Feeds:
Pos
Komentar

Archive for the ‘Current Events’ Category

Berita ini saya dapat tadi malam, ketika mengunjungi situs mobile Goal.com lewat HP. Ceritanya tentang seorang pemain tertentu asal Portugal yang baru mendapat penghargaan Ballon d’Or.

Waktu itu, saya cuma tertawa miris sambil berkata dalam hati: “Ya ampun CrisRon…” XD


Ronaldo: I Am Like Hercules!

 
What’s the difference between Cristiano Ronaldo and Hercules? Not a lot, according to the wing-wizard…

Everything’s coming up Cristiano Ronaldo, it would appear. The Portuguese winger-cum-striker has been awarded with the Ballon d’Or over the last week and reports suggest that he’ll soon be earning £150,000-per-week as Manchester United try to shackle him with a new deal.

Clearly feeling invincible -and somewhat infallible – the 23-year-old is quoted as saying by The People: “I accept people’s criticism, but I don’t share their opinions.

“Even the strongest men in the world – including legends such as Hercules – fall over at times.

“I am part of this group. Players with superior skills are more prone to be fouled.”

However, it’s hard to imagine such a gargantuan figure as mythical Greek hero Hercules being so injury prone as the flamboyant United winger.

In fact, Ronaldo limped out of the Red Devils’ eventual 1-0 victory over Sunderland on Saturday, with even boss Sir Alex Ferguson bemused by his ‘self-substitution’, which was prompted by a hip injury.

Thus, with the Aalborg game virtually meaningless and Tottenham Hotspur awaiting at the weekend, Fergie is set to leave the crocked star out of his European side, admitting that he’ll “freshen it up”.

Still, if you want to be in the same bracket as ol’ Herc – a strongman and adventurer of some standing – you have to be able to take a couple of knocks.

 
(cetak tebal dari saya)

 
Oke, kita semua tahu Ronaldo itu pemain besar. Bakatnya pun tak diragukan. Tapi, bicara seperti itu?

 
Wait. Wait. Come on now. WHAT THE FUCK??? 😯 😯 😯
 

Bertobatlah, CrisRon!! Mumpung ruh masih bersemayam dalam dada™!! 😮

Read Full Post »

Sekadar pengumuman… tak perlu dikomentari. Sekaligus juga berperan sebagai update log untuk saya. 😛

Seminggu terakhir ini, saya mengerjakan update untuk tulisan “Beberapa FAQ tentang Evolusi“. Sebanyak delapan pertanyaan baru (beserta tanggapannya) sudah saya post-kan di tulisan ybs.

Saya juga menambahkan kelompok baru di FAQ tersebut, yakni seksi III – Kesalahan Argumen terkait Adaptasi, Mutasi, dan Spesiasi. Sehingga FAQ tersebut kini memiliki pembagian sbb.:

I. Tentang Definisi dan Konsep “Teori”
(3 pertanyaan)

II. Kesalahan Argumen terkait Ancestry
(4 pertanyaan)

III. Kesalahan Argumen terkait Adaptasi, Mutasi, dan Spesiasi
(6 pertanyaan)

IV. Kesalahan Argumen terkait Aspek Filosofis dan Sosial dari Evolusi
(5 pertanyaan)

V. Famous Last Words
(1 pertanyaan)

 

Total: 19 pertanyaan

Topik baru yang ditambahkan:

  • Tentang minimnya fosil peralihan
  • Tentang salah kaprah Teori Lamarck sebagai Teori Darwin
  • Tentang mekanisme evolusi pasca-Darwin
  • Tentang mutasi yang (katanya) tidak pernah menguntungkan
  • Tentang keberlangsungan makroevolusi
  • Tentang pembentukan keragaman secara acak
  • Tentang tidak adanya hewan campuran/setengah spesies A dan B
  • Tentang Manusia Piltdown dan Nebraska
  • Tentunya halaman tersebut masih akan di-update. :mrgreen:

    Saya juga membuka diri pada koreksi dan masukan apabila ada di antara pembaca yang berkompeten. Umpan balik bisa disampaikan lewat komentar di halaman FAQ yang bersangkutan.

    Atas perhatiannya saya ucapkan terima kasih.

    onion-rei

    Read Full Post »

    Okay, You Win.

