Schools of philosophy

1. Solipsism: I am here, you said I am not. May be I am here and maybe I am not here?
2. Determinism: I am already here
3. Utilitarianism: Are you happy that I am here?
4. Epicureanism: Since I am here let s party and fornicate!
5. Positivism: How can you be sure that I am here?
6. Absurdism: Hey, positivism, you are not here and will never be here.
7. Objectivism: I am here, but “I” am not here.. Who am “I”?
8. Secular humanism: Nah, I dont believe it. I am not here
9. Nihilism: Argh...Here, not here... What s the difference?
10. Existentialism: I am here! Here I am! I am here, am I not?
11. Foolism: Huh? come again?

A fraction of memory...

I am nothing but crystals of shattered glasses.
I take no form, no reflection, no substance, and no existence
I am seen but unseen... for there are many layers upon no layer
I must feel, but posited with no apparatus of feeling.

I envy but cannot feel...
It is non-existence of feeling... it is much worse than being numb.

The cosmic existence defines my non-existence?

I wander,through indefinite infinity...

Some people say I am dreaming...
but I dont dream... I am a dream... that is posited to be real when people sleep... and unposited when people wake up... I sleep to wake up...

I am a fraction of memory... I am the seen unseen beauty and pain..

Rancor

Brooklyn's finest affirms my loathsome and feeds me with grander anger... YOU TURN THEM INTO MONSTERS... Gauge that pain and rancor... Of course none of you can, fucking lesser mortals! FUCKING Mediocre minds and FUCKING TIMID CONFORMIST!

The paradox of beauty and the beast: Some people receive what they do not deserve, while some people do not receive what they deserve the most. We disguise this blatant evil under the banner of "luck

Luck is an expression that calms the "supposed" losers in life competition. The evil defines luck as something out of your control, while in its actuality it is within such evil's control. Just another food for the day!

Exercise 2. regardez et penser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition by showing that the proposition being false would imply a contradiction. Since by the law of bivalence a proposition must be either true or false, and its falsity has been shown impossible, the proposition must be true.

In other words, to prove by contradiction that P, show that or its equivalent . Then, since implies a contradiction, conclude P.

Proof by contradiction is also known as indirect proof, apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile. It is a particular kind of the more general form of argument known as reductio ad absurdum.

A classic proof by contradiction from mathematics is the proof that the square root of 2 is irrational. If it were rational, it could be expressed as a fraction a/b in lowest terms, where a and b are integers, at least one of which is odd. But if a/b = √2, then a2 = 2b2. Therefore a2 must be even. Because the square of an odd number is odd, that in turn implies that a is even. This means that b must be odd because a/b is in lowest terms.

On the other hand, if a is even, then a2 is a multiple of 4. If a2 is a multiple of 4 and a2 = 2b2, then 2b2 is a multiple of 4, and therefore b2 is even, and so is b.

So b is odd and even, a contradiction. Therefore the initial assumption—that √2 can be expressed as a fraction—must be false.

[edit]The length of the hypotenuse is less than the sum of the lengths of the two legs
The method of proof by contradiction has also been used to show that for any non-degenerate Right triangle, the length of the hypotenuse is less than the sum of the lengths of the two remaining sides. The proof relies on the Pythagorean theorem. Letting c be the length of the hypotenuse and a and b the lengths of the legs, the claim is that a + b > c. As usual, we start the proof by negating the claim and assuming that a + b ≤ c. The next step is to show that this leads to a contradiction. Squaring both sides, we have (a + b)2 ≤ c2 or, equivalently, a2 + 2ab + b2 ≤ c2. A triangle is non-degenerate if each edge has positive length, so we may assume that a and b are greater than 0. Therefore, a2 + b2 < a2 + 2ab + b2 ≤ c2. Taking out the middle term, we have a2 + b2 < c2. We know from the Pythagorean theorem that a2 + b2 = c2. We now have a contradiction since strict inequality and equality are mutually exclusive. The latter was a result of the Pythagorean theorem and the former the assumption that a + b ≤ c. The contradiction means that it is impossible for both to be true and we know that the Pythagorean theorem holds. It follows that our assumption that a + b ≤ c must be false and hence a + b > c, proving the claim.

[edit]In mathematics
Say we wish to disprove proposition p. The procedure is to show that assuming p leads to a logical contradiction. Thus, according to the law of non-contradiction, p must be false.

Say instead we wish to prove proposition p. We can proceed by assuming "not p" (i.e. that p is false), and show that it leads to a logical contradiction. Thus, according to the law of non-contradiction, "not p" must be false, and so, according to the law of the excluded middle, p is true.

In symbols:

To disprove p: one uses the tautology (p → (R ∧ ¬R)) → ¬p, where R is any proposition and the ∧ symbol is taken to mean "and". Assuming p, one proves R and ¬R, and concludes from this that p → (R ∧ ¬R). This and the tautology together imply ¬p.

To prove p: one uses the tautology (¬p → (R ∧ ¬R)) → p where R is any proposition. Assuming ¬p, one proves R and ¬R, and concludes from this that ¬p → (R ∧ ¬R). This and the tautology together imply p.

For a simple example of the first kind, consider the proposition, ¬p: "there is no smallest rational number greater than 0". In a proof by contradiction, we start by assuming the opposite, p: that there is a smallest rational number, say, r0.

Now let x = r0/2. Then x is a rational number greater than 0 and less than r0. (In the above symbolic argument, "x is the smallest rational number" would be R and "r0 (which is different from x) is the smallest rational number" would be ¬R.) But that contradicts our initial assumption, p, that r0 was the smallest rational number. So we can conclude that the original proposition, ¬p, must be true — "there is no smallest rational number greater than 0".

the choice of which statement is R and which is ¬R is arbitrary.]

It is common to use this first type of argument with propositions such as the one above, concerning the non-existence of some mathematical object. One assumes that such an object exists, and then proves that this would lead to a contradiction; thus, such an object does not exist. For other examples, see proof that the square root of 2 is not rational and Cantor's diagonal argument.

On the other hand, it is also common to use arguments of the second type concerning the existence of some mathematical object. One assumes that the object doesn't exist, and then proves that this would lead to a contradiction; thus, such an object must exist. Although it is quite freely used in mathematical proofs, not every school of mathematical thought accepts this kind of argument as universally valid. See further Nonconstructive proof.

In mathematical logic

In mathematical logic, the proof by contradiction is represented as:

if

then

or

if

then

In the above, p is the proposition we wish to prove or disprove; and S is a set of statements which are given as true — these could be, for example, the axioms of the theory we are working in, or earlier theorems we can build upon. We consider p, or the negation of p, in addition to S; if this leads to a logical contradiction F, then we can conclude that the statements in S lead to the negation of p, or p itself, respectively.

Note that the set-theoretic union, in some contexts closely related to logical disjunction (or), is used here for sets of statements in such a way that it is more related to logical conjunction (and).

Notation

Proofs by contradiction sometimes end with the word "Contradiction!". Isaac Barrow and Baermann used the notation Q.E.A., for "quod est absurdum" ("which is absurd"), along the lines of Q.E.D., but this notation is rarely used today.[1] A graphical symbol sometimes used for contradictions is a downwards zigzag arrow "lightning" symbol (U+21AF: ↯), for example in Davey and Priestley.[2] Others sometimes used include a pair of opposing arrows (as or ), struck-out arrows (), a stylized form of hash (such as U+2A33: ⨳), or the "reference mark" (U+203B: ※).[3][4] The "up tack" symbol (U+22A5: ⊥) used by philosophers and logicians (see contradiction) also appears, but is often avoided due to its usage for orthogonality.

Quotations

In the words of G. H. Hardy (A Mathematician's Apology), "Reductio ad absurdum, which Euclid loved so much, is one of a mathematician's finest weapons. It is a far finer gambit than any chess gambit: a chess player may offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers the game."

Logic lesson I must review before hitting the wonderland

Imported from: wikipedia

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence

A common species of reductio ad absurdum is proof by contradiction (also called indirect proof) where a proposition is proven true by proving that it is impossible for it to be false. For example, if A is false, then B is also false; but B is true, therefore A cannot be false and therefore A is true.

Consider the following statement, attributed to physicist Niels Bohr: "The opposite of every great idea is another great idea." If this statement is true, then it would certainly qualify as a great idea - it would automatically lead to a corresponding great idea for every great idea already in existence. But if the statement itself is a great idea, its opposite ("the opposite of every great idea is not a great idea") must also be a great idea. Taken to its logical conclusion, the statement contradicts itself, being both true and untrue.[2]

Some legal usage, and some common usage, depends on a much wider definition of reductio ad absurdum than proof by contradiction, where it is argued a proposition should be rejected because it has merely undesirable (though perhaps not actually self-contradictory) consequences. In a strict logical sense, this might be reductio ad incommodum rather than ad absurdum - since in formal logic, 'absurdity' applies only to impossible self-contradiction.[1]

For example, consider the proposition Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (literally: 'for whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell'). This is also known as ad coelum. A legal reductio ad absurdum argument against the proposition might be:

Suppose we take this proposition to a logical extreme. This would grant a land owner rights to everything in a cone from the center of the earth to an infinite distance out into space, and whatever was inside that cone, including stars and planets. It is absurd that someone who purchases land on earth should own other planets, therefore this proposition is wrong.

(This is a straw man fallacy if it is used to prove that the practical legal use of "ad coelum" is wrong, since ad coelum is only actually ever used to delineate rights in cases of tree branches that grow over boundary fences, mining rights, etc.[3] Reductio ad absurdum applied to ad coelum is, in this case, claiming that ad coelum is saying something that it is not. The reductio ad absurdum above argues only against taking ad coelum to its fullest extent.)

