Genesis 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'
Matthew 7:1-2 'Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you used, it will be measured to you.'
Matthew 22:21 Then he said to them, 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.'
Wow the last time I actually wrote something here was 8 March :P
Anyway, I must thank all my friends in Madison who gave me a really wonderful time! I did not want to leave...
It is a really warm feeling to know that friends are genuinely happy that I am there, and that they are pouring all their hospitality on me - I can really feel it! :) Thank you so much!
Before Madison I was doing HCF's spring break urban plunge in SW Baltimore. I did the same thing last year - last year it wasn't a stay-over programme, and we were at each site only in passing, but indeed it was a great learning experience and more importantly my first step in being an active Christian - a step that I want to make but had never known how to make.
This year I was helping to plan it and led some of the discussions. It had not failed to be inspiring, and had made me realise the main shortcomings that I have hindering me in putting my words into action. Also - I mean, two years ago, I would not have imagined myself doing these stuff that I am doing today; it is the Spirit at work, it is the grace of God - through the HCF people and Grace, who decided to make the 'serious and intellectual' xiaoyang (this is not I say one okay) the target of her invitations without even knowing what I have been up to on my own.
What I was obsessed about two years ago was basically condensed in a question that Songyu and Gerald asked me on the car yesterday. I have told my story quite a couple of times - I actually didn't realise that Songyu has never heard it before. I cannot publish the whole thing here, but the abridged form is simply - I have realised that what happened and what I hoped for in 2006 - 2007 was not built on the right foundation. We were very different in terms of values and world-view and I didn't realise that - which I finally did, and I am glad that I did. I do not know if she had ever liked me before but it is now inconsequential.
(Actually one more thing that I didn't realise was - how widely spread was the impression at that time. I only realised that recently when Kenneth, wz etc. all came to ask me about it separately and I was forced to ask them - where did they get the impression from...?! I will not deny anything, because it happened - if I cannot even be honest to myself, how can I convince others to trust me?)
Luke 6:46-49 -
"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."
Jesus wants us to actively build our foundations on him, not on our own hopes and ambitions. Extend the 'Stardust' metaphor that I used to tell and still hold on to, and you will know what my attitude of life is...
Recently there have been a lot of articles discussing the suitability of a Chinese classic <弟子规> as a basic text for teaching traditional Chinese values to kids. I grew up studying some form of Chinese classics and I support the idea of making kids learn traditional texts. We can't take them at face value though; things like 晨昏定省 is certainly no longer applicable but things like 出必告, 返必面 should definitely be advocated.
The above paragraph struck me though, because there is a parallel verse in the Bible:
Romans 13:10: Love does no harm to its neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
If you love your neighbour (i.e. everyone else) as yourself, you will automatically fulfill the law. If you genuinely love your parents, you will do what <弟子规> tells you to without even knowing what is inside.
Well love needs to be carefully defined - I kind of know what how to do it now. Haha next post perhaps...
Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.
Matthew 25:29 -
For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. (NIV)
In the first case, the context is Jesus explaining to his disciples why he had to speak in parables. In the second case, the context is the Parable of the Talents.
The meaning of the first verse can be inferred when you read the whole of Matthew 13. Jesus is referring to people who heard the word, accepted it and understood it, and comparing them to people who had 'callous hearts' and did not 'hear with their ears' and 'closed their eyes' (Matthew 13:15, Isaiah 6:10).
The Parable of the Talents is harder. Bible.org has a loooong article interpreting it if you are interested - I have not completely read through it. Since I do not know much I shall not comment on it now...
But look - when you remove the spiritual significance of the verses, they represent a truth in life that we can hardly deny. Exemplified in today's world, the term to use would be 'social injustice'. Or putting it plainly - the rich gets richer, and the poor gets poorer.
Although in the biblical context they should not be read in that way, people have actually acknowledged their literal meaning and gave it a term - the 'Matthew Effect'. People have argued that, other than being applicable to economics, it works the same way in science too - the big names will get more and more attention and resources, while the nobodies will almost always remain nobodies with little expendable resources. When you get a grant, you will be in a better position to apply for your next; when you don't get your first grant, because your start-up fund dwindles subsequent applications will become more difficult.
That is a fact of life isn't it. I see it working tirelessly all the time.
I decided to write about this because these two verses keep coming to me recently. Their literal meaning is so plain and so direct that there is no way justice can be seen from them. If you are the person whom things are taken from you, there might even be jealousy and hate in you (and hence more will be taken from you). I suppose this can be a chance for me to actually pray, read and think about them.
The bible is like that - the more I read through it, the more I think that I should work on it. There are a lot of aspects to that - well, I guess I can talk about it some other time...
10) Can we use the Ockham's Razor to solve the controversy regarding - although many arguments do argue for the existence of God, they fail to establish the existence of a unique divine being?
The Ockham’s Razor cannot satisfactorily address the problem of multiple deities. Attempting to use the Ockham’s Razor to solve this problem is an overly-simplistic approach that is not appropriate for the nature of the question.
The Ockham’s Razor asserts that good philosophy should be in its simplest form, and there should be no need to make anything more complicated than necessary. When used in the multiple-deity problem, the Ockham’s Razor can be used in this form:
> A system with a unique divine being is simpler compared to one that has multiple divine beings. Thus, according to Ockham’s Razor, multiple divine beings are not necessary and thus we should only accept one unique divine being.
Hume, in his remark, has addressed this issue to a certain extent. To summarise, his idea is that – although Ockham’s Razor might hold, there is still room to doubt that whether all the properties of God are that of one being only, or dispersed among several divine beings, and we cannot resolve this controversy with the ability that we have now.
I will discuss 2 ideas that are implicit in his remark.
1) A system with one divine being only is not necessarily simpler than a system with multiple divine beings.
> Hume discussed this – implicit in his remark is that, at least in the analogy that he stated, a system with multiple divine beings can be as simple as a system with only one unique divine being.
> Compare the Greek-Roman theological system and the Judeo-Christian theological system – it is not immediately clear which system is a simpler one.
> When we remove deities from a multiple-deity system and move towards a unique-divine being system, we are merely removing the quantity of deities
> A whole new set of problems, potentially even more complicated than before, can arise on the unique divine being
> Thus, removing the mere quantity of divine beings does not make the philosophical system simpler – there is a possibility that it can even become more complicated
> The Ockham’s Razor cannot be used this way – it has to be used holistically, not just removing mere quantities
2) Ockham’s Razor is a methodological paradigm; it cannot be used as an answer to a question.
> Hume said – we can’t ‘pretend that we can decide the controversy’.
