Light from the Dark

Reading Wittgenstein's Tractatus. Basic argument is one of a semantical nature, that post-modernists and decontructivists pull out on us truth-seekers.

He argued: A logically "ideal" language cannot supply meaning, it can only reflect the world, and so, sentences in a logical language cannot remain meaningful if they are not merely reflections of the facts.

Ethics is also transcendental, and thus we cannot examine it with language, as it is a form of aesthetics and cannot be expressed.

This suggests that many of the traditional domains of philosophy, e.g. ethics and metaphysics, cannot in fact be discussed meaningfully.

** Strangely by even thinking about the pointlessness of philosophy, he has demonstrated the "anxiety" that eats away at all man, that I argue. He worried that philosophy was but a sham. Something that did not get anyone closer to the truth. Thus we can see that he would not have labored his mental processes if he had not spared the truth a thought.



Wittgenstein does not put forward a rival theory on the matters under discussion in the book, but only makes us aware of the logic of our language as we use it.

** yet again this supports my argument. The beauty of philosophy and the seeking of the truth is that it is not meant to reach an end-point. The "fleeting anxiety" is what improves and advances us as a rational species. As Tian Yan put in his own words,

"People think they have found the Real Truth and then stop there. What they
actually found was the Truth that prevents them from experiencing the Real Truth,
as you mention. What you want to do, is humble yourself and realize that there will
be more truths reaching towards the Real Truth, and every time you made the discovery, it is just Truth. If you choose to just settle with Truth, there is no experiencing Real Truth."

Thus by realising the logic of our language, we become more mindful of the representations of the real truth that our language is able to offer us. Then we set to ponder more about it......and we get ever closer to the real truth

4. Crime: What about Southeast Asian "slavery"?

If a social contract exists between slave and master that enables the master to exercise his will over the slave's, then the beginning of the relationship is not a crime. Because there is no OBJECTIONABLE assertion of one's will over another's.


Of course this is provided that no coercion is at force. Not even a little bit or the possibility of it. If not, it would not be a contract.


Let's consider the possibility of such a social contract occurring. The slave will recognize that he is signing over his ability to exercise his will. Now why would anyone do that? On the basis of another advantage perhaps?

According to Nan, they reserved the right to leave the contract at any point of time.
And that the slave stood more to gain from this relationship. This intrigues me. I must find out more.

Najib has enlightened me to some of the specific workings of the southeast asian system of "slavery". For lack of a more culturally-specific term, we shall call it "debt peonage" from this point onwards. Yet again, the semantical curse springs upon us.

Moving on, the pre-colonial southeast asian system was naturally one of an unequal power relationship. If land could only pass hands through inheritance, conquest and purchase, how are we to expect an absence of exploitation? Even in our modern interventionist economy, the rich get richer and the strong get stronger. What can we then expect of the political and economical setting such as pre-colonial southeast asia?

Sure, the southeast slave would have more to gain by entering into such a system. If not, he would have no land upon which to dwell or farm. But is this then a true advantage? This roughly equates to a selling a fish which is condemned to land a pail of water in exchange for his ability to swim.

In the end, he still is forced by structural exploitation to surrender his ability to exercise his will. He has to allow himself to be rendered a tool under another human being's guiding system of rationality.

Objectionable? Of course. Then of course Nan says "That Might is Right". The strong man theorem of right holds and makes logical sense. That otherwise gentle and caring individuals think that such behavior and arrangements of exploitation are natural is truly disturbing. That I also once used to think this way adds on to the sense of apprehension.

A lack of apathy- basic sense datum. An inability to see past our "ego". An inability to recognize the commonality of all men as beings who possess rationality and can register physical pain. A willingness to buy into our constructed truth of "The Strong Man theorem". This is what blinds ordinarily moral men into status-quo accepting pacifists.

3. Crime: What are common crimes? Slavery considered

To this, I am thinking of acts that would be considered to all men. Common on the basis that all and any man would find the act objectionable. This will be the case irregardless of their creed, loyalties and values system.


I had a discussion with Nanda and Leanna once on the criminality in Slavery. They educated me on the semantic nuances of the term "slavery" and stood to argue that my negative reaction towards Slavery was due to a Euro-centric semantical understanding of the term.

I disagreed and still disagree. Firstly, this postmodern semantical understanding has nothing to do with the basal negative qualities of slavery. True, Southeast Asian slaves may have been in social contracts with their masters. Then their plight would not have been as bad as those of slaves in Europe.

Thus, the term slavery must be defined. My definition of "slavery" is where A imposes his will over B in an unbalanced relationship of power, to the point whereby A can totally and utterly deny B's will if A chooses so.

Also, in my understanding of slavery, A has such power and assertion of his will over B that B is rendered no longer a human (with rationality as a guiding tool of his freedom). B then becomes a means to A's ends.

How then is slavery not a crime? How then is slavery not a common crime? A crime against humanity?

2. Crime: Why is the WILL so important in determination of a crime?

Firstly, it is inalienable to all humans. Why is it inalienable? Based on what, you ask.

It is inalienable to us due to the fact that we recognise that other human beings all possess rationalism.

Given that one person's rationalism may be different to another's, We are still all rational beings and possess cognitivism.

Our will is the exercise of our rationality. We can become what we desire/ our will stems from our rationality.

So our will is our key to our freedom. If our will is objectionably denied, then a crime has occurred.

However, there is a spectrum to this objectionable nature of the criminal deed. It starts from inconveniencing that advances to coercing to taking away/ utter denial.

1. Crime (A Random thought)

one of my kids put "a crime is only a crime if it is reported"

i think that this makes sense, a bit. It would still be a crime but not a recorded crime without it ever reaching the possibility of it being a convicted crime. from a legalistic viewpoint though.

How about philosophically? What would be the philo definition of a crime?

I concur with Eugene that a crime, simply put, would be an objectionable imposition of A's will over B's will.

Objectionable to who? All in that particular community? Or only B? I guess all in that community. Since that would prevent cases whereby B is unable to judge for him or herself what is objectionable.

But then I am getting too close to common law (everyone's more-or-less agreed viewpoint) the legalistic viewpoint. Time to stop and think again.

Ultimately, a crime would still be a crime in a legalistic point. Even if a crime was unreported because the communal agreement that this particular kind of will imposition upon another still stands irregardless of the actual happening.

Flowers for Algernon

This book touched me on many emotional levels. But I shall keep this to a philosophical analysis.

Firstly, is a person who is not intellectually conscious of his being still a person?

Secondly, for Charlie, cynicism is all that greets him when he first gets "educated". But soon, he sees past all that and realizes that good has to start from him, as an active agent. He who has seen past his "ego" and sees that there is real truth, embraces the challenge and works towards it by working upon himself. Kudos..

Thirdly, an inquiring and open mind is a sad sad thing to lose.

I will put it more as I give it more thought....