A Brief Meditation on Time

From the very beginning, when we emerge crying and screaming into the world, the clock starts ticking, its hands sweeping through space, marking our moments, and counting down towards the moment time will end for us.

Even before our birth, others, our mothers, our fathers, the doctors, our siblings, have already started counting our time for us, from conception to emergence. And then after to begin worrying for us, that our time here will be all too brief, and for some, all too long.

The clock, the calendar, they rule our lives. We worry when we have too little time, we are in too much of a rush; we fret when we have too much time, feeling as if we are stuck in a waiting room of our lives waiting for life itself to “begin,” when it has really carried on unabated. In our youths, we think we have forever, even if there are those who do die young. In our old age, we grieve over what time we have left. Yet if we allow ourselves to be ruled by the clock, we find ourselves almost as if we wish each event to be over so we can hurry on to the next. Yet if we don’t abide by time, we find ourselves missing opportunities, trains, examinations and appointments.

Counterfactual Conditionals: Regrets, the Future and Decision-Making

One might think that philosophy dwells on what is not relevant to life, especially in areas such as logic which can seem so abstract and hence divorced from reality. Arthur Schopenhauer acknowledges this when he writes: “To seek to make practical use of logic would … mean to seek to derive with unspeakable trouble from universal rules what is immediately known to us with the greatest certainty in the particular case. It is just as if a man were to consult mechanics with regard to his movements.”[1] Lest you misunderstand, Schopenhauer does think logic is of great theoretical importance, it just isn’t practically useful. Nonetheless, I want to talk about an application of the concept of counterfactual conditionals to real life, to illuminate what might not really be so obvious.

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.

My Reflections on Nomadland

I am the Philosophical Bachelor and today I want to talk about Nomadland, a front runner for the Best Picture at this year’s Oscars in 20 21 and already the winner of the best picture at the Golden Globes. So I had finished watching the film just last night and when I was recommending it to my friend, he asked, what is it about?

While that is seemingly an obvious and also simple question, it set me thinking—so what really is nomadland about? The story itself is simple, of a woman, named Fern, who was travelling across America in search of work but that is of course not what makes this a great film. What is characteristic of the best films, is how they have the capability to speak to each of us in our own individual condition, in different ways. For adults who have had some experience in life, they will see themselves in her situation, perhaps only in some narrow aspect, but yet they will be able to sympathise or at least understand, to empathise with her situation in its manifold of details, from the pain of separation, from having to power through a grinding day at work, from the suffering of the cold, to her hunger, her anguish but also her joy. 

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.