> Using Ockham’s Razor to say that we should only accept one unique divine being, according to Hume, we are ‘pretending that we can decide the controversy’. > It can be used as a way to form a theory, decide a mode of action, design tests to test theories – but it cannot be used as a conclusion.
> That is because, issues such as this (the multiple deities problem) demand some kind of truth, some kind of fact, as the conclusion
> Facts and truths cannot be decided by philosophical thought; they are facts and truths and will not change
> If we use Ockham’s Razor, a philosophical method, to decide on this fact, we risk error
> Thus, as long as we do not yet know for sure what is the absolute true answer to the multiple deities problem, there must be allowed room for doubt, as suggested by Hume
> Ockham’s Razor can be used to formulate tests and theories and gather evidence to test and seek the answer to the question, but we cannot use Ockham’s Razor to formulate an answer and decide that that is the answer.
Dear Mum/Dad: Sorry if my recent posts have been pretty religion-related. Though if you can read and think through them as well they should be pretty interesting to you too! It is a good chance for you to know what I am actually believing in.
Let me copy out my characterisation of GCS's viewpoint regarding Christianity and he approved it:
CS's position further means that, if God shows himself and sticks out a hand to pull him to heaven, he will not reject Him; he just doesn't like the idea that, if people stand up against God or do not receive Him, they will be thrown to hell for eternal damnation, and he feels that even for people who do not accept God, by our definition of God, He should accept them as well because He is infinitely good. So, Jesus coming to the world and dying on the cross to redeem us from our sins and offering righteousness through faith (by Christian doctrines) is not enough to show the grace of God; by the Christian definition of God, He should be handing out free gifts to all. Then that's when He is worth being followed.
I would reply to this as follows. I will not use any analogy - Ferret's chicken rice analogy has been twisted and it is not twisted in a convincing way either. So as a lot of prominent philosophers'. Analogies are not necessary.
(And I am not going into why evil exists in the first place here.)
To reply to GCS's point regarding a humane and benevolent God should be handing out 'free gifts to all': God like that is not humane and benevolent; that would be one which encourages anarchy. If God is indeed humane and benevolent, He would be able to differentiate what is good and what is evil, goodness will be rewarded and evilness punished. There will not be fairness in the world if everyone is rewarded even if they reject God outright - and by nature of human beings non-distinction encourages the evil to be more evil and the good to become evil.
I do not think that we can see God's grace as being completely 'free'. We did not earn it, obviously in that God sent Jesus to die for us without even asking for any pre-requisite. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't come with a price. To accept God's grace there is a certain attitude that we have to undertake. Throughout the Gospels the theme regarding 'following Jesus means sacrificing everything else that you have for the Truth' repeats itself numerous times. We might suffer, we might be persecuted, we have to dig open our hearts and lay all our deeds and thoughts open and repent, we might be put through all kinds of temptation, but all those are okay because we know it is the Truth that we are seeking. We are not doing this to seek favour in the Lord, but it is just what we are supposed to do.
It is the act of accepting that makes the difference.
Honestly I don't think the Pharisees that openly persecuted the Church would be allowed entry to heaven if they didn't repent and cease doing what they were doing. Saul did that when he was called and he became the hero St. Paul; I have no idea about the rest. He talked about himself in Philippians 3.
Thus, Christians are always warned against self-righteousness. Simply put - thinking that you can be good enough. A lot of people's objection to the whole hell idea is that, doesn't good people who are 'righteous' their whole lives would have to go to hell as well just because they are not followers of Christ? In Christian doctrines, we do not believe that anyone is good enough, at least in the eyes of God. By definition, God is infinitely good, and we are finite - this is one way of seeing it. Another way of seeing it is, we don't even know ourselves well enough sometimes. Who is to tell that righteous people living in this world are all perfect - how do you know the philanthropist who donates 1 million to YLL SOM every month does not secretly have an affair, does not like to surf porn, etc.? If you are that philanthropist, and you know that you don't have an affair and do not like porn, but probably you won't know that 50 years ago when you made your first million you forced three other businesses to go out of business and 30 families to lose their main source of income and suffered, and apparently you were so engrossed in your success then that you didn't do anything about it, and then you forgot about it.
This is why we are warned against self-righteousness. You think that you are good enough, but in fact there still are some problems within yourself that you probably don't even know. Comments made by others are even more suspicious: time and again people whom we all agree to be upright in society has been charged with all kinds of crimes, including prominent religious figures, whether Christian or not.
To that God has a very high standard. He needs all of us who enter heaven to be almost like Him (makes sense right?). He knows none of us have the ability to do that by ourselves, so Jesus came and was crucified to fill up the gap 2000 years ago to pave the path towards judgment day. God knows each and everyone of our problems, we might have forgotten about them, but He still sees them. Being self-righteous means that you will be blinded in some way. Heaven by its nature should be infinitely good too; thus, no one can achieve God's standard by himself without His help (many ways to articulate this concept), and if you do not do something to accept His (free) grace, you cannot achieve God's standard, you are not eligible for heaven, and the only other option is Hell and nothing in between at the end of time.
Thus, when we ask the question 'Doesn't good people who are righteous their whole lives would have to go to hell as well just because they are not followers of Christ?' we are judging other people and God using human standards. Heaven is where God lives, God does not judge with our standards. He judges us using His. Our standards are nowhere near His, and He is always helping and willing to help us achieve His.
Buddhists believe that one can achieve self-enlightenment; this is a concept fundamentally different from Christianity. Humanists believe that humans can settle everything without the need of a God, this is also something fundamentally different (more similar to Buddhist thought though). If you are a humanist, your main objection should not be the 'compartmentalisation of religion'; because Christians are not compartmentalising our faith, it is just that we simply do not believe that humans by ourselves are good enough to achieve the standard of God. Instead, your objection should be this fact that I have just stated.
I mentioned when I spoke in large group that I thought about a lot of things when I was in my freshmen year; one of the conclusions that I came to was this. I would rather be skeptical about human ability and human institutions than to be skeptical about God. I am extremely thankful to God that He made me realise this, and CS - this is the fundamental difference between us.
If you actually bothered reading my previous post, I hope that you actually understood what I was talking about... It was, after all, philosophy.
However, from the standpoint of a believer, all these discussions are not that meaningful actually. We believed based on faith, and all these rhetoric is not going to change anything. We do not need to know that it is 'impossible that an infinite causal series exists' before we believe in God. Only people who still not yet believe will say 'I'll believe that God exists when I see angels dancing outside my window' (quote GCS); to believers, our existence everyday is sufficient proof for God's goodness and power.