It is only in everyday usage that this could acceptably be called a reductio ad absurdum: it is simply reductio ad absurdum being applied to an originally flawed reductio ad absurdum argument where the extremes were not rational for the original proposition.

Reductio Ad Absurdum in Euclid's Elements

In his Elements, Book III Proposition 5, Euclid demonstrates that if two circles cut one another, they do not have the same center. He begins by assuming that the opposite is true, that two circles may cut one another and have the same center. He then shows that if this happen, the radius of one circle would be both equal to and less than the radius of the other, which is impossible.

Reductio Ad Absurdum in Popular Culture

In an episode of the American TV series The Big Bang Theory, Sheldon refers to a Reductio Ad Absurdum of Leonard's. It is a misuse of the term, which he defines as "The logical fallacy of extending someone's argument to ridiculous proportions and then criticizing the result." The fallacy he describes is actually an Appeal to Ridicule.

striking the equilibrium: the why and how?

There was once in the past (when I was someone else) where my teacher told me that "Jo is a good buddy, he just intentionally shows his bad boy side all the times"

I think it is true. So often I find myself caught in a situation where opportunities of friendship and life joy present themselves, but I push them away, shun them under the notion (logically processed "foods") that they shun me anyway. Why should i learn to gravitate to their direction instead they to my direction? If compromise is the value, why should i gravitate there by exerting more effort?

The right and the fun are two mutually exclusive choice it seems.

Yin and yang tells me that life is right when i strike an equilibrium. in economics it s the precise price of goods where producers enjoy benefits, consumers enjoy proportional price and competition is protected and encouraged.

Damn, it s hard to strike such an equilibrium.

Perhaps I need to make a choice soon.. Humans are limited, i cant be the best at everything... Oh, that s crap.. I can even argue along that line much better than anyone else. It s the loser's argument...

sigh... I am completely aware of the consequences of choosing this path of life. or am i innately characterized this way? nobody can answer that, worst, nobody gives a damn about it...

Maybe one day we will all be able to achieve that state of equilibrium when we can sit down and feel content with whatever we have while still aggressively and passionately pursue the truth and the ultimate wisdom.

One thing I would really like to inquire Sidharta Gautama is "How can humans achieve equilibrium when inequilibrium is required to support equilibrium? Are u saying some humans must be sacrificed so that some can achieve enlightenment?"

You dont just sit up there or around us. You come down here and tell me.. explain to me... engross me in it...

I need answers.. in whatever form...

Decrypting the code

imported from http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/07/might-there-have-been-just-nothing-at-all.html

Could There Have Been Just Nothing At All?
No doubt, things exist. At least I exist, and that suffices to show that something exists. But could it have been the case that nothing ever existed? Actually, there is something; but is it possible that there have been nothing? Or is it rather the case that necessarily there is something? Is it not only actually the case that there is something, but also necessarily the case that there is something? I will argue that there could not have been nothing and that therefore necessarily there is something. (Image credit.)

My thesis, then, is that necessarily, something (at least one thing) exists. I am using 'thing' as broadly as possible, to cover anything at all, of whatever category. If I am right, then it is impossible that there have been nothing at all. The type of modality in question is what is called 'broadly logical' or 'metaphysical.'

Note that Necessarily something exists does not entail Something necessarily exists. I am not asserting the second proposition, but only the first. The second says more than the first. In the patois of possible worlds, the second says that there is some one thing that exists in every possible world, whereas the first says only that every possible world is such that there is something or other in it. The first proposition is consistent with the proposition that every being is contingent, while the second is not. So the first and second propositions are logically distinct and the first does not entail the second. I am asserting only the first.

What I will be arguing, then, is not that there is a necessary being, some one being that exists in all possible worlds, but that every world has something or other in it: every possible circumstance or
situation is one in which something or other exists. That is, there is no possible world in which there is nothing at all.

You can think of merely possible worlds as maximal or total ways things might have been, and you can think of the actual world as the total way things are. My thesis is that there is no way things might have been such that nothing at all exists. But if you are uncomfortable with the jargon of possible worlds, I can translate out of it and say, simply, that it is impossible that there have been, or be, nothing at all. As a matter of metaphysical necessity, there must be something or other!

The content of my thesis now having been made clear, I proceed to give a reductio ad absurdum argument for thinking it true.

1. Let S = Something exists and N = Nothing exists, and assume for reductio that N is possibly true.
2. If N is possibly true, then S, which is true, and known to be true, is only contingently true.
Therefore
3. There are possible worlds in which S is false and possible worlds in which S is true. ( From 2, by definition of 'contingently true')
4. In the worlds in which S is true, something exists. (Because if 'Something exists' is true, then something exists.)
5. In the worlds in which S is false, it is also the case that something exists, namely, S. (For an item cannot have a property unless it exists, and so S cannot have the property of being false unless S exists)
6. Every proposition is either true, or if not true, then false. (Bivalence)

Therefore
7. Every world has something in it, hence there is no world in which nothing exists.
Therefore
8. N is not possibly true, and necessarily something exists.

If you disagree with my conclusion, then you must either show that one or more premises are either false or not reasonably maintained, or that one or more inferences are invalid, of that the argument rests on one or more dubious presuppositions

what i think, say and do

Between thought and action lies speech, which can substitute for either. It can just as easily mask thoughtlessness as impede action.

Right speech, however, does not substitute for thought or action, but mediates them. Giving expression to thought, it enables intelligent action.

Pascal and Buber on the God of the Philosophers

imported from: http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/06/pascal-and-buber-on-the-god-of-the-philosophers.html (Bill Vallicella)

"God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob -- not of the philosophers and scholars." Thus exclaimed Blaise Pascal in the famous memorial in which he recorded the overwhelming religious/mystical experience of the night of 23 November 1654. Martin Buber comments (Eclipse of God, Humanity Books, 1952, p. 49):

These words represent Pascal's change of heart. He turned, not from a state of being where there is no God to one where there is a God, but from the God of the philosophers to the God of Abraham. Overwhelmed by faith, he no longer knew what to do with the God of the philosophers; that is, with the God who occupies a definite position in a definite system of thought. The God of Abraham . . . is not suspectible of introduction into a system of thought precisely because He is God. He is beyond each and every one of those systems, absolutely and by virtue of his nature. What the philosophers describe by the name of God cannot be more than an idea. (emphasis added)

Buber Buber here expresses a sentiment often heard. We encountered it yesterday when we found Timothy Ware accusing late Scholastic theology of turning God into an abstract idea. But the sentiment is no less wrongheaded for being widespread. As I see it, it simply makes no sense to oppose the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- the God of religion -- to the God of philosophy. In fact, I am always astonished when otherwise distinguished thinkers retail this bogus distinction. Let's try to sort this out.

It is first of all obvious that God, if he exists, transcends every system of human thought, and cannot be reduced to any element internal to such a system whether it be a concept, a proposition, an argument, a set of arguments, etc. But by the same token, the chair I am sitting on cannot be reduced to my concept of it or the judgments I make about it. It too is transcendent of my conceptualizations and judgments. The transcendence of God, however, is a more radical form of transcendence, that of a person as opposed to that of a material object. And among persons, God is at the outer limit of transcendence.

Now if Buber were merely saying something along these lines then I would have no quarrel with him. But he is saying something more, namely, that when a philosopher in his capacity as philosopher conceptualizes God, he reduces him to a concept or idea, to something abstract, to something merely immanent to his thought, and therefore to something that is not God. In saying this, Buber commits a grotesque non sequitur. He moves from the unproblematically true

1. God by his very nature is transcendent of every system of thought or scheme of representation

to the breathtakingly false

2. Any thought about God or representation of God (such as we find, say in Aquinas's Summa Theologica) is not a thought or representation of God, but of a thought or representation, which, of course, by its very nature is not God.

As I said, I am astonished that anyone could fall into this error. When I think about something I don't in thinking about it turn it into a mere thought. When I think about my wife's body, for example, I don't turn it into a mere thought: it remains transcendent of my thought as a material thing. A fortiori, I am unable by thinking about my wife as a person, an other mind, to transmogrify her personhood into a mere concept in my mind. She remains in her interiority delightfully transcendent.

It is therefore bogus to oppose the God of the philosophers to the God of Abraham, et al. There is and can be only one God. But there are different approaches to this one God. By my count, there are four ways of approaching God: by reason, by faith, by mystical experience, and by our moral sense. To employ a hackneyed metaphor, if there are four routes to the summit of a mountain, it does not follow that there are four summits, with only one of them being genuine, the others being merely immanent to their respective routes.

I should think that direct acquaintance with God via mystical/religious experience is superior to contact via faith or reason or morality. It is better to taste food than to read about it on a menu. But that's not to say that the menu is about itself: it is about the very same stuff that one encounters by eating. The fact that it is better to eat food than read about it does not imply that when one is reading one is not reading about it.

Imagine how silly it would be be for me to exclaim, while seated before a delicacy: "Food of Wolfgang Puck, Food of Julia Childs, Food of Emeril Lagasse, not of the nutritionists and menu-writers!"

Capitalist = devil in disguise of a god?

Watching Michael Moore's movie is more than just watching a movie, it is seeing through the anger and at the same time sincerity of a person i barely know.

Being born in a conservative Chinese family means money is the supreme value. It s the religion! It s the communal value! It is almost the presupposed norm. Questioning it is similar to a pagan questioning Christianity through science. It is a heresy. It is a sin. And a sin, as they promised or as prophesied, is punished severely.