    Mas Fertob berkata,

    Dan mohon diperbanyak tulisan tentang Mekanika Kuantum. Maklum, basic saya bukan Fisika. Dulu waktu UMPTN pernah diterima di Teknik Kimia ITB tapi nggak saya ambil, dan malah lari ke Psikologi. 😆

    Saat itu saya menjawab:

    Lima dulu lah. Mungkin kapan2 saya nulis soal fisika lagi, tapi nanti dulu. Ini aja udah mabok. XD

    Tapi. Meskipun begitu.

    Tiga hari yang lalu, ketika sedang mengerjakan tulisan bagian #4, saya menemukan bahwa word count saya sudah mencapai:

     

    3286

     

    …ketika sedang menulis seksi

     

    #4.2

     

    …dengan rencana subbab terakhir bernomor

     

    #4.6

     

    *OMGWTFBBQLOLRUSRSLYDOINTHAT* xD

     

    Maka, saat itu juga saya putuskan: bahwa saya akan memperbanyak jumlah tulisan tentang QM sebagaimana di-request oleh beliau. :mrgreen:

    Yah, begitulah adanya. Saya yakin tidak ada di antara pembaca yang mau membaca tulisan di blog dengan word-count mencapai 8000, dan saya yakin beberapa diantara pembaca juga sudah merasa bahwa tulisan bagian #3 agak terlalu panjang. 😆 Oleh karena itu, saya memutuskan untuk membagi tulisan QM bab #4 menjadi beberapa post terpisah.

    Bagian 4.1. — QM dan Filsafat Determinisme

    Sudah saya rilis tepat sebelum postingan ini. Silakan dinikmati. 😉

    Bagian 4.2. — Memandang Kenyataan: Filsafat Para Ilmuwan

    Juga sudah saya rilis sebelum postingan ini. Lagi-lagi, silakan dinikmati. 😀

    Sedangkan sisanya, dengan berat hati terpaksa menunggu di harddisk laptop saya. Adapun outline dari keseluruhan bab #4 sudah saya upload dalam bentuk [file .doc] — bisa Anda baca jika berminat.

    (tadinya mau saya upload pakai txt, tapi ternyata nggak boleh. ya sudahlah akhirnya pakai .doc =_=! )

    ***

    Dengan demikian, struktur baru rangkaian tulisan QM adalah seperti berikut ini.

      1 – Quantum Philosophy: The Menacing Concepts

      2 – Paradoks dan Keruntuhan Superposisi

      3 – Beberapa Interpretasi Mainstream

      4 – Singgungan dengan Dunia Filsafat

      — a) QM dan Filsafat Determinisme

      — b) Memandang Kenyataan: Filsafat Para Ilmuwan

      — c) Adakah Kehendak Bebas?

      — d) Teater Kuantum: Pengamat, Pemain, dan Sudut Pandang

      5 – Kesimpulan Akhir dan Rangkuman

    Bisa Anda lihat bahwa seri tulisan QM sekarang diproyeksikan berjumlah delapan (empat bagian + empat subbagian dari tulisan #4). Jadi, untuk Anda yang mengharapkan tulisan QM diperbanyak… well, you accidentally get what you want. Cheers. ^^b

     

     

    ——

    Ps:

    Off the record set. Tahukah Anda? Ternyata dua post yang dirilis sebelumnya memiliki word count sebanyak: 2841 dan 6309 (yang terakhir ini kalau semua halamannya dijumlahkan). Now it gets frightening… ^^;;

    Apa enaknya saya ikut NaNoWriMo aja, ya? 😛

    Read Full Post »

    *rehat dulu dari seri postingan mekanika kuantum*

     

     
    Belakangan ini, saya jadi ingat pada sebuah post di blognya Pak Enda.

     
    “Tapi ya silahkan saja untuk dicoba”, tambah MEREKA, “kami tidak pernah menghalangi siapapun untuk menyebrang dan hidup di alam maya, kami cuma mengharap agar kamu dapat cerdas dan bisa beradaptasi dengan baik, berperilaku sesuai normal, kebiasaan yang sudah berlaku disini.”

    “Kata orang bijak, masuk kandang kambing mengembik masuk kandang harimau mengaum.” MEREKA berperibahasa. “Dimana bumi dipijak, disitu langit dijunjung”

    […]

    Alam kasar dan ALAM MAYA pun kadang bersinggungan. Kadang-kadang penduduknya bisa ketemu, dan itu biasanya menimbulkan kengerian.

