“Strong” and “Weak” – another perspective
Let’s look at an imbecile philstine, 2009-2010 HKU CS Year 2 smart ass’s saying:
2009-11-11 (9:53 PM) -
Although I am still weak, I believe that I can grow stronger so that I can acheive my goal.
That is what I promise to myself.
Work hard and find the way to my land!
What a childish pledge! I don’t think he really has ever understood what “weak” and “strong” mean.
In chemical equilibrium, no strong acid or strong base can be buffer. This means that weak does not necessarily means “of less use/of below-water proficiency”. Rather, the word “Weak” implies versatility. In MBTI analysis, I have ever said that I am a WEAK ENTJ at judging. By saying so, I am not meaning that my judgment is unsatisfactory, but pointing out that I also have the judging ability beyond typical ENTJ. To be specific, my major judging (rational) psychological function is extraverted thinking (sciences) and introverted feeling (arts), but I am also competent of introveted thinking (social philosophy) and extraverted feeling (value judgment), so I am actually an half ENFJ. The word “weak” right concludes my versatility of conscious processing.
Hence, by saying that “going stronger”, this stupid strong-to-be ISFJ wanna forgo extraverted thinking and introverted feeling, thus being a completely insincere , favoritism, utilitarian and opportunist hypocrite in full swing. Biohazard!
Add comment 十一月 12, 2009
Unveiling pan-philosophical ideologies of ACG Fans (ISFJ/INTP)
Let’s see how ignorant ACG fans play existentialism up:
作者：小澤@ASF@blog
地址：http://www.animesongs.net/blog/read.php/866.htm
版權所有。轉載時必須以鏈接形式註明作者和原始出處及本聲明！謝謝。
[ 2009/11/11 05:14 | by 小澤 ]
思考「存在」其實就是一個很莫明奇妙的課題，一個人「存在」，在這現世的物理法質中，本來就是不証自明的事實。但這種程度的解釋並不能滿足到我。「存在」萬物皆有，若果「存在」僅僅只是宣示在這個時間，這個空間，存在了一個被稱為人的個體，雖然大不敬，但其實人與物無非彼此，僅僅是這個空間的一件存在物，又阻「空間」兼且要消耗燃料。但點解人和死物「存在」會有分別呢？「因為我覺得有分別囉！」我知道，但單憑這點不能成為答案。中學時期讀到存在主義時，驚為天人，學懂可謂「存有」和「存在」的分別，而笛卡身的故思故我在，尼采的超人理論依然深深吸引著我，甚至以為單憑一已之力，不倚他人，便可以尋找自我的獨立性，立於天地而不朽，天真地以為那便是「存在」的全部，現在想起來，似乎是我太過天真了。找尋到「存在」的意義有什麼用？知道「存在」對自己有什麼意義才是問題的核心。我覺得，「存在」對我的意義，是在於確認自我後，在群體中尋找到自己的獨立性，和他人不同，進而尋找到只有自己能做的事情，然後完成之，這就是別人所謂的人生目標吧？！宣示存在，本身就是一種雙向的行為，希望宣示完後會有改變。一塊石仔在沙灘對「我」來說是沒有意義的，但若果「我」拿起這塊石仔，向大海方向拋去之後，海上便出現漣漪的話，因為有「我」介入的舉動，有海的「回應」，然後有漣漪出現的「改變」，這塊石頭變成了器具的一種，對「我」而言就變得有意義了。不過，向一件死物，或者時空，宣示自己的存在，其實有什麼意義呢？它們沒有了你，還是照樣出現在這個世界之中，這時就變成了自說自話一樣。這些疑問，我認為就是存在主義的不足之處，無錯解決了理性上的需要，但還是解決不到人，情感上的需要。其實，探求「存在」無非是希望不會給人忘記。即是咀巴再硬，其實心底裡，也希望有人會記得自己的存在。獨立性，就是希望對方能夠更容易分辨到，你我他的分別，渴望由對方的神情，或者口中說出：「幸好有你在，真的是太好了！」之類，「有被需要」，感覺到重要的感覺。若果沒有獨立性，大家沒有分別，「我」就變得可有可無。而這個「我」不是指我的「我」，而是指你的「我」。講到這裡，心中不由得一笑，原來我所追求的意義，不在自己，是在於他人眼中，「存在」於不同人之間，「你」和「我」之間的那段距離。於是「我」變成了更多個「我」，而且每個亦變得獨一無二了。
Smart ass indeed. The interpretation is not only misleading, but probably no one know what he is referring as Chinese grammars often incur ambiguous meanings due to lack of clear definition of existentialism in the course of Sino-Anglo translation. Let’s focus on the original English from dictionaries:
1. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (5th Edition)
The belief in philosophy that people are responsible for their own actions and experiences, and that the world has no meaning.