Through this valley of shadow, I rebelled. I am frustrated, and hurt badly. I sense that something is wrong with it, but my whole limbs are cuffed. My community told me that money is almost the god. It is almost as I am being taught (or indoctrinated) that money is the god I must worship. Worshiping a god means I must obey non-conditionally to the end-purpose of being rich. Being rich means having the ability to devour fancy meals in fancy restaurants, to provide good (most of time excessive) prosperity to family members, to elevate social status and being respected, to become a successful individual, to be a well-rounded individual, to be the purpose of existing! and to stay in a comfort zone.

And since life is such a huge struggle, one must dare to sacrifice the others for him/herself. In a practical sense, it means employ people from the lowest caste (economic or social sense) and exploit them. Give them the hope that if you work really hard for me, you can be rich one days. It means (legally) steal from them by indirectly (provision of false hope) luring them to generate 100 for us and give them back 4 for their "salaries". It also means give them bigger hope but smaller reality for margin of self-improvement. We tell them that they can develop and improve themselves if they work/study hard. But we make sure their margin of development stays down, down there in such a way that they will never be anywhere around us to take over our business or profession. That s the way fucked up capitalists work!

That s the way big fat banks, lawfirms, financial consultants, corporations work! They enslave us under the false hope of prosperity.

Seriously, I know almost all the arguments for capitalists, efficiency, the fundamental essence of freedom, creativity, innovation, rights.. Blablabla. The idea is goddess, but severely abused in practice.

In a similar fashion, the idea and concept of most religions is good, but the goddess idea is severely abused and exploited by those in power for their pure evil greed!

I still retain a scintilla of hope for capitalism ideal. I believe there are some good left despite all the hemorrhage it suffers. But what I cannot stand is the capitalists! It s like an evil disguising itself in the form of a child. Using complete innocence for the most evil deed. It s like the most trusted father raping his own daughter. It s like the police who ought to "serve and protect" enslaving and torturing citizens.

Humans are the worst form of animals we may have ever witnessed. When someone does something immoral/socially deviant, we immediately associate him/her as an animal, with no conscience and barbaric.

You know what is worse than that animal? A fully functioning conscientious human performing more elaborate barbaric evil deeds!

East Versus West on the Trinity: The Filioque Controversy

imported from http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/06/eastern-orthodoxy-on-the-trinity.html

Filioque Controversy Our meeting with the affable and stimulating Dale Tuggy on June 20th at St. Anthony's Greek Orthodox monastery a little south of Florence, Arizona, got me thinking about the Trinity again. So I pulled Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church off the shelf wherein I found a discussion of the differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman approaches to the doctrine. Let's take a look. Earlier this year, in January and February, we had a stimulating and deep-going discussion of Trinitarian topics which the interested reader can find here. But there was no discussion of the Orthodox line. It is high time to fill that lacuna.

East and West agree that there is exactly one God in three divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They also agree that the Father is neither born of anything nor proceeds from anything, that the Son is born of the Father but does not proceed from the Father, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds but is not born. Bear in mind that 'born' and 'proceeds' in this context refer to relations that are internal to the triune Godhead, and are therefore eternal relations. I hope it is also clear that neither of these relations is one of creation. Each of the persons is eternal and uncreated.

The main difference between East and West concerns that from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. The West says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque), whereas the East says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. One can of course question whether this dispute has any clear sense, but let's assume that it does for the space of this post. I don't reckon there are any Stovian or other positivists hanging around this site. (If there are, I pronounce my anathema upon them.)

The question is whether there is any reason to prefer the one view over the other. Ware naturally thinks the Orthodox view superior (pp. 219-222). He thinks it is superior because it is able to account for the unity of the three persons without making of this unity something impersonal. His reasoning is as follows. The tripersonal God is one God, not three Gods. So the question arises as to the unity of the Godhead. What is the ground of God's unity? There is one God because there is one Father, the Father being the 'cause' or 'source' of Godhead, the principle (arche) of unity among the three. The Orthodox speak of the "monarchy of the Father." The other two persons originate from the Father. Because the principle of unity is the Father, and the Father is one of the divine persons, the principle of unity is personal in nature. So although there are three persons in one God, the unity of these three persons is itself a person, namely, the Father.

The Western view, however, issues in the result that the principle of unity is impersonal. The reasoning is along the following lines. If the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, then "the Father ceases to be the unique source of Godhead, since the Son is also a source." (219) Consequently, "...Rome finds its principle of unity in the substance or essence which all three persons share." (219) This implies that, on the Roman Catholic view, the principle of unity is impersonal. (I am merely reporting Ware's reasoning here, not endorsing it.)

And that, Ware maintains, is not good. "Late Scholastic theology, emphasizing as it does the essence at the expense of the persons, comes near to turning God into an abstract idea." (222) The concrete and personal God with whom one can have a direct and living encounter gets transmogrified into a God of the philosophers (as opposed to the living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), an impersonal being whose existence needs to be proved by metaphysical arguments.

And so the Orthodox "regard the filioque as dangerous and heretical. Filioquism confuses the persons, and destroys the proper balance between unity and diversity in the Godhead." (222) God is stripped of concrete personality and made into an abstract essence. And that's not all. The Roman view gives the Holy Spirit short shrift with the result that his role in the church and in the lives of believers is downplayed. What's more, this subordination of the Holy Spirit, together with an overemphasis on the divine unity, has deleterious consequences for ecclesiology. As a result of filioquism, the church in the West has become too worldly an institution, and the excessive emphasis on divine unity has led to too much centralization and too great an emphasis on papal authority. It is worth noting in this connection that the Orthodox reject papal infallibility while accepting the infallibility of the church.

You can see, then, that for the Orthodox the filioque is quite a big deal: it is not a mere theological Spitzfindigkeit.

Ware's exposition -- which I assume is a faithful representation of the Orthodox position -- saddles filioquism with a nasty dilemma: either ditheism or semi-Sabellianism. For if the Son as well as the Father is an arche, a principle of unity in the Godhead, then the upshot is ditheism, two-God-ism. But if it is said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son tamquam ex/ab uno principio, 'as from one principle,' then, as the Orthodox see it, the Father and the Son are confused and semi-Sabellianism is the upshot. (221)

Sabellianism or modalism is the view that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are modes or aspects of the deity. The East sees semi-Sabellianism in the West insofar as the Western view, in avoiding ditheism, merges Father and Son into one principle so that they become mere modes or aspect of that one principle.

That's the lay of the land as seen from the East. I have been concerned in this post with exposition only. Adjudication can wait for later. (He said magisterially.)

a happy family?

capitalism: a love story...

socialism: an uptight father

existentialism: a wise grandmother

liberalism: a rebellious son

communism: a conformist mom to the uptight father

humanism: the uncle who stays with us at home because he doesnt have a job

A Difficulty With Haecceity Properties

imported from http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/06/my-difficulty-with-haecceity-properties.html

By popular demand, here is revised version of a post that first appeared on the old blog in July of 2005.

Introduction. I find haecceity properties hard to accept, although I grant they they would do various useful jobs if they existed. ('Haecceity' from the Latin haecceitas, thisness.) In this post I explain one or two of my reasons for nonacceptance. If you know your Plantinga, you will know that he is my primary target in these notes. This post is not about Duns Scotus or any medieval.

Definition. Suppose we take on board for the space of this post the assumptions that (i) properties are abstract objects, that (ii) they can exist unexemplified, and that (iii) they are necessary beings. We may then define the subclass of haecceity properties as follows.

A haecceity is a property H of x such that: (i) H is essential to x; (ii) nothing distinct from x exemplifies H in the actual world; (iii) nothing distinct from x exemplifies H in any metaphysically possible world.

So if there is a property of Socrates that is his haecceity, then there is a property that individuates him, and indeed individuates him across all times and worlds at which he exists: it is a property that he must have, that nothing distinct from him has, and that nothing distinct from him could have. Call this property Socrateity. Being abstract and necessary, Socrateity is obviously distinct from Socrates, who is concrete and contingent. Socrateity exists in every world, but is exemplified (instantiated) in only some worlds. What's more, Socrateity exists at every time in every world that is temporally qualified, whereas Socrates exist in only some worlds and only at some times in the worlds in which he exists. Haecceity properties have various uses. I'll mention just one.

Use. Suppose I need to analyze 'Socrates might not have existed.' I start with the rewrite, 'Possibly, Socrates does not exist' which features a modal operator operating upon an unmodalized proposition. But 'Socrates does not exist,' being a negative existential proposition, gives rise to an ancient puzzle dating back to Plato. How is reference to the nonexistent possible? The sentence 'Socrates does not exist' is apparently about Socrates, but how so given that he does not exist? If the meaning of 'Socrates' is the name's referent, and nothing can be a referent of a term unless it exists, then Socrates must exist if he is to have nonexistence predicated of him. But the whole point of the sentence is to say that our man does not exist. How can one say of a thing that it does not exist without presupposing that it exists? Haecceities provide a solution. We can understand 'Socrates does not exist' to be about Socrateity rather than about Socrates, and to predicate of Socrateity the property of being exemplified. Recall that Socrateity, unlike Socrates, exists at every time and in every world. So this property, unlike Socrates, is always and necessarily available. Accordingly, we analyze 'Possibly, Socrates does not exist' as 'Possibly, Socrateity is not exemplified.' Socrates' possible nonexistence boils down to Socrateity's possible nonexemplification. It is a nice, elegant solution to the puzzle --assuming that there are haecceity properties.

Problem. One of the stumbling blocks for me, however, is the notion that the thisness of an individual could exist even if the individual whose thisness it is does not exist. Consider the time before Socrates existed. During that time, Socrateity existed. But what content could that property have during that time (or in those possible worlds) in which Socrates does not exist? Socrateity is identity-with-Socrates. Presumably, then, the property has two constituents: identity, a property had by everything, and Socrates. Now if Socrates is a constituent of identity-with-Socrates, then it seems quite obvious that Socrateity can exist only at those times and in those worlds at which Socrates exists. Socrateity would then be like Socrates' singleton, the set consisting of Socrates and Socrates alone: {Socrates}. Clearly, this set cannot exist unless Socrates exists. It is ontologically dependent on him. The same would be true of identity-with-Socrates if Socrates were a constituent of this property.

