Book Read: Tuesdays with Morrie by Mitch Albom
I have learnt many lesons from reading this book. No doubt it may look like a simple book, being very thin, but it has taught me, and it will teach you, many things about the way we should perceive life and how we should be living our lives. We have now the pleasure of reading the teachings of Mitch's teacher, Morrie Schwartz, despite his illness. Just for you to know, Morrie suffers from Amyotropic lateral sclerosis (ALS), the same disease that Stephen Hawking suffers from and this story is a true story.
This book covers a great many topics, but I will cover those which I think are relevant and those which have impacted me in some way.
I would focus on feeling sorry for yourself, regrets, family, emotions, money and forgiveness.
On feeling sorry for yourself, in the book, Mitch asked Morrie if he felt sorry for himself, having an incurable disease that would kill him very soon. Morrie's reply was, "Sometimes in the mornings, that's when I mourn. I feel around my body, I move my fingers and my hands-whatever I can still move-and mourn what I've lost. But then I concentrate on all the good things still in my life. On all the people who are coming to see me. On all the stories I'm going to hear. " Then he goes on to say, "I don't allow myself any more self-pity than that. A little each morning, a few tears, and that's all. " What I learnt from this is that we should not dwell in self-pity, looking at ourselves and thinking, "Look at me now, I don't have this, I don't have that." That isn't the right way to think. Instead, we should look more at the good things we still have in life, the people around us, our family, our friends.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
How do you know who your friends are?
The answer to this question depends on when this question is asked and how well the person being asked knows his friends.
For example, if you were to ask a 4-year old child this question, a possible response would be, "Those who play with me are my friends". But if you were to ask an adult this question, his or her reply might even be to ask you which friend you are referring to.
Thus it is only good that we treat all our friends equally at first, and not go with who we feel, and completely sure, is a good person. Instead we should observe their behaviour, their mannerism. Only after we have done that can we be more sure of who our friends are.
Many people, due to crimes of theft, end up in trouble. But what is the cause of all this trouble? It is, in some cases, due to the fact that they did not assess their friends and ended up in bad company. Following that they are coerced to join them in various offences and when they finally get into trouble, the ones who run first are he ones they called friends in the beginning. After that you see them in jail regretting their actions and their choice of friends.
To conclude, isn't it better to first judge your friends and know who your real friends are, rather than get into trouble later. After all, friends are the most important people after family.
For example, if you were to ask a 4-year old child this question, a possible response would be, "Those who play with me are my friends". But if you were to ask an adult this question, his or her reply might even be to ask you which friend you are referring to.
Thus it is only good that we treat all our friends equally at first, and not go with who we feel, and completely sure, is a good person. Instead we should observe their behaviour, their mannerism. Only after we have done that can we be more sure of who our friends are.
Many people, due to crimes of theft, end up in trouble. But what is the cause of all this trouble? It is, in some cases, due to the fact that they did not assess their friends and ended up in bad company. Following that they are coerced to join them in various offences and when they finally get into trouble, the ones who run first are he ones they called friends in the beginning. After that you see them in jail regretting their actions and their choice of friends.
To conclude, isn't it better to first judge your friends and know who your real friends are, rather than get into trouble later. After all, friends are the most important people after family.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Is it your duty to give to charity?
By definition, in the United States, charity, or a charitable organisation is an organisation that is organised and operated for purposes that are beneficial to the public interest. And duty the moral commitment that results in action, and it is not a matter of passive feeling or mere recognition. When someone recognises a duty, that person commits himself or herself to the cause involved without considering the self-interested courses of actions that may have been relevant previously. This is not to suggest that living a life of duty precludes one from the best sort of life, but duty does involve some sacrifice of immediate self-interest.
So if it is our duty to give to charity, it means that we recognise that we have to give to whatever organisation because we have made a commitment. But when we give to charity, does it involve some sarifice of self-interest? No, it does not, and surely giving some money for a worthy cause cannot be a sacrifice of self-interest.
Therefore, it cannot be our duty to give to charity. Instead, I would say that it is very good that one gives to charity as that money may have helped some child pay his or her medical or school fees, or may have helped an elderly person find his or her next meal. Whatever it is, that money of yours is not wasted.
However, giving to charity is not duty as we give to charity out of our own free will. If someone from an organisation approaches us and askes for a donation, if we choose to donate, that is good, definitely, but if we do not, that does not mean we are bad either. The decision to give is made solely by ourselves. Do not get me wrong, I am not against charity but if it is our duty to give, everytime a person approaches us for a donation, we MUST give, if not, we would be perceived as bad or irresponsible people as we did not do our duty, and that cannot be the case.
So if it is our duty to give to charity, it means that we recognise that we have to give to whatever organisation because we have made a commitment. But when we give to charity, does it involve some sarifice of self-interest? No, it does not, and surely giving some money for a worthy cause cannot be a sacrifice of self-interest.