2. The new international. Webster’s Standard Dictionary
A philosophy or religion that stresses free will and the responsibility of humanity for its action
3. Collins Cobuild Advanced Dictionary (2009)
A philosophy which stresses the importance of human experiences, and says that everyone is responsible for the results of their own actions.
4. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (7th Edition)
The theory that humans are free and responsible for their own action in a world without meaning
5. Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (3rd Edition)
The modern system of belief made famous by Jean Paul Sartre in the 1940s in which the world has no meaning and each person is alone and completely responsible for their own actions, by which they make their own character
6. Macmillan English Dictionary (2008)
The belief that human beings create their own moral value and are responsible for the results of their own actions
The author (as an insincere, sensational and unreasonable introvert) in quoted article only concentrate the utility of existentialism for his own ego, which is of introverted thinking and thus philistine. He deliberately ignore the key point – morality.
Morality implies interpersonal interactions and, in depth, normative constrains. That is, the pinpoint in existentialism in contemporary world is the grasp of secular (anti-fundamentalist) survival (e.g. How to have a flash video banned in Youtube by the government’s imposing as criminal offense?) with struggles against those defy free will (especially by the conservative), not so-called “Sense of Security/Belonging/Identification” that are of static, private and introverted sensing.
Some argue that existentialism are of pursuit of individualist ideal, which is of wrong concept. Existentialism is NOT individualism! An individualist can live in segregated world, but existentialists need to meet consent with the mainstream ideologies (e.g. Forgoing the identity of ACG Fan by Ojalytician otakus while academizing ideologies of issues on animes). So if you only think that existentialism can help us being independent, that is wrong concept! Even if one has no friend, he still can have interaction in workplace using another identity (not just friendship! Consider what partnership means!) and one cannot avoid communication with others. Note that not all ideals can be instantiated interpersonally (one can enjoy with and self-achieve into his own illusion and daydream without having the ideal noticed by others), so by saying existentialism does endeavor of keeping impression of others by self, the conclusion is very misleading as such a belief means one must require other’s appraisal and identity with oneself, which is contradictory, for the intrinsic value of oneself is not 100% original, i.e. being constructed by others’ will and thus no one’s free will! Simply put, the author of the quoted article has been intoxicated by consumerism of utilitarian hedonist products of MO-E allure. He does only vent his look and feel out without thinking twice, which is imbecile.
What’s more, the selfish quoted article owner ignores derivative of existentialism in contemporary ideologies that involves demand for satisfying emotional needs, say:
1. Egalitarianism (Postmodern sociological ideology):
Ones perform social movement with others – without counting intimacy – for public wealth
2. Liberal Feminism
Ones perform cultural studies on masculinity to seek one’s own public schema
3. Epistemology of Idealism
One peform free hypothesis testing to depict one’s schema and experience well.
Ojalytician otakus exist because they are secular empiricists like what Confucius has done.
So in a word, be aware of pan-philosophical quacks as ACG fans, which are not worth trusting.
Add comment 十一月 12, 2009