    Beginilah jadinya kalau orang tidak siap berhadapan dengan internet. Datang-datang langsung main ad hominem, fallacy, dan trolling. Belum tahu dia kalau ini ranah publik yang punya etika. 😆

    Satu lagi:

    […] gw baru saja liat blog teman2 segenggongblogmu yang ternyata semua sama saja dengan engkau, mikir cuma di permukaan dan tidak mencoba untuk ke dasarnya. bagusnya mereka tidak seagresif dirimu. dan gw perhatikan tuhan kalian itu wikipedia yak. bagus sekali, itu memang tuhan yg selalu up to date.

     
    [sumber]

    Generalisasi apa ini? Mempertuhankan Wikipedia? Saya kan temannya Si Lemon di WordPress Indonesia; otomatis saya juga kena, dong. 😕

    Kalau iya… makan tuh referensi. :mrgreen:

     

    ~can’t help
    ~but feeling amused 😆

    ***

    Begini, bukannya saya peduli Si Lemon itu siapa, berbuat apa, dan mau diapain. Itu urusan kalian. Permintaan saya cuma satu:

    Mbok ya kalau bertingkah di blogosphere itu yang dewasa. Jangan menyerang kepribadian, apalagi generalisasi gak jelas. Ditambah lagi hate-speech-nya sampai merambat ke blog orang lain (here, here). Paling tidak, tunjukkanlah kesan yang relatif baik dan bersahabat. 😐

    You’re disrupting the peace here. ‘Nuff said.

     

    ———

    Baca juga:

      The Core Rules of Netiquette
      — Tentang etika di internet

    last updated at: Sept 19, 2008. 11:56 am

    Read Full Post »


    Catatan:

    Post ini khusus membahas berbagai partikel end-sentence dalam bahasa Jepang.

    Post-post lain tentang bahasa Jepang di blog ini bisa Anda temukan di halaman direktori nihongo.

     

    Dalam Bahasa Jepang, terdapat sekelompok partikel yang umum diletakkan di bagian akhir kalimat (sentence final particle). Partikel-partikel ini umumnya berfungsi untuk menjelaskan konteks dari kalimat awalnya — apakah itu untuk bertanya, menegaskan opini, melakukan persuasi, ataupun lain sebagainya.

    Saa, hajimemashou… ^^

     

     
    1. Partikel “ka”

     
    Partikel “ka” berfungsi untuk membentuk kalimat tanya. Partikel ini bisa dibilang cukup ‘sakti’ — kalimat berita apapun, apabila ditambahkan partikel ini di akhir kalimatnya, akan seketika berubah menjadi kalimat tanya.

    Contoh:

    Asli:

    [JAP] C-san wa AMERIKA-jin desu.
    [JAP] C-さん は アメリカ人 です。

    [INA] Tuan C (adalah) orang Amerika.

     
    + ka
     

    [JAP] C-san wa AMERIKA-jin desu ka ?
    [JAP] C-さん は アメリカ人 です か?

    [INA] Apakah Tuan C orang Amerika?

    Di sini partikel “ka” berperan sebagai question mark. Apabila suatu kalimat diakhiri dengan “ka”, maka kalimat itu pastilah kalimat tanya! 😀

    Asli:

    [JAP] Yoshi-kun wa koko ni imasu.
    [JAP] ヨシくんはここにいます。

    [INA] Yoshi-kun ada di sini.

     
    + ka
     

    [JAP] Yoshi-kun wa koko ni imasu ka ?
    [JAP] ヨシくんはここにいますか?

    [INA] Apakah Yoshi-kun ada di sini?

     

    2. Partikel “yo”

     
    Partikel “yo” berfungsi untuk memberi penegasan dalam kalimat. Pada umumnya, partikel ini digunakan ketika menyampaikan ide/pendapat/opini yang cenderung subyektif; meskipun begitu bisa juga dipakai untuk menekankan kebenaran dari informasi yang disampaikan.

    Adapun contoh penggunaannya adalah sebagai berikut:

    [JAP] Ano ko wa kawaii desu yo.
    [JAP] あの子は可愛いですよ。

    -> “ano ko” (あの子) = “anak itu”
    -> “kawaii” (可愛い) = “lucu” / “imut-imut”

    [INA] Menurut saya, anak itu lucu.

    (menyampaikan opini)

    Contoh lain:

    [JAP] Omae o matteru, yo.
    [JAP] 御前を待ってるよ。

    -> “omae” (御前) = “kamu” (informal)
    -> “matteru” (待ってる) = “tunggu”

    [INA] Kamu sedang ditunggu, lho.