That is how Anselm's ontological argument will work perfectly for us; God exists both in reality and in the mind, and he is of course infinitely good. It is not difficult at all. We feel him acting around and in us everyday.
Actually, the phrase 'I'll believe that God exists when I see angels dancing outside my window' assumes that God (if the unbeliever finally believes) is a physical existence, which is not likely to be the case. Even if God does not exist physically but only metaphysically, it does not render Him any unreal - He still exists in reality, it is just that we can't perceive Him through our physical senses. Well of course Jesus is an (and so far the only) exception. Anyway, because we are finite, even philosophically we can never fully comprehend God. All we can do is try our best.
A friend once asked me which is the Christian song that means the most to me. I replied that it is the children song 'Jesus loves me this I know'. This song has been playing in my cassette (together with 'London Bridge is falling down') since probably when I was three - and I only recently rediscovered it. It served to remind me how faithful God is - and the song very comforting as well...
Jesus loves me this I know For the Bible tells me so Little ones to Him belong They are weak but He is strong
Yes, Jesus loves me Yes, Jesus loves me Yes, Jesus loves me The Bible tells me so
(Jesus loves me He who died Heaven's gate to open wide He will wash away my sin Let His little child come in)
(Jesus loves me He will stay Close beside me all the way He's prepared a home for me And some day His face I'll see)
Just to share - this is part of my homework. The posting that I was talking about in the last post. My reply to #206 is #216.
Message no. 206 Author:RACHEL RYAN Date: Thursday, October 9, 2008 12:34pm
Anselm claims that we can not conceive of a thing that is greater than that which can be though (i.e. God). But we can not even conceive of God. The 'perfect island' objection invokes comprehensible, worldly ideas. And these ideals can be conceived of, for they are real, and relatively tangible. God, however is not tangible, and no human could possibly conceive of him. So, even if in our imagination we can conceive of this great being, how is it remotely legitimate to suppose that such a thing’s existence would be ideal? We have no reason to believe. Who are we to try and conceive of this being? Granted, Anselm stipulates that you must be a believer to understand, but if every argument were to have a similar stipulation, you would rule out all possible opposition. In essence, I can't see how Anselm's argument is even remotely legitimate and discussed by philosophers. It seems so close-minded and uselessly simplistic.
Message no. 216 Author: HIU YEUNG LAU Date: Thursday, October 9, 2008 2:18pm
You have brought up very interesting points, and I do think that today's lecture has enlightened me enough to put forward some points that might address these issues.
There is an issue regarding human limits here. Anselm's first premise defines God as 'something in which nothing greater can be thought', and subsequently Guanilo's reply built on this point and made that 'something' tangible. Prof. Gross mentioned that a valid reply to the objection will require that the reply addresses relevant differences to these two variants of the same argumentative form, and from what I have gathered, there seems to be a fundamental problem with Anselm's first premise which generated the perfect island problem.
When Anselm said 'something in which nothing greater can be thought', he probably unknowingly placed limits to the world that he is talking about. If you think something as 'the best', it will have certain qualities which you assigned to that object to make it 'the best'; and since it is 'the best', you can't think of anything better already. Of course, such things can be conceivable and understood, and of course, it might or might not exist - the only way to prove it is to find it, and finding it is a simply game of probability, because this 'the best' is based on a limited, finite world. To add on to that, 'the best' is almost always subjective as well.
However, God is different. Let's change the first premise to 'God is a being that is absolutely perfect and infinitely great' (assuming that it is true - Anselm will agree with me I suppose). Now the point of contention comes to premise 2 (God exists in the mind): to believers like Anselm, premise 1 is not a difficult concept to grasp; to unbelievers, this is also a concept that is possible to grasp. Thus, it is not necessary for premise 2 to be false even if that is the case - we might not be able to imagine God as exactly how He is like, but it is possible that we can comprehend the concept that God is 'absolutely perfect' and 'infinitely great'. And the rest follows, because there is no such thing as more perfect and greater than 'absolutely perfect' and 'infinitely great' - and just to bring the argument down a little, to individuals, isn't the existence of something 'good'/'great' (can even be subjective, need not be absolute/infinite) better than not?
It also follows when Anselm suggests that God exists in reality that he might not have meant a physical existence. By means of God having a physical existence, He will NOT be 'absolutely perfect' and 'infinitely great', because anything physical has LIMITS. The world (assuming the world has no limits) is not only limited to things that are 'physical' and 'imagined' - an example would probably be TIME. 'Real' doesn't equate to 'physical'. Thus, we can see God as existing in a realm whereby He's neither 'physical' or 'imagined', but yet He is still real - probably some kind of metaphysical existence that we can grasp but not fully comprehend.
Lastly, yes it is true that we can never fully comprehend God, because we have limits and by that definition God is infinite; infinity divided by a finite number = infinity. However, the job of a believer is not to fully comprehend God, but to approximate as much as we can, which is possible - in mathematics we have this idea of the 'asymptote', something we can get closer and closer to but never fully reach. That is what people like Anselm spends all his life doing - to understand God as best he can. There is this whole set of Christian theology that addresses your question regarding 'who are we to try to conceive this being'; I won't go into that here.
Of course, for this argument to be sound, the first premise has to be true, and honestly there is no way I can prove to you that it is true. As a result, Anselm's notion regarding the pre-requisite for this argument to work is that you must be a believer is true. This argument cannot prove God's existence if you do not believe that God is absolutely perfect and infinitely great (premise 1), or refuse to understand the notion (premise 2); but to a believer it makes complete sense. This can only serve as a means of 'faith seeking understanding' - by pondering over this believers can better understand what they are believing in, but it cannot serve to prove to an unbeliever that God exists.
Wait - before you put on your chainmail and shut the gates of your ears and heart I make a last appeal to invite you to do some soul searching with me. Like what we were told a couple of weeks ago, we need other people to tell us what our inadequacies are, it is not going to be comfortable and it will hurt, and it would be up to us to differentiate between the true prophet and the false one...
'The first disadvantage of an elite education ... is that it makes you incapable of talking to people who aren’t like you.'
In order to talk to people who aren't like me, I have to be able to think like them. Can I do that?
I have tried before. I will keep trying. It is a matter of whether I can humble myself enough so that I can listen to what others say and feel what others feel, and to move further out of my comfort zone. I ought to try doing some community service regularly - I will keep my fingers crossed now first, but I should whenever possible.
