1. We have been taught from young that this is the only world that we have. This is your world. My world. Our world. But now we are being told something different.
2. Our Psychologists would now tell us that in actual fact we are all living in different worlds. No two persons could live in the same world. We need an explanation! They would tell us that our mind and our memory constitutes an environment in which we exist. No two persons can have identical sensation. No two persons can have identical mental environment. If this is the case then it makes sense to say that we are all living in different worlds. This is the mental environment. If we can have mental environment, we can similarly have other kinds of environment.
3. May be we could use human activities as a differentia to the genus environment. In such a case we could have business world, world of politics, world of ordinary people...............Different worlds imply different rules and criteria. Just like, when we are on the land, we walk; when we are in the water, we swim. Going by this analogy, when you are in the business world you have to.....and when you are in the world of politics you have to............in order to continue to exist in that particular world.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Monday, January 14, 2013
WHAT IS TIME?
1. What is time? We are familiar with all these. My alarm clock would tell me the time to wake up in the morning. The watch on my wrist would tell me that I have just missed my train because I have got the wrong time. But the clocks and the watches can't be time. If they are, and when they cease to exist, time would also cease to exist. But this is absurd.
2. St Augustine says: What, then, is time? If no one asks me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not.
3. Some people would say that time is the movement of the planet earth. But there is also problem here. Planet earth is a body. And body has been shown to be nothing. Can nothing move?
4. What is time?
2. St Augustine says: What, then, is time? If no one asks me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not.
3. Some people would say that time is the movement of the planet earth. But there is also problem here. Planet earth is a body. And body has been shown to be nothing. Can nothing move?
4. What is time?
Friday, January 11, 2013
WHAT IS BODY?
1. What is body? To the ordinary people this is a very simple question. Only an idiot would not know the answer! The abvious example of body is ...your body and my body...That simple.
2. But some philosophers seem not to know what is body. They would first want to know whether this thing 'body' is divisible or not. We would have to say it is divisible because that is the nature of body.
3. If it is divisible, then body is nothing. Because when you divide a body, you would get bodies, you further divide the bodies into bodies.....Finally you either get nothing or body. If body, still can be divided....
4. If body can become nothing, nothing can also become body. Can we believe this?
2. But some philosophers seem not to know what is body. They would first want to know whether this thing 'body' is divisible or not. We would have to say it is divisible because that is the nature of body.
3. If it is divisible, then body is nothing. Because when you divide a body, you would get bodies, you further divide the bodies into bodies.....Finally you either get nothing or body. If body, still can be divided....
4. If body can become nothing, nothing can also become body. Can we believe this?
Thursday, January 10, 2013
THE NEW MEDIA
1. The new media are becoming more popular because of the freedom that they are enjoying. It is generally believed that the traditional media do not enjoy the same amount of freedom as the new media.
2. The new media seem to play a very important role in the world of politics. Because of their relatively 'free' status, they are extremely popular with the 'opposition'.
3. The purpose is the same, whether it is traditional or new, to reach the mind of the object.
4. It is also believed by many that the new media is the battle ground that must be won in the world of politics.
2. The new media seem to play a very important role in the world of politics. Because of their relatively 'free' status, they are extremely popular with the 'opposition'.
3. The purpose is the same, whether it is traditional or new, to reach the mind of the object.
4. It is also believed by many that the new media is the battle ground that must be won in the world of politics.
Friday, November 5, 2010
MAN AND HIS ENVIRONMENT
1.Men do not live in a vacuum. Men are being surrounded by all kinds of things. Air, water and earth are the common neighbours of men. Men need these things for their preservation and pro-creation.
2.These natural elements can sometime become men's natural enemies when they emerge as destructive natural forces like great floods and strong wind. Men would have no means of eliminating all together these natural disasters which are threatening the very existent of men. All they could do is to minimise the damage that they have to suffer.
3.Men are known to be living in societies. And society is another kind of surrounding to men. Men can only have such amount of freedom so as not to threaten the existence of the society in which they live.