Problem Exacerbated. If, on the other hand, Socrates is not a constituent of Socrateity, then what gives identity-with-Socrates the individuating content that distinguishes it from identity-with-Plato and identity-with-Pegasus? Consider a possible world W in which Socrates, Plato, and Pegasus do not exist. In W, their haecceities exist since haecceities ex hypothesi exist in every world. What distinguishes these haecceities in W? Nothing that I can see. The only things that could distinguish them would be Socrates, Plato, and Pegasus; but these individuals do not exist in W. It might be said that haecceity properties are simple: identity-with-Socrates is not compounded of identity and Socrates, or of anything else. Different haecceities just differ and they have the content they do in an unanalyzable way. But on this suggestion haecceities seem wholly ungraspable or inconceivable or ineffable, and this militates against thinking of them as properties. I have no problem with the notion of a property that only one thing has, nor do I have a problem with a property that only one thing can have; but a property that I cannot grasp or understand or conceive or bring before my mind -- such an item does not count as a property in my book. It would be more like a bare particular and inherit mutatis mutandis the unintelligibility of bare particulars.

Haecceities must be nonqualitative. Consider a conjunctive property the conjuncts of which are all the mutiply exemplifiable properties a thing has in the actual world. Such a property would individuate its possessor in the actual world: it would be a property that its possessor and only its possessor would have in the actual world. Such a property is graspable in that I can grasp its components (say, being barefooted, being snubnosed, being married, etc.) and I can grasp its construction inasmuch as I understand property conjunction. But the only way I can grasp Socrateity is by grasping is as a compound of identity and Socrates -- which it cannot be for reasons given above.

Note that Socrateity is not equivalent to the big conjunctive property just mentioned. Take the conjunction of all of Socrates' properties in the actual world and call it K. In the actual world, Socrates has K. But there are possible worlds in which he exists but does not exemplify K. And there are possible worlds in which K is exemplified by someone distinct from him. So Socrateity and K are logically nonequivalent. What we need, then, if we are to construct a qualitative thisness or haecceity of Socrates is a monstrous disjunctive property D[soc] the disjuncts of which are all the K's Socrates has in all the possible worlds in which he exists. This monstrous disjunction of conjunctions is graspable, not in person so to speak, but via our grasp of the operations of conjunction and disjunction and in virtue of the fact that each component property is graspable. But D[soc] is not identical to Socrateity. The former is a qualitative thisness whereas the latter is a nonqualitative thisness. Unless the Identity of Indiscernibles is true, these two thisnesses are nonequivalent. And there are good reasons to think that the Identity of Indiscernibles is not true. (Max Black's iron spheres, etc.) So D[Soc] is not identical to Socrateity.

Conclusion. To compress my main point into one sentence: identity-with-Socrates is graspable only as a compound of identity and Socrates; but then this property cannot exist unexemplified. Hence haecceity properties as defined above do not exist.

COMMENT

Scotus actually says

...sensus non cognoscit obiectum in quantum est distinctum a quolibet quod non est unum ista unitate numerali; quod patet, quia nullus sensus distinguit hunc radium Solis differre numeraliter ab illo radio, cum tamen sint diversi per motum Solis, si circumscribantur omnia sensibilia communia, puta diversitas loci vel situs; et si ponerentur duo quanta simul omnino per potentiam divinam, quae essent omnino similia et aequalia in albedine et quantitate, visus non distingueret ibi esse duo alba; si tamen cognosceret alterum istorum, in quantum est unum unitate numerali, cognosceret ipsum in quantum distinctum numeraliter a quolibet alio

"...sense does not know an object insofar as it is distinct from whatever is not one by that numerical unity, which is clear, because no sense distinguishes this ray of the sun to differ numerically from that ray, even though they are diverse through the motion of the sun, if all common sensibilia are set aside (such as diversity of place or position). And if two quanta were supposed to be exactly together by divine power, which were entirely similar and equal in whiteness and quantity, sight would not distinguish two white things to be there. If nevertheless it were to know one or the other of those, insofar as it is one by numerical unity, it would know it insofar as [it is] distinct numerically from any other". (Super distinctione III. libri II. sententiarum
quaestio i)

Chinese still face discrimination in Indonesia

http://www.upiasia.com/Society_Culture/2010/03/10/chinese_still_face_discrimination_in_indonesia/7057/

By Harjo Winoto
Guest Commentary


Jakarta, Indonesia — It is conventional wisdom that Indonesia’s education policy has traditionally discriminated against the Chinese minority living in the country. For a long time – especially before the 1998 downfall of President Suharto – the Chinese have not enjoyed equal educational opportunities.

For example, there would be a limited number of seats – or no seat at all – for Chinese on certain faculties; Chinese have had extreme difficulty in applying for scholarships; and they have faced impediments in seeking careers in state institutions such as the police, judiciary, legislature or government.

This phenomenon dates back to a post-1945 compromise in which Chinese were encouraged in economic activities while non-Chinese – especially the Javanese – had priority in running the country. A similar political compromise was made in Malaysia. Although in terms of its written laws discrimination has abated in Indonesia, in practice – with only trifling changes – discrimination is still rampant, particularly in Medan and cities far from Jakarta.

Given such circumstances, Chinese are inclined to seek better opportunities abroad if possible. Many Chinese do not want to stay in Indonesia to work, pay taxes and contribute their ideas and energy to the country.

It is a common secret, especially prior to 1998, that state universities have been exclusively reserved for non-Chinese. Since state universities are among the best schools, and it is expensive to study abroad, many young Chinese are denied access to the best education.

One outrageous story is that of a Chinese participant in the International Chemistry Olympics from my high school. Prior to qualifying for the international round, this student requested financial support and the use of school facilities from the Department of Education and his school. Both requests were declined. The department reasoned that he should seek such support from his own school, while his school reasoned that since he represented Indonesia he should seek support from the Department of Education.

In the end he had to raise funds on his own. Fortunately, he placed second in the competition. Noting his achievement, both the government and the school requested that his winner’s cup be placed in their “collection of achievements.” At the same time, a reputable university in Singapore offered him a full scholarship and financial support for his undergraduate degree under the condition that he register his cup under that university.

Some non-Chinese have faced a similar plight as the government simply does not fund such programs. But the reality is tougher for the Chinese.

Another story that may elicit similar outrage is the blatant discrimination in the faculty of medicine at one reputable university in North Sumatra. Many Chinese studying there have expressed outrage and discontent as to how placement tests were conducted. Out of 300, only 20 seats were available for Chinese until at least 2006. This limit was set before the test results were published. One non-Chinese student remarked, “Had the test results been transparantly disclosed, perhaps 70 to 80 percent of the seats would be assigned to Chinese.”

This is only a glimpse of the discrimination Chinese face with regard to access to education, either endorsed by law or condoned in practice.

Some people defend this reality, saying that discrimination is treating similar things differently; therefore it is not discrimination to treat Chinese differently from non-Chinese, as the two groups have unequal economic power. Second, even if there is discrimination, some argue that it aims to correct imbalances, hence it is justifiable. Third, it is the Chinese people’s fault if they are discriminated against, as they exhibit arrogance and ignorance toward the poor people.

The classic case for justifying discimination is that since the Chinese grew rich by stealing from others’ land – noting that they were originally immigrants and therefore not entitled to anything – it is fair to correct imbalances by discriminating in favor of the original inhabitants of the land.

There are generally two types of imbalance – one that is inherent or natural, and the other that is caused by certain actions. For example, men and women are innately different physically; therefore it is not discriminatory to establish separate divisions in sport for men and women. However, rich and poor are not innate conditions. If a person is poor because he or she is lazy, policies that favor such a person are discriminatory.

It is utterly unfair to punish hard workers for being rich and reward paupers for their sloth. Wealth is not given, it is achieved by hard work. Many Chinese came to Indonesia – as they did to many other countries – with little more than the clothes they were wearing. It is therefore a wrong assumption that all or even a substantial number of Chinese are rich.

Moreover, the Chinese have to pay the same taxes others do; in fact, in practice many bureaucrats blackmail the Chinese, who end up paying more than others due to lack of education and fear. How can this be construed as stealing when everyone pays the same tax and has equal opportunities? Simply some are more efficient in business than others.

If we assume that corrective measures should be taken with regard to economic imbalances, the government should tax the rich more and subsidize the poor. However, the government should tax the rich, not the Chinese, if the policy is aimed at correcting an imbalance in the distribution of wealth.

Before arguing that the Chinese are arrogant and ignorant, we must put ourselves in the Chinese people’s shoes. When almost every door to career development is closed, the only space the Chinese have to maneuver in is business. Given this restriction, the fact that some Chinese have built empires from scratch is a superb achievement. Without condoning or condemning, it is human to be arrogant to a certain extent. Arrogance is a characteristic of the rich, including non-Chinese. It is not justifiable to punish someone for arrogance.

The late U.S. President John F. Kennedy famously said, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Many Indonesians feel that the Chinese are only taking from the country. But you cannot possibly ask someone to do something for you if you do nothing in return – or even worse, discriminate against them.

--

(Harjo Winoto is a final-year law student at the University of Indonesia and a paralegal in a top Jakarta law firm. He writes on various legal and social issues. ©Copyright Harjo Winoto.)

