“A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.” - Robert Frost
A jigsaw piece cannot think. As such, the meaning of a jigsaw piece's existence can only be assessed externally. For most of us, such a meaning is largely found in its part in the completion of a jigsaw puzzle.
A squirrel can think, to a certain extent. However, it does not think beyond foraging for the next winter. This leads many of us to conclude that a squirrel's existence only carries as much meaning as its survival past the next famine. Certainly the squirrel has not yet posed (nor will it ever be able to) itself the question, "What is the meaning of my existence?" As such it cannot offer any more attractive an answer to the questions of being and meaning.
A human being can think for himself. He is a veritable sandbox - with the capacity to entertain multiple possibilities for self-determination, the human being is infinite in meaning. Everything he wills to mean, will mean; everything he dismisses, wanes. An external effort to impose meaning on something or someone essentially self-directed would be as futile as my childhood attempts to make my neighbour's dog meow.
The usual question, then, becomes somewhat incongruous. What is the meaning of life, we ask, hoping for analogies to specimens of little or no mental capacity. We'd probably be better off asking about the meaning of Starcraft.
Is there any value to labeling things "good" or "bad", then, when logically we define our own purposes, values and meaning? Outside of antisocial suicidal tribes, it is probably good to value life and to treat people well. But most else is borderland. This barren waste, devoid of presumption and free of the weight of yesterdays, would best be navigated with calm exposition. As we describe our worlds to one another, listening as patiently as we might speak, we could perhaps grow to rediscover the idyll of a Pangaea once lost.
I've said my piece; now's the turn for yours. As best as we can, let us try to finish the puzzle. I'm sure we'll all fit.
Posts
3 comments:
Hello Sze,
My name is Ben, and I'm a Sociology student from NTU. Your entry on how to become a "can make it" Singaporean man drew me to see what else you write on your blog.
I'd just like to share my perspective as a social sciences student. Often, as a Sociology major, we are encouraged to have a spirit of inquiry, to question and critique common sense notions about what is good and bad. One of the key points of almost every Sociology module is that different cultures and different ways of life have value, and that we do not have an objective viewpoint to judge the validity of most, if any of these.
Our teachers hope to produce in us a liberal broadmindedness through this spirit of questioning, but often I find it is convenient and only too tempting to skip cultivating such a spirit, and go straight to outwardly espousing the values of the liberal.
What I feel about your entry is that the value of a liberal attitude lies in the process of its arising. Generally, these days, it is only becoming easier to preach love, peace and acceptance. But love without condition, and acceptance without question, can easily become indifference, an outward form without substance.
I agre that calmness and patience is key to the fostering of understanding between people from different cultures. But I also think that as we listen, we should always be weighing and measuring, labelling and taking sides, and investing ourselves more deeply in what we believe.
Hopefully, not just what we "believe", but things that have acquired a sufficient certainty for us to "know". The language of "belief" is something too inchoate upon which to premise any meaningful discussion. I have a revelation, you have a revelation: who can be said to have had the greater epiphany? Better to accept that certain passions are prior to logic, accept those specific ones that have chosen us, and to spend the rest of the time having discourse about things that have common reference points (logic, reason and what have you).
Post a Comment