Therefore, it cannot be our duty to give to charity. Instead, I would say that it is very good that one gives to charity as that money may have helped some child pay his or her medical or school fees, or may have helped an elderly person find his or her next meal. Whatever it is, that money of yours is not wasted.
However, giving to charity is not duty as we give to charity out of our own free will. If someone from an organisation approaches us and askes for a donation, if we choose to donate, that is good, definitely, but if we do not, that does not mean we are bad either. The decision to give is made solely by ourselves. Do not get me wrong, I am not against charity but if it is our duty to give, everytime a person approaches us for a donation, we MUST give, if not, we would be perceived as bad or irresponsible people as we did not do our duty, and that cannot be the case.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is the most significant version of consequentialism, which is the view that actions should be judged right or wrong in the light of their consequences. As Leon Trotsky once said, "The end may justify the means so long as there is something that justifies the end."
First, let us highlight the difference betwen 2 terms similar to that of utilitarianism. Consequentialism and deontology. The difference is in terms of ends and means. A consequentialist would say that the question of whether an action is right or wrong should be determined purely on its consequences, which would mean that a consequentialist, in choosing various available courses of action, will merely weigh up the good and bad consequences in each case and make their decisions based on that.
Deontology, however, would see actions as not only means to the end but as wrong or right in themselves. In other words, when faced with a situation, the deontologist would consider whether the action is right or wrong and if it is wrong, he or she would not do it regardless of how many good consequences it can have.
Take this case for example, for instace, (acknowledgements to 50 Philosophy ideas you really need to know): The balloon was now falling faster towards he sea, and Mr Quelch could clearly see the many fins of the assembled diners cutting menacingly through the water. Mr Quelch knew that in the next 2 minutes the 7 of them would be shark bait if they didn't do something fast. They had thrown everything overboard nothing was left except himself and the 6 others. Then, suddenly, it was perfectly clear that a certain Mr Bunter, who was of considerable bulk, was all it took to save them...
So from this example we can see that Mr Quelch has 2 options: Throw Mr Bunter overboard and save the rest of the crew, or keep him on board and let everyone be eaten.
What, in this instance, would the conseqentialist and deontologist say? The consequentialist would most likely judge that the good outcome in terms of innocent lives saved is justification for the taking of one life. On the other hand, the deontologist would rule that the killing of innocent people is definitely wrong, therefore the jettisoning of Mr Bunter would be wrong and so cannot be justified by any good consequences it is supposed to have.
The best known consequentialist theory would be that of utiitarianism and the most influential deontological system would be the system developed by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Please comment.
First, let us highlight the difference betwen 2 terms similar to that of utilitarianism. Consequentialism and deontology. The difference is in terms of ends and means. A consequentialist would say that the question of whether an action is right or wrong should be determined purely on its consequences, which would mean that a consequentialist, in choosing various available courses of action, will merely weigh up the good and bad consequences in each case and make their decisions based on that.
Deontology, however, would see actions as not only means to the end but as wrong or right in themselves. In other words, when faced with a situation, the deontologist would consider whether the action is right or wrong and if it is wrong, he or she would not do it regardless of how many good consequences it can have.
Take this case for example, for instace, (acknowledgements to 50 Philosophy ideas you really need to know): The balloon was now falling faster towards he sea, and Mr Quelch could clearly see the many fins of the assembled diners cutting menacingly through the water. Mr Quelch knew that in the next 2 minutes the 7 of them would be shark bait if they didn't do something fast. They had thrown everything overboard nothing was left except himself and the 6 others. Then, suddenly, it was perfectly clear that a certain Mr Bunter, who was of considerable bulk, was all it took to save them...
So from this example we can see that Mr Quelch has 2 options: Throw Mr Bunter overboard and save the rest of the crew, or keep him on board and let everyone be eaten.
What, in this instance, would the conseqentialist and deontologist say? The consequentialist would most likely judge that the good outcome in terms of innocent lives saved is justification for the taking of one life. On the other hand, the deontologist would rule that the killing of innocent people is definitely wrong, therefore the jettisoning of Mr Bunter would be wrong and so cannot be justified by any good consequences it is supposed to have.
The best known consequentialist theory would be that of utiitarianism and the most influential deontological system would be the system developed by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Please comment.
What is happiness?
Happiness can be described as a feeling of joy when one is enjoying himself or generally, when one is doing something he or she likes to do.
But what really is happiness and how do we attain it? Most people have the misconception that once one who has the most material things is the happiest person, and they too, work hard to get whatever things they think can make them happy. Let us find out then, how long this short-term happiness can last them. Perhaps it can only satisfy them, or make them happy at the point at which they buy that item, or until it is out of fashion, or at the most the minute it has lost its use, the person loses interest and is at it again, searching for the next thing, and the cycle can only keep continuing, over and over again.