ASEAN-China free trade pact is not all bad

http://www.upiasia.com/Economics/2010/03/29/asean-china_free_trade_pact_is_not_all_bad/2619/

By Harjo Winoto
Guest Commentary



Jakarta, Indonesia — How do we generally picture free trade or trade liberalization? We think of dreaded competition and lost jobs and livelihoods. To make matters worse, free traders and economists such as Paul Krugman claim that free trade is not concerned about “phony jobs” created or lost.

To the ears of common folks, this sounds pompous, nonchalant and merciless. Personally, I would call it an idea lost in translation. This is misquoted and largely misunderstood.

In Indonesia, there are two typical claims against free trade in general. First, usually cited in the context of trade with China, is the claim that we will import more than we export. In other words, we will spend more than we earn.

Second is the concept that free trade generates a larger economic “pie,” but it is not distributed proportionally to every segment of society. Hence, sacrificing jobs of the paupers for the benefit of the rich is not worthwhile. Even if free trade makes for a more efficient economy, most people prefer less efficiency if it helps the poor. In other words, it is better to have less money used for the needy rather than more money amassed in the pockets of the rich.

Actually, in the context of the ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement, these two claims are not as bad as they sound. First, opposition to the ACFTA generally revolves around the fact that China’s manufacturing base is currently the largest in the world. Moreover, it is a fact that China can produce almost any goods or products. A Chinese saying suggests, “We can duplicate and produce anything except your mother.” Hence, by liberalizing trade, we will import more than we export.

What do we get when we import? Goods of all kinds – shoes, clothes, washing machines that are produced in China using resources from China or other countries. What do the Chinese get in return? Money – many pieces of paper – which they will use to buy oil or raw materials for the next wave of products. Of course, if we keep buying products from China, our money supplies will diminish, so we will need to print more money. This will erode the purchasing power of our currency.

Still, the question is how much do we lose compared to what we gain? We get all the goods we need for our daily lives and they in return receive astronomical quantities of money.

Will China use any of this money to purchase oil and raw materials for their manufacturing industry from Indonesia? Under ACFTA, will the money China receives from our consumers be used to purchase goods and services from us? If China buys oil or raw materials from other countries, the stored value is used against other countries.

In fact, we will not trade any of our goods with China. On the contrary, we will receive goods and give them pieces of money which will be used to purchase goods, such as oil and raw materials, from other countries.

Opponents of ACFTA and trade liberalization argue that many jobs will be lost because domestic industries, which should be producing goods for our own consumption, will go out of business.

But there are two negative implications to protecting noncompetitive jobs. First, it prevents increased productivity, and second, it penalizes the rest of the people, who must pay more than they should for goods they need. There is a double penalty for protecting jobs that produce basic goods and necessities such as food and clothes; both the economy and the people are penalized. Productivity suffers as there is no incentive for efficient production. Efficiently produced goods cannot compete with subsidized goods because their prices remain expensive relative to subsidized goods, thanks to tariffs.

I would argue that it is much better for the government to support the people who are losing their jobs domestically than to damage the economy and force them to pay more for basic goods and necessities.

A core question is what do jobs mean? Are they to generate money or to provide the people with dignity, pride and status – or both? If both, what is the priority? Would we still work at jobs for the purpose of dignity if they did not generate money?

In the government’s mind, jobs are meant to increase the people’s welfare and protect their livelihoods. Under this premise, wouldn’t it be better for farmers to lose their jobs if their children can go to school, and if when they are sick they have access to government-funded healthcare? Or better, farmers can look for alternative and more satisfying jobs through education or training.

We need to see clearly through the heavily fogged glass on the ACFTA issue. It is not all bad – in fact, it is not bad at all. Politics and vested interests should be set aside if we want this to work. In any case, Indonesia has already ratified the agreement and there is no way back. Therefore we should clear up the fog and take a clear look at what lies ahead.

--

(Harjo Winoto is a final-year law student at the University of Indonesia and a paralegal in a top Jakarta law firm. He writes on various legal and social issues. He can be contacted at harjo_winoto@hotmail.com. ©Copyright Harjo Winoto.)

tendentious coda

the end?

The unexamined life is not worth living

"The unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates

Dear Socrates,

I submit the following questions in my pursuit of understanding me, myself, and my being. I wish you were around, which sadly for the reason of "time and space" you cannot be around ergo I cannot communicate with "you" (being an independent existence, not a person). These questions have been examined and assessed for ages and I am aware there are no definite or easy answers for them. But, I just feel the need to inquire them. No matter who you are/what you are or where you are, it is my humble prayer to you that you listen, feel, and sense these questions. Bestow upon me, even the mere modicum of it, the wisdom to lead my life to a purpose, to something I can hold on, for hitherto I see myself in the mirror and I can see the abyss.


Yours,

"still searching for/examining it"



What is examine?
What is life?
what is life examination?
What is life not examined?
Why do we examine life?
Why do we not examine life?
How do we examine life?
How do we not examine life?
When and where do we examine life?
When and where do we not examine life?

Does the term "examine" refers to the process, the result or the whole sequence of input, process and result? Can we conclude that our life has been examined even if such examination is still in progress? Can we say the process of examination itself is a litmus test for the result?

Is it exclusive that unexamined life is not worth living? Why?

Is life more difficult and more beautiful at the same time when we start looking for the answers? Can be more difficult = more beautiful/meaningful?

What if the answers are not there? will the process still be meaningful? What if we are told they do not exist and they have been tested through time, so life is easier if we simply just accept such "preconceived notion" of answer provided by "them"?


What if the answers exist, but I am not looking for then? In the spectrum of time of space what meaning of life was lost?

Why do we need meaning?

Ignorant is a bliss... Are you blissful? Is meaning of life and bliss of life of two different nature? Can they be the same? are there situations where they are the same and not? Is it an innate circumstance? Can human change that nature or can we change the way we see that nature?

"the list still goes on... I am still examining..."

Phenoumenal world and Noumenal World

Are they of different things? Do they have cut? Are they similar in the same respect?
Do they co-exist? Can they co-exist? Ought they co-exist?

When Flimsy Trust is Broken: A Letter to Israel

http://en.hukumonline.com/app/dms/browser/detail/guid/lt4c1a15e93f6df
edited and polished by Eli Moselle

Thursday, 17 Jun 2010 | 19:40:11
Israel's Acts and Arrogance Impede Efforts to Bring Peace

Israeli Navy commandos stormed a Turkish flotilla last week (30/5), killing upwards of 9 passengers on a boat destined for Gaza with 10,000 tonnes of aid, sparking international condemnation and a diplomatic crisis. The tragedy is not just of 9 lost lives, but also of the damage to efforts to bring about peace in the region.

Israel-Palestine relations extend to many aspects of our modern politics; they represent the sharpest edges of two knives used by apparently opposite trends in the world to hurt each other. The discord is ageless, with both the Old Testament and Qur’an suggesting the land of Canaan belongs to one side or the other; the arbitrary, illogical basis for horrid wars throughout history.

At this point, the Israel-Palestine conflict has come to perfectly represent the complete degradation of politics.

People have had enough with pointless polemics; ‘liberalism versus communism,’ USSR and the United States, United States and North Korea, United States and the Middle East, and so on. Now, with the Israel-Palestine conflict, the cosmetic barriers being raised to differentiate Jew and Muslim – as if they really are that different – are simply a source of renewed disappointment.

Politics has strayed from its fundamental purpose, which is to promote peace and welbeing. The politics we behold in Israel-Palestine relations, which caricature international relations more broadly, is of greed, arrogance, and self-justification. In sum, these politics have only one basis – distrust of the ‘other’.

Meanwhile, we all dream of a peaceful world and put our trust in leaders who claim to know how to administer a government. It is trust which serves as the bond between government and society, and between governments and the international society.

At a time when collective unity is crucial to resolve global issues, the distrust between nations that is catalyzed by the Israel-Palestine conflict sets the canvas for international relations; a painting made with brushstrokes of suspicion and animosity. Such distrust is easily seen at international summits, the Copenhagen climate talks being a most clear example.

The argument here is that the enormous disappointment of the vast majority with their leaders in Copenhagen, an apparently ‘separate issue,’ is directly connected to distrust spawning from such conflicts as in Israel-Palestine. That conflict is simply toxic to international relations, and with the last incident against the Turkish flotilla, Israel has broken whatever semblance of flimsy trust existed of their integrity.

People can now only point their fingers to Israel as the culprit, whose exceedingly defensive manner ironically conveys nothing but an absolute expression of guilt. Even at the most objective level, what is happening in and to Gaza is a sin; Israel will have to bear it.

There may have been a time when Israel could justify its position to such allies as the United States, keeping its sins mostly unknown to the world, but it is over; a prototypic case of a snake biting the hands that feed it. With the latest attack, we see that not only does Israel resolutely fail to help people living in Gaza, it in fact intends that Gaza receive no help from others, destroying agents of aid in international waters.

8 out of 10 Gazans depend on foreign aid to survive. The World Food Program states that a minimum of 400 trucks a day into Gaza is required to meet basic nutritional needs, yet an average of 171 trucks of supplies enters Gaza per week.

We all sympathize with you for the holocaust, Israel. We do.

But we live in a dialectical world, one thing often giving rise to its opposite: if Israel acts as it has in the last several years, continuing to flagrantly abuse international laws and norms, and defecating on fundamental ideas of common decency, the cruel irony is that it comes ever-closer to becoming the contemporary Nazi that it claims to so despise. Cosmetic appearances aside, the purely objective self-justified evil underlying Israel’s current repertoire is palpable.

Mahatma Gandhi famously said that “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” Israel may be blinded by its explicitly-stated eye-for-two-eye ‘disproportionate response’ policy with Gaza, but history books will see this conflict as clearly as they did the Nazi-perpretrated holocaust. The idea that history repeats itself will be more than vindicated.