    (menekankan berita)

    Intinya, partikel “yo” adalah yang dibutuhkan jika kita hendak menegaskan sesuatu hal. Sebagai perbandingan: dalam bahasa Inggris fungsi ini biasanya diwakili oleh frase “…you know” atau “…so I think” di akhir kalimat. ^^

     

    3. Partikel “ne”

     
    Yang ini berfungsi sebagai pemberi kesan halus/persuasi dalam berbicara. Meskipun demikian, “ne” juga memiliki kegunaan lain — yakni memunculkan pertanyaan balik di akhir kalimat (question tag).

    Misalnya, untuk penggunaan yang pertama,

    [JAP] Ashita kara, kore wa kimi no gakkou da, ne?
    [JAP] 明日からこれは君の学校だ、ね?

    -> “ashita kara” (明日 から) = “mulai besok”
    -> “gakkou” (学校) = “sekolah”

    [INA] Mulai besok, ini sekolahmu yang baru. OK?

    (melakukan persuasi)

    [JAP] Sono kimochi ga wakaru; dakara, kinishinaide. Ne?
    [JAP] その気持ちがわかる、だから、気にしないで。ね?

    -> “kimochi” (気持ち) = “perasaan”
    -> “dakara” (だから) = “karena itu” / “oleh karena itu”
    -> “kinishinaide” (気にしないで) = “jangan khawatir”

    [INA] (Saya) mengerti perasaanmu; oleh karena itu, jangan khawatir. Ya?

    (melakukan persuasi)

    Sedangkan untuk penggunaan yang kedua,

    [JAP] Kyou wa Sanae-san ga kirei desu, ne?
    [JAP] 今日はサナエさんがきれいですね?

    -> “kyou” (今日) = “hari ini”
    -> “kirei (きれい) = “cantik”

    [INA] Hari ini, Nona Sanae terlihat cantik, bukan?

    (menanyakan pendapat lawan bicara)

    [JAP] Hachigatsu no yuki ga aru no? Kiseki da ne?
    [JAP] 八月の雪があるの? 奇跡だね?

    -> “hachigatsu” (八月) = “bulan Agustus”
    -> “yuki” (雪) = “salju”
    -> “kiseki” (奇跡) = “keajaiban” / “mukjizat”

    [INA] Ada salju di bulan Agustus? Itu pasti mukjizat, bukan?

    (menanyakan pendapat lawan bicara)

    ***

     

    Variasi Penggunaan dalam Kalimat

     
    Dalam penggunaan sehari-hari, terkadang ada beberapa varian partikel end sentence yang diturunkan dari tiga partikel di atas. Umumnya perubahan ini terjadi karena nuansa informal yang ingin dihadirkan; e.g. ketika Anda sedang berbicara dengan teman atau keluarga.

    Beberapa variasi yang terjadi, antara lain:

    1. ne menjadi na~
    2. “Na~” — dengan ‘a’ panjang; berbeda dengan partikel “na” — memiliki manfaat yang sama persis dengan “ne”. Meskipun demikian, kesan yang ditimbulkannya sangat informal dan berkesan “setengah hati”.

      Kesan ini lebih tampak dalam penerjemahan sebagai berikut:

      [JAP] Aitsu wa okotteirunda. Taihen, da na~
      [JAP] あいつは怒っているんだ。 大変 だな。。。

      [INA] Dia sedang marah. Susah juga yaa

      [JAP] Hai, hai, wakatteiru. Warui na~
      [JAP] はい、はい、分かっている。 悪いな。。。

      [INA] Ya, ya, saya mengerti. Maaf deh

    3. yo menjadi zo
    4. Yang ini biasanya diucapkan oleh pria; kesannya cenderung informal dan berpretensi kasar.

      [JAP] Ano “MATRIX” no eiga wa kakkoii da zo.
      [JAP] あの “MATRIX” の映画は格好いいだぞ。

      [INA] Film “MATRIX” yang itu keren, lho.

      [JAP] Aa, Rika-chan da! Kawaii zo!
      [JAP] ああ、リカちゃん だ! 可愛いぞ!

      [INA] Ah, itu Rika-chan. Dia lucu sekali!

