises his agency through making choices and taking responsibilities. The Kantian notion of duty is criticised by Kierkegaard, though both will agree that we need to internalise our morality. Mill asserts that human individuality, when free to manifest, is not antagonistic to society but elevates it.

Is There Hope for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim?

Immanuel Kant in his essay “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim” presents nine intriguing propositions on how a philosophical history of man can be achieved. All animals have a purpose, and man’s purpose is to use his reason. We struggle to live with ourselves and with others in a society, but society is the means by which humanity can reach its fullest potential. Extending his idea of a society of men to a society of nations, such a federation of states will ultimately lead to a universal cosmopolitan condition, though setbacks are inevitable. This is the universal world history Kant envisions, which is according to a “plan of nature that aims at the perfect civil union of the human species.” However, when he published this essay in 1784, he could not have foreseen the twin threats of climate change and nuclear apocalypse that might drive mankind to extinction if we are not careful. Frightening as they are, these threats could be the opportunity we need to finally unite as one species, to overcome our joint difficulties and reach the cosmopolitan aim Kant dreams of.[1]