Stop, Israel. Stop.

Although you have reached the last and final minute for action, there is still time to stop; still time to save face. This is an international conflict between elites, borne on the sweaty, bloodied backs of dead and dying paupers.

The world needs trust more than ever, and Israel, you bear that responsibility by being placed in such a strategic zone. Your actions indicate exclusive thinking about Israeli people only: but take a moment to really think for your people; what good has adversarial imposition brought to your people? Since 1947, we see the same destructive response to the same issues, an endless repetition with the expectation of somehow achieving a different result; the clinical definition of insanity.

If you really care about doing the best for your people, Israel, the diplomatic route is one of humility.

Think for one second how ridiculous it sounds when you say that Israeli soldiers were attacked when ordered to board a civilian ship in international waters; that ‘resisting passengers attacked without provocation’. I would not be the first to say that this is like a carjacker complaining to a policeman that the driver hit him with a crowbar under the seat. How could one possibly expect a violated innocent to acquiesce peacefully?

Israel dreams of peace, but constructs it upon a foundation of war and militarism; a twisted dialectical nightmare.

To Israel, I say this.

If you dream of peace, then stop. That you committed an attack is one thing, but to defensively deny the mistake is another. The world may pardon your mistakes, absent such arrogance. The international community needs you. Now more than ever. Come back to us. Come back to us, and compassion may be extended to the lost boy in the living parable of the prodigal son.

Harjo Winoto is a final year law student, researcher on competition law, and writer on various social issues. He can be reached at harjo_winoto@hotmail.com.

Purity: the innate quality we pursue

Purity is the essence we pursue. We adore jewelries made of pure diamond, ruby, emerald, et cetera.

We also pursue medicines made of pure materials, pure from the nature.

We despise the artificial creation, including beauty.

We pursue the purity of feelings, such as love,sympathy. We loathe people extending their condolence along with financial motives. We hate people being nice to us just because we are rich. They come to us with the expectation that we can give something (financial or monetary) in return. We want the pure care and love, detached and cleaned from every other motive. It is love, pure and simple.

the irony is why are there so many of us who not want or love the purity of thought (knowledge, wisdom, whatever you term it)?

Purity of knowledge seems to be the lost in our civilization, wiped out form the picture, removed from the lexicon...

Purity...

I must know...

Socrates once remarked (well not exactly, i just need to cite his name as an authority) " I know the most because i know that i dont know"

That s the theme of my day on Tuesday... I savored a really a mediocre ramen, but one that i really want to eat for quite sometimes..

My friend, Eli and I can finally meet up and 'travel' to the wonderland for 3 hours.. We 'talked' a lot about knowing..

The word know is so powerful and profound.. Throughout the discussion we discovered how much we knew... that we didnt know.

Some people come to me and complained that they are confused and that they are unhappy. Worse, some people are supposed to feel happy about their lives but they just feel something is missing.

Yes, I am referring to wealthy fellows who procure the 'Zara', 'Mango' or those luxurious stuffs and convince themselves that they are happy because of they can buy those things. Can you feel what they feel at that particular moment when they are holding the new Zara or Louis Vuitton?

They "ought" to feel happy because society tells them that to have the money and to be able to procure is a reason to be happy. That luxurious and wealthy life, are supposed to be a state of "happiness". While deep down there, when these supposedly wealthy guys sit down alone, they feel the subconscious urge that something is just missing.

They dont "know" that they are not happy..

One thing I am so proud of is that I know, not that I know all/many things, but that I Know I know nothing nothing... that I know I am lost... that I know that I am confused... that I know that I am not happy..

That makes a great and happy day to me

No one can gauge the depth of me

Watching good will hunting (starring Matt Damon and Robin Williams) for another time after 6 years illuminated me of certain philisophies I couldn’t capture last 6 years. It stroke me hard, as if I am seeing myself, full of anger, disappointment, and discontent. I see the abyss of my reflection... The all-times-anger, pushing people away before they start leaving or hurting me. I am developing a huge distrust over anyone surrounding me. It’s classic. It’s called self-defense mechanism. But mine is much bigger than anyone else’s. I know, i know it very well.. it s called selfish. It’s called insensitive.
Perhaps, I need to sit down and figure who i was more clearly before i can figure out who i am. When i stand in that fancy room during the public lecture of Sri Mulyani, I can only tell myself.. i could have done a much better speech, it s an utterly/completely superficial word game. Articulation? I can do better, mimicking? I can do better. But why people listened to her and not me? Are people grading her for who she is rather than what she actually said?
Again, i know, i know... there are more to life than intelligence.. there are experiences, there are people skills. Seriously... i am fed up of it... i know the limit.. i know there are certain norms, courtesies, whatever bullshit meaningless dictions you want to assign to it. Nonetheless, it does not excuse you from being a complete failure... When i present good social skills, they tell me you are not intelligent enough, when i present magnificent intelligence, they tell me intelligence is no everything...
They tell me good is not enough and intelligent is not enough. It is not what i have that is not enough, it s what they have that is not enough AND because i have more than they do, they are fucking afraid of me...
I m sick of this hopeless world sometimes. It s even remote of any hope... Sick fucked up humans... Stupid fucking maggots... they will waste their whole lives living as a fucking slave in a jail
The irony is i m living in it. People (philosophers) coin it as a structure i can’t escape. It s a structure that defines me... I can't be a free person if i dont live in a jail, right? I can't be liberated if i have never been jailed, right?
The struggle is painful, fucking tormenting... To want friends and hate friends... to want love and hate love...
It s all so lonely... all the sounds and sights are just meaningless. My attempt to assign them meaning are not only difficult but also ridiculed...
Perhaps, i need to take a break... perhaps, complete insanity can liberate me from this jail? Just like leonardo di caprio in shutter island? Insanity liberates me from social norms, “people’s feelings”, pretense, hypocrisy, the want to be a conformist, the want to belong to a group (if not majority, certain class of people)... I need to be free... AND freedom to define “free”..

Democracy is Not a Luxury for the Paupers: The Case for Not Paying Tax

http://en.hukumonline.com/app/dms/browser/detail/guid/lt4be3e57851f26

Friday, 07 May 2010 | 17:03:36

In the wake of the recent news reports of shocking corruption by Gayus Tambunan, an officer of the Tax Department, the Indonesian population has had its already flimsy trust in government diminished even further. Discontent has manifested in many Indonesians’ reluctance to pay tax. Gayus Tambunan is suspected to have embezzled IDR 28 billion (roughly USD 3.1 million). This is only the tip of the iceberg. This case is predicted to reveal more officers involved in the web of corruption. Democracy is being put to the test, and it appears to have failed once again.

Democracy now seems to be a golden ideal upon a pedestal; it is beautiful to behold, but it is never yours. Democracy, having its etymological root demos (common people, or ‘district’) and kratos (rule, or ‘strength’), is a form of struggle against the elite ruling power. In other words, democracy is a tool designated for ordinary people, with the connotation of being poor, uneducated or belonging to the lowest castes, to fight against the elite aristocrats with power, money and influence. In effect, democracy is the lever for the paupers to correct imbalances. One function of democracy is manifested in the State’s power to impose taxes. One of taxation’s raison d’être was to correct economic imbalances by distributing money from the rich to the poor in form of infrastructure, public works, and other projects. This is where the irony lies.

First, for the paupers in Indonesia, the taxation system is a nightmare. On the one hand, they barely have enough food to eat. On the other hand, taxes they pay are utilized for the benefit of economically privileged players. If we examine the National Budget Plan or ‘APBN’ as passed by parliament, budget allocation for the benefit of economically privileged players is more substantial than that for the benefit of the paupers. In practice, the situation is even worse. The education budget, for instance, is to be at least 20% of the state expenditure by constitutional mandate; the reality is that this money has always been reduced to 40% of that amount (i.e., less than 10% of the budget) in terms of what actually reaches the intended beneficiaries. Presumably, the rest goes to corrupt bureaucrats’ pockets or similar kinds of administration overhead.

In a nutshell, the poor are taxed, yet the money is allocated for the benefit of the businesses owned by the rich. Government will present the counter-argument that creation of big industries, in return, provides jobs for the paupers. This is not an excuse. If we draw the matrix of income or wealth distribution, it remains utterly unjust. How much of the money or other assets that should belong to the paupers are absorbed by the businesses of the rich in the process of translating tax receipts into the paupers’ prosperity? A lot. This theory works in the same fashion as price increases work: “The longer the distribution, the higher the price for consumers.” The fact that tax receipts take such a long path before they are eventually translated into daily needs is the crux of taxation issues in Indonesia, especially when the funds are circulated long enough among the upper-level players. If the premise is that democracy is manifested through, among other forms, taxation, then it has to provide wealth for all. Interesting to note, the substitute diction for state is commonwealth, inscribed to mean that the rationale for the creation of a state is to provide wealth for commoners. Since taxation does not create wealth for commoners in a fair sense, and ironically allocates money from the poor to the rich, it does not serve the democratic purpose. Therefore you cannot blame the paupers for not paying tax.

Second, for the middle or upper middle class, they are encouraged not to pay taxes and this is the reason why. First, since they can no longer trust government to redistributing the wealth for everyone’s sake, they should redistribute it by themselves. The idea is as simple as to “take over the government’s function,” which it fails to perform. Second, if the government argues that the money is needed for redistribution to the needy, you distribute it yourself. The dummy mathematical calculation would be “the money you should have paid for taxes,” you should distribute in your immediate surroundings, in particular, for the benefit of the needy. Buy them books, put them in schools, or provide a health service. If you think that the amount of tax you pay is too much or unreasonable, e.g. 5%, you cut it to 3% or 4% and distribute that money in any manifestation to the needy. I am certainly not advocating anarchy; I am saying that society may want to be part of the solution rather than being part of the problem.