    5. ne di awal kalimat
    6. Yang ini agak berbeda dengan pokok bahasan kita tentang partikel end-sentence, sebab partikelnya sendiri justru diletakkan di awal kalimat. Meskipun demikian, saya rasa ada baiknya bila sekalian dijelaskan di sini. (o_0)”\

      Dalam penggunaan ini, partikel “ne” digunakan untuk memanggil orang yang sedang diajak bicara. Konsepnya kurang lebih sama dengan kata “hei” dalam bahasa Indonesia:

      [JAP] Ne, chotto matte yo!
      [JAP] ね、 一寸待てよ!

      [INA] Hei, tunggu sebentar!

    7. Question mark dengan kai
    8. Bentuk yang lebih lembut untuk bertanya dibandingkan “ka”, digunakan oleh pria. Kalau Anda pernah mendengar lagu “Konayuki” dari Remioromen, Anda bisa mendengar penggunaan question mark model ini di dalamnya. ^^

      [JAP] Sore ga dekita no kai?
      [JAP] それが出来たのかい?

      [INA] Bisakah seperti itu?

     

    Catatan Khusus:
    Kalimat Tanya tanpa Question Mark

     
    Walaupun secara default kalimat tanya dalam bahasa Jepang memerlukan partikel “ka”, terdapat satu kondisi di mana Anda tak perlu memanfaatkannya sama sekali. Meskipun demikian, sebagai gantinya, Anda harus memberikan intonasi yang tepat untuk mengesankan pertanyaan Anda.

    Dalam bahasa Jepang, intonasi yang ‘tepat’ ini dimunculkan dengan memberi penekanan pada suku bunyi terakhir dalam kalimat.

    Contoh:

    [JAP] Sonna koto iwanaide! Otoko da yo!?
    [JAP] そんな事言わないで! 男 だよ!?
    [INA] Jangan bicara seperti itu! Kamu laki-laki, kan!?

    (bagian “yo” diucapkan agak tinggi dan memanjang)

    [JAP] Okane ga arimasu?
    [JAP] お金があります?

    [INA] Apakah kamu ada uang?

    (bagian “su” diucapkan agak tinggi dan memanjang)

    Hal yang sama berlaku jika kita hendak mengajukan pertanyaan singkat dan sekedarnya, e.g.:

    [JAP] Hitori?
    [JAP] 独り?

    [INA] (Anda) sendirian?

    (bagian “ri” diucapkan agak tinggi dan memanjang)

    [JAP] Shitteru?
    [JAP] 知ってる?

    [INA] (Anda) sudah tahu?

    (bagian “ru” diucapkan agak tinggi dan memanjang)

    Tentunya harus dicatat bahwa penggunaan di atas itu cenderung crippled secara gramatikal, dan tidak untuk digunakan dalam pembicaraan resmi. Walaupun masih efektif jika dipakai untuk keseharian saja.

    ***

    Yah, dan kurang lebih demikianlah pembahasan untuk bagian 6 kali ini. Bagian selanjutnya akan membahas tentang tenses dan bentuk kata dalam kalimat; dengan beberapa catatan khusus yang bisa Anda baca di bagian bawah post ini.

    Sekian, terima kasih. 🙂

     

     
    [bersambung ke bagian 7]

     
    ——

    Ps:

    Sehubungan dengan sudah tercakupnya bahasan tentang partikel pembentuk keterangan (tulisan 1 s.d. 5), maka saya akan mulai membahas tentang infleksi/perubahan bentuk kata dan tenses di post berikutnya.

    Partikel-partikel yang belum dijelaskan akan saya tambahkan secara stand-alone di masa depan, seperti post sebelumnya tentang pronomina yang ini dan ini.

    Read Full Post »

    Going back a few days, the idea of writing this post is triggered by some discussion happening in Geddoe’s recent post, in which he talked about a Shakespearean notion of “good” and “bad”:


    “Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

    While the idea about illusion of “good” or “bad” has been on the spotlight of discussion (attended by me, him, and mas gentole amongst other), the topic then slided on how value on things shall be determined. A topic which, in turn, led to each of us talking about our own idea of valuing “good” and “bad”.

    Of course this, like many philosophy-themed discussions in coffee-shops, shall run free in the naturally-vast discourse: human ethics, mankind in general, and possibility of a universal moral conduct, if any. The discussion itself was quite lively (IMO) — however, due to the nature of statement-based reply discussion[1], and attempt of guarding against being OOT ( 😛 ), I feel that some of my idea wasn’t conveyed as well as intended; thus may be confusing to follow in some parts.