This is not a matter of class. It is a matter of whether I can relate to people effectively who have different backgrounds and different values, even though we might come from the same secondary school, university or scholarship board. When I do not understand why some people do and say certain things or hold certain attitudes, I have more often than not failed to stop and reflect why don't I understand before rebuking, surrendering, or evading altogether.
I should ask more of those questions - approach and understand people - and learn to think like them. I won't have to become them - but at least I understand where they come from, and I won't think - I am better.
'The second disadvantage, implicit in what I’ve been saying, is that an elite education inculcates a false sense of self-worth.'
Extremely true - I am always telling people about the great things about my education, how amazing Hopkins is despite the extreme competitiveness...
And I do comparisons - I have to admit, those add to my self-worth and pride. And it creates misunderstandings and injures relationships, because I don't like people challenging me, or people to stand above me.
Must tell myself - I am not necessarily better. I shouldn't feel attacked (and react as such) when people challenge me, neither should I go and attack people whom I think hold views that are unagreeable to me - instead, I should, approach and understand them. I will always have to stand on my ground firmly - but I shouldn't base that on the defence of my self-worth!
'One of the great errors of an elite education, then, is that it teaches you to think that measures of intelligence and academic achievement are measures of value in some moral or metaphysical sense.'
How afraid we are when we think we have blown a test; how bad we feel when we think that we have not learnt enough; how messed up we are when we feel that we are not up to expectation. What the author is setting us to think about is - does meeting expectations make us better people? Are we seeking the truth here when we are worried to the depth of our hearts about our grades?
We have practical expectations to meet, thus of course we have to do our best, but do we have to worry about them - and be upset at self and others because of these etc.? I am learning to see these more lightly already, hopefully you can too...
'But if you’re afraid to fail, you’re afraid to take risks, which begins to explain the final and most damning disadvantage of an elite education: that it is profoundly anti-intellectual.'
This is the most obvious - and I don't even have to think too much on this before commenting. We should be learning critical thinking from our schools, not learning how to answer MCQs and then calculating curves. MCQs, from my experience, do not teach you anything else other than answering them, and when you don't know what to do with them, they teach you how to trust your pencil.
I find humanities essays rather helpful in this in some sense, because we are forced to learn how to form our own argument, substantiate them with evidences and consider the fallacies of our argument, but then in order for them to be helpful I cannot see them as 'A'-generating machines. The few (one or two?) science essays are dreadfully hard to do, but it is also a rewarding experience. These are risks that I took, and I am glad that I took them.
Moving further out of our comfort zones - to be humble - to put my self-worth aside and to approach, accept and understand - to be able to both succeed and fail - to be able to take more risks - I guess, at this point of my life, I have to have all these qualities, which I am still lacking...
And we finally, finally, finally found a place to stay together in Cambridge! It is in Cherry Hinton, some distance off Cambridge town centre, but it is near Addenbrookes hospital. So it is good! :)
Oh and like yesterday I didn't dig this up on purpose too :P
Throughout my life I have heard repeated themes regarding (usually younger) family members who are Christians refusing to eat food that are offered to the ancesters by other non-Christian members of the family, causing problems especially within the older generations. This is what Paul told the Corinthians in the bible:
1 Corinthians 10:23 - 11:1 '"Everything is permissible" - but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible" - but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.
Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."
If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if anyone says to you, "This has beeen offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake - the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? If I take part in a meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God - even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good of many, so that they may be saved. Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.'
This is pretty deep - especially the conscience part - it took me a while to get it even with the help of notes. Though if you are interested as to why Paul wrote these letters, refer to wiki - English: First Epistle to the Corinthians Chinese: 哥林多前書
Haha so what conclusions can you draw from here? Is the answer a definite no / a grey-area no / and most importantly why is it a no? With reference to the background of Paul's letters, what message is he trying to put forward? :)
... I actually bothered spending 2 hours analysing the exchanges between GCS and me in order to rebuke his accusations against my arguments on the Renaissance. I think I should share it with everyone - since I put in so much effort I might as well entertain a larger crowd. _______________________________________ Haha first thing first - we should all congratulate GCS's brother because he is getting married - haha this is some dream that still lie in some haze somewhere in front in my life :D
Read the yellow stuff if the whole thing is too long.
I get your point COMPLETELY - your argument is framed in such a way that YOU THINK I THINK that the Renaissance is centered on God and the Christian faith, and YES i know that it's not, even before you told me - I have admitted my mistake in saying that 'seeking the path to God is fundamental to all renaissance humanist scholars'.
I think you started to get my point too - such that the Renaissance, for all its outcomes, religion is still something ingrained in it, and you can't look at the Renaissance without studying how the Christian faith functioned in the scholars back then.
Let me explain why I made those assertions against your points - in order to convince you that i make sense.
You said: 'The very spirit of Renaissance Humanism is antithetical to the faith required as a Christian. What does the word “renaissance” mean? It means to be “reborn”, and it is a reborn in the spirit of the Greek and Roman antiquity and a reborn in the pagan classics, not the Christian classics.'
and 'Renaissance Humanism frees the West from medieval Christianity, for you to say that this movement is “fundamental” to the path to God is akin to creationism at its best. (well i think i said 'the path to God is fundamental to renaissance humanism' - not the other way round.)
then: 'I have no objection, if one calls the Reformation, a movement concerned with finding a “path to God”, for it is distinctly religious in character, at the same time influenced by a return to source-the bible, and man’s personal relationship with God. But not Renaissance Humanism. Let’s call a spade a spade.'
From all these I drew this conclusion: Your point = the Reformation is an anomaly because a) You don't think returning to Christian classics is consistent with the spirit of the Renaissance b) Man's personal relationship with God - well, this notion is closely linked to creationism (see the first few chapters of Genesis), and you did not accept creationism as consistent with the spirit of the Renaissance. c) 'Let's call a spade a spade' - you are attempting to seperate the Reformation from Renaissance humanism.
So the logical conclusion is: although the Reformation bore characteristics of Renaissance humanism, these characteristics are actually not consistent with the movement's spirit, and thus, the Reformation is in general not consistent with Renaissance's spirit - that sounded very much like 'the Reformation = anomaly of the Renaissance'.
But I hold a different view because I possess knowledge regarding 'prisca sapientia', Plato's creator theory, and the fact that philosophers actually did attempt to read ancient texts by the prophets Moses and Abraham or at least their contemporaries - so, to me, returning to the Bible and Christian classics is consistent with the spirit of the Renaissance, and if I accept that, I have to accept that these philosophers would accept creationism and thus the first few chapters of Genesis and thus the returning the worship of God to the people.