4.Political and legal environment would affect the way of living of the people within the society. You could argue that they are only products of human convention and thus could be changed by the maker. This could be true in theory. But it is impossible in fact.
2.These natural elements can sometime become men's natural enemies when they emerge as destructive natural forces like great floods and strong wind. Men would have no means of eliminating all together these natural disasters which are threatening the very existent of men. All they could do is to minimise the damage that they have to suffer.
3.Men are known to be living in societies. And society is another kind of surrounding to men. Men can only have such amount of freedom so as not to threaten the existence of the society in which they live.
4.Political and legal environment would affect the way of living of the people within the society. You could argue that they are only products of human convention and thus could be changed by the maker. This could be true in theory. But it is impossible in fact.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
THE PLACE OF ORIGIN OF MAN
1.No man can know the place of origin of man. But some people think that they are different. They think that they know their place of origin and also the place of origin of other people.
2.Since these people assert that they know their place of origin, they must submit themselves to be examined dialectically.
3.Logically these people should also know the place of origin of their ancestors. The series would end with their first ancestors. As to the origin of their first ancestors, they must choose either to say that they have other place of origin or that they just grew out of the earth just like the banana tree.
4.To say that they originated from some other place is to start the process all over again. And this could be repeated ad infinitum, which is absurd.
5.To say that they grew out of the earth is equally absurd.
6.It is absurd therefore to say that they know the place of origin of man. They are ignorant as to their own place of origin.
2.Since these people assert that they know their place of origin, they must submit themselves to be examined dialectically.
3.Logically these people should also know the place of origin of their ancestors. The series would end with their first ancestors. As to the origin of their first ancestors, they must choose either to say that they have other place of origin or that they just grew out of the earth just like the banana tree.
4.To say that they originated from some other place is to start the process all over again. And this could be repeated ad infinitum, which is absurd.
5.To say that they grew out of the earth is equally absurd.
6.It is absurd therefore to say that they know the place of origin of man. They are ignorant as to their own place of origin.
Monday, August 2, 2010
THE PRIME MINISTER AND THE CONSTITUTION
1.According to Article 43(2)(a) of the Constitution of Malaysia, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall first appoint as Prime Minister to preside over the Cabinet a member of the House of Representatives who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House.
2.The practical way of doing this is to gain control of the Parliament. And this could be done through the participation of political parties and by extension through a partnership among political parties. The bigger you are, the stronger you would be.
3.The side which has the majority of the seats in Parliament would naturally control Parliament. And it follows that in order to gain seats you must first win over the votes of the people.
4.In the final analysis, due to the nature of Article 43(2)(a) of the Constitution, the Prime Minister would remain in the office as long as the political parties in partnership are able to deliver enough votes from the people. Once a clear majority is obtained, the choice of the King could be easily defended.
5.But the most difficult part of the job is to win over the votes of the people.
6.Logically the people would support the political party which could serve the interests of the people. But it is always easy to state than to bring it into effect.
7.However the job would be made easy if each of the political parties in partnership could represent their respective people.
8.However in a democratic system the votes belong absolutely to the people and only the people could decide who they want to be the Government.
2.The practical way of doing this is to gain control of the Parliament. And this could be done through the participation of political parties and by extension through a partnership among political parties. The bigger you are, the stronger you would be.
3.The side which has the majority of the seats in Parliament would naturally control Parliament. And it follows that in order to gain seats you must first win over the votes of the people.
4.In the final analysis, due to the nature of Article 43(2)(a) of the Constitution, the Prime Minister would remain in the office as long as the political parties in partnership are able to deliver enough votes from the people. Once a clear majority is obtained, the choice of the King could be easily defended.
5.But the most difficult part of the job is to win over the votes of the people.
6.Logically the people would support the political party which could serve the interests of the people. But it is always easy to state than to bring it into effect.
7.However the job would be made easy if each of the political parties in partnership could represent their respective people.
8.However in a democratic system the votes belong absolutely to the people and only the people could decide who they want to be the Government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)