    So, without further ado, I decided to write down my own view about it in this personal blog, in order to give a big picture of all my previous comments. Here goes…


    Note:

    For background information: My theological stance is, presently, agnosticism. That said, I don’t consider supernatural-based morality conduct (i.e. religions and holy scripture) as prime components in defining my view on ethics.

    Also note that any discourse concerning afterlife, heaven, hell, purgatory, and such is not of any interest — and deemed irrelevant — in this post.

    ***

     

    Part I – Defining Value

     

     
    1. On Agnosticism

     

    As an agnostic, I have been aware of metaphysical ideas’ being unverifiable, unfalsifiable, and imperceivable — at least, not in this world. Among those ideas are religions, holy scriptures, religious teachings, and even the God himself.

    I don’t want to go into lengthy explanation about God-or-not — that’s not my focus this time — and you can read [this post] if you want to understand. What I want to say is that I have casted doubt upon absolute truth in unverifiable claims of God and afterlife.

    To rely on unverifiable things’ existence to value things, for me, doesn’t seem favorable. That’s why I narrowed the scope of defining values only into worldly aspect.

    One thing to note, however: I am not against God and religion, as you may find out in my posts and comments here and here. How I see God is like seeing Schrodinger’s Cat: it is both possible that He exists or not — something like that. I am not enforcing that anyone must or must not believe in Him; it’s due to personal matter and subjective consideration anyway.

    Quoting Asimov,

    “I prefer rationalism to atheism. The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism, thus you don’t have to waste your time in either attacking or defending.”

     

    ……

     

    2. On Value

     

    Back to the topic. Then, if not for God and religion’s sake, what do we do? How can we define what is “good” and “bad” in this world?

    Now, I’m going to describe few keys of importance in this matter.

    As I have described in my comments in Geddoe’s post, I take for granted that there is one imperatively good thing to protect in this world. Namely, “happiness” of people.

    Quoting from my own comment,

    I take for granted that happiness is the most important thing in this life, if afterlife not to be considered. So, maximizing the sum of happiness for everybody, along with my own, is on top priority.

    This — as you may have guessed — is a utilitarianistic idea. 😉
     
    Apparently, I have stated that people’s happiness is imperatively good in itself. Well, assuming we only live once in this world, and not having an afterlife — I will feel damned if I get a miserable one. However the most important thing is not my happiness only: others’ happiness also plays important role.

    Or, talking with diagram:

    Utilitarianism
    |
    +— Individual Happiness (i.e. per person)
    |
    +— Global Happiness (i.e. “the greater good” )

     

    ……

     

    3. On Utilitarianism

     

    What’s with utilitarianism? Quoting Wikipedia,

    Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility, that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons.

    (link)

    That said, everything is conducted in order to make for “the greater good”. If you’re a fan of 24 TV series, I’m sure you’re accustomed to this. CTU agent did suicide mission to prevent nuclear warhead exploding in LA; risking one’s life for the sake of confidential terrorism data, etc., etc. As convincing as its name (“utilitiarianism”; from “utility”), usefulness is the most important thing in focus here.

    A dramatic example is shown in season 2 of 24, in which CTU’s #1 agent Jack Bauer elected to fly nuclear bomb out of the city, as the only way to prevent the bomb exploding in the city — with a certain one-way ticket that he will have to explode with the bomb. Luckily then surprise happened, but that’s another story.

    At that condition, nobody in CTU would want him to die; he’s the best agent — but there’s no other choice, no other way out. So there he went.

    Of course, utilitarianistic move doesn’t always imply that, to win collective and greater good, we must do some personal sacrifice. Rather, it merely conveys the idea that “collective/greater needs are better prioritized over personal/smaller needs”.

     

    ……

     

    4. Individual and Collective Happiness

     

    4.1. My “Egocentric” Idea

     

    Back then in the discussion in Geddoe’s post, I proposed a seemingly utilitarian idea that, in the end, reveals itself to be a view concerning my needs:

    Strange as it may be, but that’s how I think it is. As for your point: is the family planning good? I said: yes. Why?

    Because it prevents baby boom, then prevents food shortage, then prevents economics difficulties, and in the end, I don’t need to face food shortage — and economic recession — at the latter stage of my life. That, is my happiness. ^^

    I support nature preservation. Because I don’t want to live in spoiled earth, drink contaminated water, and I want the coffee beans to stay on its highest quality. Therefore, I can continue (or even maintain) this happiness I already have upon living on this earth.