You are the one who is not consistent (sometimes you say that Christian classics should be out of the picture, sometimes you concede that the pursuit of aesthetics is akin to seeking the 'path of God', now you say that 'Reformation is very much influenced by Renaissance Humanism') - haha hope this is clear enough.
Note I know perfectly well that the Renaissance is not centered on religion - I said 'early humanist scholars set themselves apart from the universities so that they can perform intellectual explorations freely, and in order to fulfill their desire to obtain true and pure knowledge, they attempted to seek original classical texts before they were being corrupted by the medieval scholars' - you don't have to keep stressing that to me (quote: 'but again, the whole movement is not about God or the Christian faith...').
Also you said: 'It is an oxymoron to be a humanist and a God-believer.' 'The very spirit of Renaissance Humanism is antithetical to the faith required as a Christian.'
then you adjusted a little: 'The whole movement entails a movement away from faith, supernaturalism, obedience and other traits associated with the medieval Christian faith.'
Your whole point is that the Renaissance consists of a 'movement away from faith' - and FAITH is CENTRAL to Christianity. If you remove faith, there would be little left for Christians. God doesn't exist in people's hearts if people have no faith - now do you know why I read you as suggesting 'Renaissance humanism is about rejecting the Christian faith' (or in my words, 'rejecting the notion of God')? Even if you fudge it such that it is '"a movement towards the secular worldview", a "gradual transition in values and virtues"', it still meant the same thing to me - you understood the Renaissance to be a 'movement away from faith'.
Note I have NEVER admitted that the Renaissance is a 'movement away from faith' despite I agree with you that the Renaissance is centered on Man and not God: I made this VERY CLEAR in my last post. I merely said 'what gradually changed during that period over several generations of scholars was how ideas were formulated and how people interpreted the world' - faith wasn't out of the picture yet by the end of the Renaissance, but yes scholars have valued experience, observation and experimentation much more. That is what I meant!
Anyway, some stuff that you said aren't even true.
E.g.: 'The only “path to God”, if there is one, is the path to beauty, or the pursuit of aesthetics of some renaissance humanists. This, for one is limited to the arts...'
You can find references to God, divine perfection, etc. in a lot of texts dealing with natural philosophy. I won't say all, but a representative majority certainly, or at least the influential ones.
'Indeed, the whole Renaissance came about because scholars fleeing from the Fall of Constantinople brought with them Greek classics lost to the West for centuries and sparked off the movement in Florence!'
The movement started before that - the exodus fueled it. I have said that before.
Okay, this is not personal right. The last two paragraphs of my last post is meant to be personal - because I see the same pattern re-emerging in your exchanges with me throughout these years, and this is one thing you have never changed. I can't help myself bringing it up.
Anyway, you ARE attacking me in some instances - probably you didn't realise it. I guess it's not only me (whom you consider representing 'The Religious') who will perceive it as such - I guess even people who agree with your points of view will still perceive it as an attack.
One example: I used the word 'mystery' a couple of times in a post, and then you said: 'It seems that you like to use the rhetorical statement “it still is a mystery to me,” indeed, you hold a lot of mysterious views that can only be explained by a distinct, mysterious outlook on human history and knowledge, through a mysterious Christian religious worldview.'
This is at least mockery? And this is what prompted me to say that you should 'open your heart' - because since you think I have a 'distinct, mysterious outlook on human history and knowledge', I perceive that you still don't get my points that I have tried so hard to put forward - the only reason why you still don't get it is because you didn't want to listen to them at all as you are too happy with your current perception of religion. The points that I am referring to here had been presented in the previous paragraphs - and they aren't even religious.
Note I didn't perceive your assertions about the fallacies of Christian theology as an attack. You don't read the Bible the way Christians do, thus you formulate different conclusions about the nature of God from the fragments that you have read - Ferret has addressed this. The actual concepts of the Holy Spirit and the personal relationships between God and Man are foreign to you, thus of course you don't draw the same conclusions as Christians do - and I didn't say that you are wrong from your perspective. Of course you are wrong in the Christian perspective, but I won't make you listen to it.
Just to say a little about that: God is the same God, whether OT or NT, His nature didn't change (this is from Ferret) - it is the relationship between Man and God that changed, because Jesus sacrificed himself for the redemption of Man's sin - as God deemed Man unable to do it by themselves.
Christian theology is based on 4 principles: The Creation - The Fall - The Redemption - The Reconciliation Genesis - the rest of OT - the NT - then Revelation.
In the NT Man is redeemed - as long as you believe that Jesus is the son of God and He sacrificed Himself for our sins - and we are currently at this stage. This notion is still a prophecy in the OT. We were discussing this in small group a few weeks back.
I'll end off with Luke 5:29 - 32:
'And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them. The Pharisees and their scribes began grumbling at His disciples, saying, "Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners?" And Jesus answered and said to them, "It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."'
If you are righteous - or you don't think you have sinned (set the original sin aside) just like the Pharisees, and thus you think you don't need God - I am perfectly fine with that. Like I said, even Jesus doesn't force people to follow him.
Start from the bottom-most post, which is entitled 'On Religion', by coolgoh. It will take you at least 10 - 15 minutes so do so only when you are free.
You can decide for yourself whether I make more sense or he makes more sense. I have to dig out my lecture notes from last year to write my replies :P
Coolgoh has one question after reading one of my replies:
>coolgoh: wait, are you a christian already? >me: it depends on what your definition of a christian is. at the very least i'm trying to become one.
(Finally finished my PURA grant proposal! I am not sure if I can get it though... Keeping my fingers crossed :P and I think I am going to miss chapter camp...)
I was pretty stunned when I saw it :D Though apparently the town is named after a family there 800 years ago and the -ing is added to signify township in old German.
Went to listen to a lecture by President Brody on healthcare today, and he made me appreciate Singapore's system even more. I would say most problems that plague the US system did not apply to Singapore at all, and the problems that he listed are so deeply rooted and the inter-relationships between the various stakeholders are so complicated that he said that currently no one has any idea how to solve them.
At least Singapore's problems are solvable and there is one thing that we are definitely better: America still does not have an electronic medical record system. I was already playing around with it a few years back when I was serving as a medic - although PACES is not a very good system but it is powerful!
And Americans have this 'fear for socialised medicine'. Though my stand is, let's face it - healthcare is a service that everyone needs, it is expensive and it is only the state that has the financial power to help people pay for it. The government needs to have a role in healthcare to so that it can reach everyone - a free market model will not work because whether or not people can pay for it people will still need it - if not they'll die. Even in America the government is pumping in a lot of money into healthcare. Singapore's model is more like a hybrid, and it works for us... and I am happy with that :)
'Pretend' nothing happened when something actually has, 'pretend' everything is okay when it isn't, 'pretend' that you have no special feelings for someone when you actually have...