True happiness is, to me, is when a person realises and can know that he has many good friends and family around him or her, and is sure that in times of trouble or need, there is somone out there who can stand with that person and they can face whatever setback together. Such things cannot be worked for, or bought. And even though this person has very little in terms of possessions, but has all that was stated above, this person is the richest and happiest person in the world. On the contrary, one who has status, money, and land, but deep inside him or her, the person is lonely with no friends or family, and enters their empty mansion everyday after work with no one and nothing to talk about except for how to make money, on this project and that proposal, how then, can this person be happy, even with himself for that matter?
What do I suggest then? Care not so much as to who has what thing, constantly comparing material goods with one another, rather, focus on building up good relations with those who are unfamilliar to you, and strengthen the bonds with those who are already friends with you, and maybe one day they will come to aid you wjen you most needit, and you could be the one to return that favour...
But what really is happiness and how do we attain it? Most people have the misconception that once one who has the most material things is the happiest person, and they too, work hard to get whatever things they think can make them happy. Let us find out then, how long this short-term happiness can last them. Perhaps it can only satisfy them, or make them happy at the point at which they buy that item, or until it is out of fashion, or at the most the minute it has lost its use, the person loses interest and is at it again, searching for the next thing, and the cycle can only keep continuing, over and over again.
True happiness is, to me, is when a person realises and can know that he has many good friends and family around him or her, and is sure that in times of trouble or need, there is somone out there who can stand with that person and they can face whatever setback together. Such things cannot be worked for, or bought. And even though this person has very little in terms of possessions, but has all that was stated above, this person is the richest and happiest person in the world. On the contrary, one who has status, money, and land, but deep inside him or her, the person is lonely with no friends or family, and enters their empty mansion everyday after work with no one and nothing to talk about except for how to make money, on this project and that proposal, how then, can this person be happy, even with himself for that matter?
What do I suggest then? Care not so much as to who has what thing, constantly comparing material goods with one another, rather, focus on building up good relations with those who are unfamilliar to you, and strengthen the bonds with those who are already friends with you, and maybe one day they will come to aid you wjen you most needit, and you could be the one to return that favour...
Monday, May 25, 2009
My First Semester
Looking back on my first semester in an good school in Singapore, I found that secondary school life wasn't as scary as I first imagined it would be.
Basically, to be honest, not many things happened to me. Fortunately enough, the few things that happened were positive and not negative. Most importantly, I managed to appeal out of track and field, not that I did not like it, but I had preferred a more musical CCA, being string orchestra where I play the cello. To my surprise (not being boastful), I was given the task of s1 leader within my first few sessions there and it is indeed an enjoyable experience, being able to play in an orchestra. Sadly, although the orchestra worked really hard, it is unfortunate that we only got a silver at the SYF. Nevertheless, this does not serve as a dampener to our spirits but instead pushes us to strive for better results in the next 2 years.
Teachers here are caring and they teach, which is important. They put in time to prepare the lesson and they are definitely more understanding and resonable.
What negative things happened? Well... Manchester United won the EPL again and being a Liverpool fan... How horrible could that have been? Other than that, everything has been fun and it is indeed a very different experinence from that of primary school life.
My plans for the coming semester and beyond?
1. Try to get MSG 2.5 or below for the end of year results.
2. Try to get cello grade 5 by the end of next year.
3. Read more literature texts.
4. Try to get as many ACE points as possible
And for everyone who has a PSP, do try to buy or download DJ Max Portable or Black Square. Its fun! =)
Basically, to be honest, not many things happened to me. Fortunately enough, the few things that happened were positive and not negative. Most importantly, I managed to appeal out of track and field, not that I did not like it, but I had preferred a more musical CCA, being string orchestra where I play the cello. To my surprise (not being boastful), I was given the task of s1 leader within my first few sessions there and it is indeed an enjoyable experience, being able to play in an orchestra. Sadly, although the orchestra worked really hard, it is unfortunate that we only got a silver at the SYF. Nevertheless, this does not serve as a dampener to our spirits but instead pushes us to strive for better results in the next 2 years.
Teachers here are caring and they teach, which is important. They put in time to prepare the lesson and they are definitely more understanding and resonable.
What negative things happened? Well... Manchester United won the EPL again and being a Liverpool fan... How horrible could that have been? Other than that, everything has been fun and it is indeed a very different experinence from that of primary school life.
My plans for the coming semester and beyond?
1. Try to get MSG 2.5 or below for the end of year results.
2. Try to get cello grade 5 by the end of next year.
3. Read more literature texts.
4. Try to get as many ACE points as possible
And for everyone who has a PSP, do try to buy or download DJ Max Portable or Black Square. Its fun! =)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