The two points above conclude that “Democracy is not a luxury for the paupers.” This illustration improves along with improving economic conditions of a person or family. When people are poor, democracy is just a tool to climb up the social ladder. For those paupers, democracy is not about striking a balance of power or a healthy functioning government, it is simply how to survive until the next day. If you take a look at a popular political campaign, Indonesia has shifted from a dictatorship to uninformed general elections. The poor are either unaware or unable to do anything about it. For them, the choice is to eat to survive until the next day or die while trying to fight for their supposedly democratic rights. As a human being, I cannot imagine how to make such a choice and the mutually exclusive and exhaustive options are not their fault.

For the last remark describing the irony of democracy “Do not tell me “what you know about” and “how you think you can deal with” those paupers’ plight when you are sitting in five-star hotels in sumptuous and esoteric conferences conducted in the name of democratic government.”

Harjo Winoto is a final year law student, researcher on competition law, and writer on various social issues. He can be reached at harjo_winoto@hotmail.com.

Harjo Winoto: Maverick keen on studying the law

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2006/09/27/harjo-winoto-maverick-keen-studying-law.html

The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Wed, 09/27/2006 8:00 AM

Kurniawan Hari, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

His decision in 2004 to study at law school meant he was seen as a maverick within his family.

While his parents wanted him to become either an accountant or a doctor, Harjo Winoto persisted with his choice.

Two years later, however, Harjo can now show his parents that his choice was the correct one, after all.

Harjo is one of four students from the University of Indonesia (UI) who won this year's Asia Cup International Mooting (debating) Competition in Japan.

Together with Melissa Butar Butar, Novriady Erman and Fitriani Chairani, Harjo defeated teams in August from prestigious universities in other Asian countries.

It was the first win since UI's first participation in the competition eight years ago.

The competition also placed Harjo as second-best orator, behind Australian Timothy Parker who represented the University of Hong Kong.

""The competition was very tough. Fortunately, we were able to succeed,"" Harjo told The Jakarta Post in an interview at the law school's vast library.

Competition success was not an overnight affair. It was the end result of a long journey, especially for Harjo.

After his graduation from senior high school in Medan, North Sumatra, in 2004, Harjo enrolled at North Sumatra University (USU) law school.

He made that decision despite a series of arguments with his parents, who wanted their son to study either economics or medicine.

According to Harjo, his parents perceived the law as ""a wrong path"" that would cause their son to become a corrupt individual after finishing his studies.

""Within the tradition of my extended family, law studies are not recommended. They say that law school is the first step on the path to becoming a corrupt individual,"" he said, adding that most of his relatives had studied medicine or economics.

Representing USU, he took part in 2004 in the national qualifying competition for the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition in the United States.

In the final round, however, his team was defeated by students from the University of Indonesia (UI). The UI team went to the U.S. for the competition.

The defeat left a deep impact on Harjo. He promised himself that he would move to UI.

The following year, he took another university entry test and passed. The UI students that had defeated him in 2004 now became his colleagues.

Harjo does not waste any time. As a UI student, he does not only attend classes regularly, but has also joined the International Law Moot Court Society (ILMCS), an organization in the school that prepares students for international competitions.

""We often spend time discussing current issues,"" he said.

The ILMCS selected the four students for the Asian competition. They participated in a series of discussions, debates and evaluations three months beforehand.

""We wrote our paper and sent it to Tokyo. The organizer selected us to represent Indonesia,"" Harjo said, adding that teams from Padjadjaran University (UNPAD) and Parahyangan University (UNPAR), both in Bandung, West Java, failed to qualify.

Since the moot court competition is an international event, the students must have good English-speaking skills. That is why they also improve their proficiency through reading literature and practicing public speaking under the guidance of seniors at ILMCS, many of whom are veterans of international competitions.

Several had represented UI in the Philip C Jessup Competition and been rated highly.

The three months of intensive preparation bore fruit. The UI team won first prize in the Asian competition.

""I'm happy because it made my parents proud of me,"" said Harjo, the eldest of three in his family.

His parents are not overdemanding on their children. They simply want them -- Harjo, Dwi Febriani and Jennifer -- to study hard and achieve good marks at the end of their studies.

That is why they did not introduce Harjo to literature from great writers -- except set student texts.

Harjo, however, was fortunate.

One of his teachers lent him a book by German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche when he was still at junior high school. Harjo also read Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.

""I'm interested in the history of Hitler. He adopted the thoughts of Nietzsche and wrote Mein Kampf, which later became the 'bible' of the Nazis,"" he said, adding that his obsession with the law grew after he watched television series The Practice and Boston Legal.

Both tell the story of law firms that fight for the rights of minority groups. Harjo said he hoped he could use his knowledge to help the weak.

During this interview, Harjo expressed concern at the failure of the Indonesian government to defend its claim over Sipadan and Ligitan islands. The government, he said, spent millions of dollars on lawyers from France and the United States.

Of 15 judges in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), only one ruled in favor of Indonesia. Consequently, Indonesia lost the two islands to Malaysia.

""We would not have suffered the loss if we had suitably qualified lawyers for international cases,"" said Harjo, who likes playing piano, computer games and chess in his spare time.

The lack of lawyers who can act in international disputes, he said, should not be blamed solely on the curriculum but also on students themselves.

Harjo criticized fellow students who prefer spending their money on clothes or parties rather than on books. ""They fritter it away on the latest fashions, cars or clubbing,"" he said.

They should improve themselves by reading books, he concluded, sagely.

A deeper analysis on free trade/trade liberalization concept: Why should we not fear ACFTA and how should we look at it?

This is written as a tribute to Prof. Joseph H.H. Weiler’s lecture

Published in http://www.upiasia.com/Economics/2010/03/29/asean-china_free_trade_pact_is_not_all_bad/2619/

How do we generally picture free trade/trade liberalization? Dreadful competition, losing jobs and livelihoods. To make matters worst, freetraders and economists, such as Paul Krugman, claim free trade is not concerned of phony number of jobs created or lost. To the ears of commoners, this sounds pompous, non-chalant and remorseless, which I would personally call a lost in translation. This is misquoted and at large, misunderstood. There are two archetypal claims against free trade in general. First and in more specific context free trade with China, popular believers claim that we will buy more than we sell. Translating into economics term, we will import more than we export. This sounds bad in terms of productivity. It is bad in analagous sense that we spend more than we earn.
Second, a more subtle thinker against free trade would say perhaps free trade generates a larger “pie” of economy, but they are not distributed proportionally to every segment of the societies. Hence, sacrificing jobs of the paupers for the benefits of the rich is not worthy. They also note that, perhaps, the economics could have been more efficient if free trade is in the picture, but they prefer less efficiency as it helps the poor. In other words, it is better to have less money but used for the needy, rather than to have more money but amassed in the rich’s pockets.
Now, let me put this claim into a context of ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement and elaborate why those two claims are not as bad as they sound. First, claims against ACFTA generally revolves around the fact that China’s manufacture industries is by no doubt the largest in the world currently. Moreover, it is also a fact that China can produce almost any goods/products. Chinese anecdote suggests that “We can duplicate and produce anything except you mother.” Hence, by liberalizing trade, we will import more than export.
What do we get when we import? Goods of all kind, shoes, clothes, washing machines that are produced in China using either natural resources from China or other countries. What does China get in return? Money, many pieces of paper. They accept money because money represents the store of value which they will use to buy oil or raw materials for the next wave of productions. Of course, if we buy more products from China, the money in terms of quantity would diminish, so we will need to print more money. But you would not run out of papers to print money or another way of putting it, the intrinsic value of money is much smaller than the nominal value. If you print more money, your money gets weaker. In economics jargon, it is called inflation or erosion of purchasing power of your currency. So the question is how much do we lost compared to how much we got? We get all the goods useful for our daily lives and they in return receive astronomical number of pieces of money.
A more subtle argument is to examine whether the money China received would be used to purchase materials their nature does not provide. Will they purchase oil and raw materials for their manufature industries from Indonesia? Even if they do, how many percentage of oils and/or raw materials. The argument boils down into this precept: Money is of no value if there are no underlying substances, be it goods or services. We put values into money with the assumption that the same money can be used to buy other goods or services we need. So the underlying assumption is that there are more goods and services out there than the nominal value of money. Imagine if today, the world has foods only sufficient to feed 2 billions people, will money be of any worth? People will be accumulating foods rather than money. We used to barter goods for goods. So money represents the value of goods. Without those goods, money has no meaning/value.
Now, if we apply the same precept into ACFTA, what do we lose if we import substantially more than we import? The other factor, government must heed on carefully is whether the money China receives from our consumers will be used to purchase goods and services from us. If China buys oil or raw materials from other countries, the store value is used against other countries. In simpler explanation, we do not trade any of our goods with China. On the contrary, we receive goods and give them pieces of money which will be substantially used to purchase goods, such as oil and raw materials, from other countries.
Second, claims against ACFTA/trade liberalization subsequently argues: But many jobs will be lost because those industries that should be producing goods for our domestic consumption will run out of business.
There are two negative implications for protecting non-competitive jobs. First, you prevent increased productivity and second, you penalize the rest of the people to pay more than the should for goods they need. If you protect jobs which produce goods of basic and mass necessities such as food and clothes, you penalize yourself twice since you penalize your economy and your people. Productivity is prevented as there is no incentive to produce efficiently. Efficiently produced goods cannot compete with subsidized and less efficiently produced goods because their price remain expensive relative to subsidized goods thanks to tariffs.
I would argue that it is much better off for you to send a check at the home front of people losing jobs than damaging the economy and force them to pay more expensively than the should for goods serving basic and mass necessities.
The core question is what do jobs mean? Do jobs mean generator of money or dignity/pride/status of life or both? If both, which one remains the priority? Will we still work on jobs for the purpose of dignity if it does not generate money? The point is in government’s mind, jobs are meant to increase welfare and protect livelihood. Since such were the premise, wouldn’t it be better for farmers to lose their jobs but their children can go to school and when they are sick they are government funded health-care? Or better, farmers look for alternative jobs and train their human potentials through courses or education of sorts?
In the end, we need to see clearly through the heavily fogged glass on ACFTA issue. They are not all bad and in fact they are not bad at all. Politics and vested interest should be set aside if we want this to work. Anyway, Indonesia has ratified the agreement and there is no way back, so let’s look ahead clearly by clearing up the fog.