Why do we have to 'pretend'? According to what I understand, we pretend because we have to protect someone, not hurt someone, or to avoid embarassment.
Sometimes, we pretend because we do not have the courage to face the truth - pretending is a way of evading, escaping.
I have been using this tactic for the past year to attempt to convince myself to bring something about myself back to normal, and I have actually almost completely succeeded - it's just that it has never been an official closure.
I really admire sushi - she doesn't even attempt to pretend.
When would I ever have the courage to write what she has written in this space, where I know everyone, and not only people who can understand a specific dialect of the Chinese language, can read?
This is what I wrote, in an almost satirical tone, about me, as an answer to someone's question:
I wrote the answer first, prompted by the guy who asked the question, and then I went to talk to sushi about it, which made her write that post, and when I read hers I feel obliged to write this too.
I will continue to not care unless she has something to say to me about the issue, which is the key to an official closure, but I am fine without - I've long ago accepted that.
I still have to pray harder for strength and guidance!
P.S. - I'll talk about how I became more and more religious as I lived my life in the US in a later post. Now, with 2 midterms looming in 2 days' time, I should try my best to do well first :P
Got word from A*Star that there are two labs in Cambridge that will be able to take me for summer. I have responded to one of them (I can't join the other because they work on biophysics stuff which I have absolutely no clue what that would be) - and as soon as I get a reply from the PI I will begin sorting out the practicalities for this coming summer.
Quite a bit of stuff to do... But hey, that's a small price to pay for a great summer ahead (or at least I hope)!
Reasons why I am expecting a great summer ahead: 1. Because it will be an European summer 2. It's NOT going to be hot (albeit rainy) 3. Fun as long as the UK guys finish exams and are still hanging around 4. More fun if the US guys are also going over 5. Hopefully can get to hike around England a bit 6. Sushi should be coming over some time 7. Don't have to stay up till 4am just to watch EuroCup 8. Cambridge basically transforms into party town as soon as their exams are over 9. I can go to London anytime to watch a musical just like how I go to New York here 10. And I will be doing some good science :D
(There is a strange tendency for a general eastward migration during summer: the US people will move to Europe and the UK people will move home, resulting in a bizzaire shift in demographics. At least for Hopkins, last year it was Grace and Yi Chung who moved, this year it would be me and probably Grace again. No one seems to want to go home for long unless forced to :P)
I hope things will work out smoothly from now onwards - would still have to keep my fingers crossed until the last detail is ironed out :P
Reply to comments!
>Ferret: Like you said, there is no definite cause and effect relationship between belief and knowledge: though the main thing that I don't get is, don't you have to know BEFORE you believe? And when some people 'believe blindly' (or 'having blind faith') - i.e. they don't know what they are believing - what is the relationship between belief and knowledge here then? What is it that they know, what is it that they don't, and what is it that they are believing in?
Being a person who thinks logically I personally rely a lot on knowledge to tell me what to put my faith on and what not to. Even if my heart tells me something I would always take a long time to transform that to belief and action because I need to gather information to support that feeling. But I know some people do not act this way - so for them, do they have to know BEFORE they believe and act?
>coolgoh: 'If what you mean by "belief" is a stronger conviction in one form of scientfic evidence, then we have no diagreement': okay we have no disagreement. But I don't agree with your general definition of belief - let's not go into that. We have talked about that before :P
I think that the discrepency between your point of view regarding health and mine is because of fundamental differences in perspectives. I don't believe in who is ultimately responsible to whose health - simply because there are limitations to what choices you can make based on circumstances. It might be more fair to say that if more options are available to you then you are more responsible, but if less options are available to you then you are less responsible.
And when you talk about universal affordable healthcare, you are talking about minimising inequality in healthcare - and that is my whole point. Anyway, the medical insurance system is both a source and a manifestation of inequality in America right. Inequality is such a multi-faceted thing that it affects and manifests itself in many forms...
When I saw and consciously attempted to note the difference between the Wegmans store in Hunt Valley, the Save-a-lot on 20th and Howard and the corner store in The Corner at Fayette and Monroe, suddenly these issues which previously only existed on paper in our world just came alive. They really exist.
As for racism, I only have one piece of data off hand to support that - and I have used it (the point doesn't originate from me anyway) :P Your way of controlling the analysis could be valid in a sense that it is a direct comparison of the effect of race when socio-economic status is controlled. However, when we are trying to answer the question as to why do we have a higher percentage of African Americans having bad health compared to Americans who are white the answer would not come that easily anymore - and that is precisely the kind of questions public health wants to address. Racism could be one of the factors, but certainly not the only, and how large a role it plays remains to be elucidated.
All these issues come to life in Baltimore and living here exposes us to all these issues that are certainly not unique to this city. The class showed me these large social forces at work creating the health problem while over spring break I went into the city to see for myself how the Christian missions in the city have worked to try to make a difference at the community level. Like I said previously, a multi-faceted approach is needed to address the health problem of the city, because the problems exist in all layers.
I come to realise that we all can play a role to make some changes - it doesn't have to be anything big because whatever small thing we do will be part of the multi-faceted approach, and solving the health problem (or in general the inner city problem) in Baltimore can take a generation (it took a 30 years for Baltimore to deteriorate into what it is now). I told myself to try to commit some time next semester to do something regularly, and I already have some ideas as to what to do :)
There was an intense discussion about the relationships between 'belief', 'knowledge' and 'action' in my anthropology class one of the days. I didn't say anything during the discussion because I myself cannot resolve the issue.
Which one leads to which?
In general people kind of agree that 'belief' is not based on logic but based on experience and tradition. 'Knowledge' is based on what people tell you - but it doesn't necessarily lead to 'belief' and in many cases 'belief' can lead to 'knowledge'. 'Knowledge' is generally regarded as rational and logical as compared to 'belief'. 'Actions' are then logical extensions of an individual's 'belief' and 'knowledge', regardless of how bizzaire the actions may seem for people who do not possess the same belief and knowledge.
It applies to all situations: in public health, we know that education is extremely important in influencing a person's health, but education DOES NOT translate into good health choices. There are too many other factors that affect an individual's health choices: socio-economic status, peer influence, media influence, cultural tradition, accessibility to alternatives, etc etc all affect how someone lives his life.