Natural Resources: The Curse of Developing Countries?

Published in http://www.upiasia.com/Economics/2010/03/04/natural_resources_the_curse_of_developing_countries/1243/

Jakarta, Indonesia —
People are dying while sitting in a land full of riches. Perhaps this is the horrid yet true picture of reality in most developing countries in the world; certainly it is true in Indonesia.

Covering approximately 1.9 million square kilometers, Indonesia is extremely rich in natural resources. Due to active volcanic activity, its soil is fertile and resources are abundant. Salt, for instance, is believed to have originated in Indonesia. The term “salary” originates from salt because it was once used as a form of payment. In old times, the person sitting closest to the salt at a table held the highest rank.

Many Indonesians are proud of their motherland. Every elementary school student is taught that the country is rich in natural resources. The citizens’ pride is rooted in the fact that the country is geopolitically important and can survive on its own – unlike Singapore, for example, which basically lives from its neighbors’ resources.

Ironically, these same children have to grow up witnessing or experiencing extreme poverty. This is more painful given the dreams they hold after being taught about the tishness of their land.

There is a long list of cases in which corporations – local and foreign – exploited and polluted the land, leaving toxic waste behind for the local people. From the human rights violations and destruction of peoples’ livelihoods caused by mining companies Freeport and Newmont, to the environmental damage by the pulp industry in Sumatra, to a plethora of cases of mercuric materials in drinking reservoirs, corporations have brought evil consequences to Indonesian people.

This excrutiating picture is replicated the world over. John Perkins, in his “Confessions of an Economic Hitman,” described foreign corporations’ agressive pursuit of oil and natural resources in Ecuador, Indonesia and Panama, where extraction plants are built for the benefit of elite groups of foreigners and their mercurial domestic counterparts while wastes and hazards are left behind for the locals.

Joseph Stiglitz, the 2001 Nobel Prize recipient for economic sciences, famously remarked, “Most countries with large (production) of natural resources do more poorly than those without, which is an irony.” The film “Blood Diamond” depicts a related situation in Africa, where exploration for diamonds institutes a civil war, disrupts a nation’s political stability and subjects its people to torment and anguish. One character vividly remarks, “I hope they do not find any more diamonds, otherwise we will start killing each other again.”

Though it may sound treacherous, at some points I almost wish this land were poor – and that may indeed be the wish of many Africans in Sierra Leone. The very inception of economic principles stems from resource scarcity; that is why their core mantra is one advocating efficiency in modes of production.

Imagine if the world provided sufficient natural resources that people could simply pick basic necessities – food, water, housing materials and clothes – from their immediate surroundings. In that scenario, economic principles may not even be needed. There are several caveats to ponder.

First, is it even true that our world does not provide sufficient resources to make this a reality? Is it even the case that resources are scarce, or is it human activity – greed, pure and simple – that makes it so? Humans always want to have what others have, even if they have more. Is it axiomatic that nature cannot naturally reproduce resources that humans have consumed?

Second, assuming that natural resources are scarce by nature, not by human greed, is it morally acceptable to suggest that those who are the most efficient at production get the biggest share of natural resources, while others who are less eficient should live at their mercy?

This is not to suggest that there is no place for economic principles, but they are not without flaws and not without vested interests. I would argue that those deficiencies manifest as the root cause of the torment many developing countries are suffering.

The very idea of insufficiency, or “resource scarcity,” pushes those with so-called “technology and capacity” to take over the management of the world’s resources; the idea of not having enough makes them look elsewhere. Natural resources become the prima donna, and everyone fights over her.

Without the technology and capacity developed countries command, developing countries will always lose in a game of resource management and accumulation. That is why in the fields of oil, gas and mineral exctraction, developing countries rabidly engage in joint venture agreements with foreign corporations from developed countries. The popular myth is that without foreign corporations, developing countries would not be able to extract these resources.

According to economic schemas imported by developed countries, developing countries would not be able to extract those things “efficiently.” In reality, the uneven playing field is exploited by huge corporations that wield mighty bargaining power in their domestic econo-political arrangements – which in Indonesia are called “corruption” and dictate the share division of natural resources and the procedural rules for their extraction.

The practical implications are not only frowned upon, but also suffered by many people in Indonesia. That is the cancer of the irony: people die sitting atop the riches of their lands, not because nature does not provide enough, but purely because of unrestrained human greed.

The Dark Ages return in Aceh

Published in http://www.upiasia.com/Society_Culture/2009/09/30/the_dark_ages_return_in_aceh/9108/

The local House of Representatives in Aceh, Indonesia, has passed a new bill that allows anyone who commits adultery to be stoned to death. Anyone who engages in premarital sexual relations will be whipped 100 times.

This application of Shariah law, the Islamic religious code, goes into effect 30 days after its enactment on Sept. 15, and will apply to everyone within Aceh’s territory irrespective of origin and religion. Prior to this, Aceh had already implemented other Shariah rules, obliging every Muslim to pray five times a day, to offer “sedekah,” or alms to the poor, and every Muslim woman to cover her head with a veil.

Social resistance to this law has been strident across Indonesia, even among Muslims. The same was true during the drafting of an anti-pornography law that went into effect in November last year; many institutions and common people had voiced opposition to it. The anti-pornography law contains various Islamic principles from both the “hadith,” or teachings of the prophets, and the Koran.

This was an example of resistance on a national level to the imposition of certain religious values in Indonesia. Most citizens consider that religious activities fall within the realm of private rights and should not be of concern to the government.

In addition, the imposition of Islamic laws and values discriminates against non-Muslim citizens. There are five major religions in Indonesia – Buddhism, Hinduism, Protestant Christianity, Catholicism and Islam. Even though 80 percent of Indonesians are Muslim, it is unfair to impose their values and beliefs on others.

Many historians and legal scholars have affirmed that the first of the five principles – the Pancasila – that comprise the philosophy of the Indonesian state does not indicate that Indonesia is based on one religion. The first principle states that Indonesia is based on a belief in the one and only God Almighty. Scholars agree that this means Indonesia acknowledges the existence of God and of religions, and affirms its acceptance of different religious beliefs.

Historically, there was a proposal to amend this provision to “a belief in God Almighty and the obligation for Muslims to follow Islamic law.” However, the founding father of Indonesia considered that this text would promote social intolerance and imply that Indonesia was an Islamic state.

Moreover, one member of the drafting committee, Wongsonegoro, rejected these words because it would impose on all Muslims the obligation to follow Islamic law. He considered such an imposition improper, as religion falls within the private realm of each individual.

The new law in Aceh invites much opposition from many parties for many reasons. First, non-Muslims will be bound to comply with this law. Second, not all Muslims agree to such a strict imposition of Shariah law, since many aspects of the law are the result of extensive interpretation of the Koran. Third, the law would apply to all Indonesian citizens who travel to Aceh.

The imposition of Islamic law is not entirely for moral and religious objectives. Historically, the rebel movement in Aceh was triggered by discontent over the central government’s share of local resources. Aceh people considered that the central government was exploiting their natural resources without fair compensation. The special autonomy law was passed for economic purposes, in fact.

The imposition of Shariah law enables local bureaucrats to reap economic benefits from Islamic teachings. For example, one article in the autonomous law of Aceh states that “zakat” – the obligation for Muslims to share some of their wealth, similar to tithing one-tenth of one’s wealth in Christianity – is part of local income. There is certainly economic interest in the new law.

Furthermore, Aceh is not particularly clean of corruption. The Financial Auditing Institution, or Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan, experiences immense difficulty in auditing Aceh due to bureaucratic resistance. In addition, politicians in Aceh can maneuver easily since the Koran serves as a legal instrument. Hence, certain policies can be executed by instilling fear of breaching religious obligations. Religious breaches carry profound social sanctions in Indonesia.

Also, the new law is not legitimate under national law. Indonesia Law No.32/2004 concerning local government regulates that the central government retains authority in six areas, namely foreign policy, defense, security, the judiciary, monetary and national fiscal law, and religion. Since the judiciary remains under central government authority, criminal law is the domain of the central government.

Moreover, Law No. 18/2001 concerning the special autonomy of Aceh also regulates that the Indonesian Supreme Court acts as the supreme institution for appeals. The law does not grant local governments the right to pass criminal legislation. This means the law in Aceh must be governed by national legislation.

The new law in Aceh involves the creation of two separate criminal laws, as well as private law and administrative law, in Indonesia. This is inconsistent with the principles of international law as well as national law.

We have witnessed the unacceptable cruelty in Afghanistan, where a woman can be raped by 10 men if her brother rapes a woman from another tribe; where women are humiliated and stoned to death in public places for committing adultery; where women are deprived of various rights including legal title to property and even freedom of movement. In some parts of the country women may not appear in public unless they are accompanied by a male family member.

This is definitely not what most Indonesian citizens want. Religious belief falls within the realm of private life; the government has no right to force people to comply with religious obligations, especially when it comes to criminal prosecutions and extending Islamic law to non-Muslim citizens.