Science is based on belief: GCS you can challenge me but if you are a critic of every single scientific theory you are basically just some thorn in the flesh in scientific meetings but you won't be making real contributions. There must be something that you hold onto, some form of scientific evidence that you think that is more convincing than others, and you base your life's work on that. It recurs through the history of science and it is still very much the case now.
I have also recently decided to translate some form of knowledge/belief into serious belief and action. Watch this space closely for more information.
Anyway, the following few paragraphs is the P/F mini-essay that I am going to submit for my Urban Health and Advocacy class. Written for those who are interested in public health policy and how they can make a difference.
The health situation in the United States is known internationally to be way below optimal. Problems such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and obesity are rampant in the US and have given Americans a life expectancy at the lowest end of all developed nations. It has been widely understood that these problems are serious in the US because of the American lifestyle and bad personal health choices. This is true to a certain extent; however, it is definitely not the entire picture. According to Dr. Chris Gibbons, Associate Director of the Urban Health Institute in Johns Hopkins as well as the HBO series 'Unnatural Causes: Is Inequality Making Us Sick?', the root cause of poor health among Americans, especially in Americans with lower socio-economic status, is environmental factors such as inequality, racism and the lack of resources.
Environmental factors affect the choices that individuals make to a very large extent. According to Dr. Gibbons, a lot of factors which affect personal choices are not controllable by the individual: very often, in neighbourhoods that belong to the lower socio-economic class, a lot of choices that are required for a healthy lifestyle are simply not available. As a result, people living in those areas are restricted to eating cheap fast food for sustenance, because fresh vegetables and fruits are not sold there as the people living there will not be able to afford them regularly anyway. They would be restricted to watching television at home during their free time as it is not safe to go out for a jog or let their children go to the playground to play. People might not have a strong social support network to fall back on because everyone there is busy worrying about their own problems and thus do not have a strong sense of trust and community among themselves. Issues of job insecurity, personal safety, poor living conditions due to a lack of resources, etc. all combine to produce a form of unhealthy lifestyle which plaques American society.
These situations are closely linked to the issues of inequality and racism that were entrenched in American society for hundreds of years. In the film mentioned above, the Richmond district of San Francisco - which was once a booming town due to the ship-building industry - started its decline once the Second World War was over when the shipyards started to shut down. The government provided housing loans for people to move out to the suburbs where there were better living conditions and better job and education opportunities - however, only 2% of those getting the loans were African Americans. Thus, the majority of the working class blacks were stuck in Richmond, which no longer provided ample jobs as commercial establishments continued to move out. The situation was similar in Baltimore - as the industries started its decline towards the 1970s and 1980s, the working class blacks were forced to stay behind in the inner city while the more affluent classes who held the financial resources began to move out to search for better living conditions and better opportunities. The result of such inequality resulted in malignant poverty in these people who used to belong to the working class, because they are poor and yet they have little access to well-paying jobs or even any job at all. Such poverty brought crime to the area and all the restrictions in health choices that were previously mentioned, resulting in the general poor health and low life expectancies in people living in these areas.
From all these information, it seems that the best solution to these problems was to eliminate, or at least minimize inequality in American society. There were many ways in which this can be done. According to Dr. Gibbons, a multifaceted approach that extend beyond the medical model, i.e. solutions that focus mainly on improving the accessibility of people to healthcare, is required to solve these problems. One of the things that Johns Hopkins is doing involves community-based health workers, who attempt to bridge the huge gap between the Hospital and the surrounding inner-city communities by providing basic healthcare services in the midst of these communities. The abovementioned film provided another example of the successful makeover of a community named High Point in Seattle, Washington, in which the leaders of the community secured federal funding to rebuild the houses in the community to provide a better living environment for residents in an attempt to improve the endemic asthma situation among the children there. Non-profit organizations and faith-based organizations in Baltimore such as Light and New Song provide another source of support which is essential as part of the solution - they address the immediate needs of the residents as well as provide a strong social support network for the residents when needs arise.
In conclusion, individual health is not solely an individual's problem - it is also a social problem and a national problem. There is only so much an individual can do: he can have the full knowledge that eating fried chicken everyday is bad for him but if his economic situation can only provide him with that, he has no choice because he has to survive. In order to improve the urban health situation in the United States, a multifaceted approach which involves the community, non-profit organizations, the government, medical institutions as well as the individual is definitely required. The community and non-profit organizations would be able to provide for the immediate needs of individuals, the government should support those efforts with policy changes that minimizes inequality and the provision of funding, medical establishments ought to support these efforts by making an effort to reach out to the community to make healthcare more accessible, and the individual should be educated and be willing to adopt a lifestyle change when resources become available. In a long run, such measures might not only improve the health situation of the country but also save a large proportion of the money that the country is currently spending on healthcare.
Answer: Yes, unless you have some unknown-to-me neurological defect. Ask your doctor.
2. Then why is it that some people just seem so heartless?
Answer: That is because they either have the neurological defect or they have not found someone to love.
3. Does love need to be nurtured?
Answer: Yes and no. Capability to love is innate, but how people present their love and how they identify targets to love depend tremendously on what they were taught - i.e. their value systems.
4. What is your definition of love?
Answer: My definition of love is simple. Love = 'a quality that prompts you to sacrifice yourself for the other party unconditionally'. This is a moral bottomline and is non-negotiable.
Answer: Depends. It is not necessarily about presents or 'I love you' or whatnot - and it really depends. A very hard question to answer - because most probably I won't know I am doing it when I am doing it. If you think I am, then I am; if you think I am not, then I am not. Fair?
7. Any final comments?
Answer: Love must be mutual for any relationship to work out - not restricted to that between a guy and a girl. If you have the tendency to love someone without the other person loving you, then you are destined to be a super card collector (see 好人卡). If you have the tendency to not love someone despite the other loving you, you are not only a super card giver (if you are a popular girl) but you are also destined to cause distress (when the other party is your mum).
Sigh what we learnt from our parents made us destined to be taken advantage of - because they are being taken advantage of all the time. We can't stand things that are not done properly, and we will really go and do it - I have been doing this in the army and I am still doing this now, from clearing rubbish/cleaning toilet to doing weekend duties/preparing reagents etc...
I generally don't feel that I am being taken for granted because I willingly do it. Some people think that I am - e.g. my mother - but I just shrug it off...
Now as I see that she is being brutally taken for granted I understand how she feels. I am really pretty upset - though what can I do about it? She loves her sister, and we love our aunt - and for that we have to make some sacrifice right? I know that my mum won't be happy if we force her to go back to Singapore, and that will compromise our aunt...
She had been calling me quite frequently for the past 2 weeks; it had been tiring and emotionally draining for her. I listened, and tried to tell her things that I think is right... it works most of the time because her values are mine. Sushi has been under a lot of stress also; she is having midterms after midterms and yet she had to make sure that mum is okay and help her out when needed... She has been doing a great job really - thank you so much.
Sushi didn't understand some stuff and that prompted me to write this. Yeah, some people may think that we are troublesome, crazy, stupid, overly cautious, asking for trouble... though the most important thing is, we know that we are doing the right thing. We have to be able to stand by ourselves before we can stand up in front of others.
Everyone can love - it's just harder for some people. You will see... eventually...
Just thought of this: if you enjoy shopping in VivoCity, you will actually say 'I enjoy shopping in vivo' :P
> Ferret: No matter how old the post is as long as you post a comment I will be able to see it because it goes into the moderation page first :P Hmms, what about defining miracles as something happening in your favour when you least expect it? I don't quite understand the 'want' and 'need' dichotomy - doesn't the dichotomy undermine the meaning of a miracle? If you intrinsically have faith and believe in God - does it matter if it is a 'want' or a 'need', which is naturally a subjective category anyway?
Mum called me and told me about my aunt's operation - apparently there are some complications. She described all her symptoms to me and asked me for opinion - but there is nothing I can do to help her. I know nothing about this stuff; my sister knows better than me - even if you give me all her medical records and put her in front of me I still cannot do anything about it.
I am supposed to be good at the biomedical sciences, but it is also a fact that I don't know anything and I cannot do anything about anyone's illnesses. Note the distinction between biomedical sciences and medicine - medicine is the practical use of the biomedical sciences to solve people's problems, while the biomedical sciences are the scientific framework which medicine is based on. My job is to expand the framework, so that medicine has more tools to use. I don't use the tools, I make them.
I was telling my sister: she is going to become the more popular one among mum's friends because her skills are practical - she can actually heal people (yes she has healed quite a few because there are always people volunteering to be her lab mice - I am one of them :P). Haha no one is going to disturb me because no one will even understand what I am doing - and I would be really lucky if no relative or family friend actually criticises me for being useless because I won't seem to be very productive considering the education I am getting.
I am worried for my aunt. MSNed sushi and told her to send my regards, do whatever she can to help her and the family, and update me. Though, when this kind of things happen my reaction would be to trust doctors intelligently, don't do anything extra, don't try to act smart and most importantly, consult your doctor before seeking any alternate treatment. The doctors are doctors because they know what they are doing; the auntie next door who has gone through a similar operation won't know more than the doctor who actually opened her up, and whatever herbs that she used might work for her but might even kill you because everyone is different physiologically. If the doctor doesn't know what he is doing, find one that knows. If they make any mistake, sue their asses off. Anyway, for doctors to work optimally we have to trust them. Common sense?
Hmms, how do people actually react to illness? Illness doesn't only affect the patient - it affects everyone around him. It affects his loved ones, his friends, his colleagues, his doctors, his bosses, practically everyone: and different people react differently.
I just read a graphic novel called Epileptic by David B.. It is a disturbing book - it describes how the author and the author's family dealt with his brother's frequent epileptic seizures, apparently incurable. The book basically highlighted how the parents gave up hope on modern medicine and their religion, and started their tireless search for alternative treatment - macrobiotics, esoterism, mysticism, magnetism, alchemy, you name it - until a point of time when they ceased to believe in these things altogether. They didn't even start a new treatment with any hope.
Throughout his childhood the author locked himself up in strong armour. Throughout the book he didn't mention any friends - he didn't seem to have any, not until he went to Paris (i.e. left home) to attend college. His friends before his brother was down with epilepsy ostracised them soon after. He used a lot of imagery - war imagery, obtained from books about great warriors and which he expressed in the form of drawings, fiction, and comic strips - to fight his own war against his brother's illness. He didn't talk to people about it. When he started to open up this issue when he was in college, his friends too eventually found his stories to be 'too heavy' and began to distance themselves from him. Instead, he had this group of ghosts - including his grandfather's - in his garden which he confided in.
When the illness first struck the brother imagined himself as Hitler - a dictator with supreme power - which, in some sense, gave him the psychological shelter against reality. Intrinsically he wanted to fight - he wanted to be like Hitler, which could control everything when he was in power. As time went on, he succumbed - he became stuck in the past, started to evade problems, wanted people to take care of him, and started using his illness to get things he wanted. Eventually he turned violent, delirious, sometimes to the point of insanity - but he didn't - it is just that, it seemed that he never was going to become independent ever.
I have a lot to share on this topic - from what I have read, to what I have experienced working as a medic in the SAF, to what I have experienced in my family - and I can't say everything. I’ll save them first.
Illness affects the patient, and it affects a whole bunch of people around him. Illness changes people's ways of life, views of the world, standard of living, social circle, roles in society... It is not only a biomedical problem.
Yes to us different forms of illnesses are sets of problems lying there for us to solve. I have been spending my past year working on prostate cancer. But we shouldn't forget: prostate cancer is not a problem confined to the laboratory, or a problem confined to the walls of our outpatient cancer centre. When someone gets prostate cancer, it affects him and people around him in all aspects, in different ways, in various levels. The cancer is not merely weird cells expressing weird proteins at weird times dividing at weird speeds.
The patient is not merely a subject of study. He is part of the social - don't underestimate him. His illness can affect the doctor treating him too; if I am the scientist investigating whatever strange illness he has, his affects me too, even though I am not even at the frontline. A very vivid example is SARS. If I am one of the guys doing the investigations, my life would have been tilted 90 degrees to the horizontal for those few months. Especially when the patients keep dying and we still know nothing about the disease.
Doctors have to see patients as patients, each as unique individuals with his unique set of problems, before the patient and the doctor can build a good relationship with each other and thus both can have a wonderful medical experience. Scientists like me do not have this kind of problem, but we have to constantly remind ourselves that the problems that we are solving are not merely biomedical problems - they all have their social implications. We have to remind ourselves not to become heartless and turn a blind eye to patients' needs and feelings - when we have to fight for funding, when we have to announce our findings, that's when the problem emerges.
All these sound so remotely idealistic, and they have no economic value. NUS/NTU don’t even have anthropology and history of science and medicine. (Also - I am the first Singaporean (as far as I know) in Hopkins doing HSTM.) Not that we have much of a choice either - I can't lecture Singaporeans on the importance of such issues because there are more pressing concerns in Singapore. I’ll be chided as 'idealistic' and 'impractical'. Will talk about that some other time :P