    Eventually, everything goes back to my own happiness. I always commented upon this myself, that this is some kind of selfishness. What differs it from hedonism is, I am considering things in the long run. ^^

    A bit self-oriented, perhaps. But hey, why are we living on earth if not to have a gulp of happiness in it? 😛

    That is almost paradox. Being selfish in itself, that is to preserve my own happiness — but, as a byproduct, contributes positively to others’ happiness. Now, isn’t it strange? 😆

    To a certain degree, I freely confess that this view is based on economics’ worth of things. However I bring this into topic not without intention: what I want to show is that, to some extent, individual happiness may overlap with the course of collective happiness, i.e. collective “good” I have defined on the beginning of this post.

    If I am to prioritize my happiness over collective’s, then I can do many shortcut means to happiness and prosperity. Doing corruption, cheating on trades and bargains, doing evil for my own sake. However, this isn’t good: as I have implied in the next comment,

    You may ask: “if happiness in life is that important to you, then you don’t need to care for ethics! You can do evil for your prosperity, and live hedonistically.” But no…

    If I (and many people) do that, the happiness won’t be sustainable. Economics will fall, peace will be scarce, world fall apart — I won’t be able to drink my vanilla coffee and watch football match every weekend.

    In my opinion, personal happiness that will do harm to the social system isn’t good. Basically it’s not self-sustaining: my happiness today may lead me to the downfall the next day. Either directly or indirectly: people may bring me to the police, or doing martial law on my greed — or, if they chose to be ignorant, it is the society downfall that will befall me.

    Maybe today I (along with few else) can manipulate our taxes for profit — but, in a long run, the collapse of the economy will find its way to us. Just like many employee from Soeharto’s reign feasted upon international debt in 80’s, as their misdeeds now caused the unending-yet monetary crisis in Indonesia.

    It is alright to have your personal desire fulfilled. Just don’t forget to care whether it is doing more harm or good in a long run. 😉

     

    4.2. On Collective “Goodness”

     

    I am among people who believe that, if something has no harmful side effects, then doing it en masse wouldn’t be hurting anyone. So, I believe that if everyone has the same idea as I explained in point 4.1., then it wouldn’t result in something disastrous. My bet: it would be even capable of maximizing sustainable happiness for everyone. 😉
     
    Talk about example. I’m against war because it may lead to the disappearance of peace and wealth already accumulated, which is the source of happiness of many people (me included). What will happen if many people think the same way? You bet…

     

    ……

     

    5. Revisiting My Value: Is it Purely Subjective, or can-be more Objective?

     

    Of all things, let’s take another look of our definition this far.

  • Assuming that there is no afterlife, then happiness is the most important focus in this world
  • Well, if you only life once, you wouldn’t want to have it gone miserably…

  • Then, we have to work to maximize our happiness
  • And do it sustainably. Just remember the point 4.1. 😉

  • In the macro scope…
  • Apparently, if happiness is our focus, then maximizing it for the biggest sum of it, individually and collectively, is an automatic goal. Hence the utilitarianism.

    Economically talking, this kind of value system is quite reasonable. However, there is one question:

    Happiness is relative. It is due to person, and tends to be subjective.

    How do you define a “collective good”, if the core definition of the goal (i.e. happiness) is still due to subjectivity?

    This is a delicate issue. For example, how do I know if there is a psychopathic general, seated on a high position, in my country’s army hierarchy? He may feel happiness through ethnic cleansing or such. Same goes for possible psychologically-deviant people: they may want to do pedophilic actions — or perhaps craving for cannibalistic feast, e.g. like the legendary Dr. Hannibal Lecter. 😛
     
    In my opinion, there are three reasonable ways for examining this:

    1. Validate with “greater good”

    2. If this is about to make loss of the current happiness of people in status quo, without better reward at all, then it’s not good. Prohibitable.

       

    3. Is it in harmony with sustainable sources of happiness?

    4. Best illustrated like this: tax corruption is subjectively good, but not for the society’s sustainability; warfare ambition may be subjectively good, but may end up giving miseries to many people (including own’s citizen); and so on.

       

    5. Validate with economical means

    6. Will allowing these desires result in favorable economic trade-off?
       
      For instance, let’s take subjective view that supports genocide. In most cases it will harvest international criticisms and, possibly, reluctance from other countries to do diplomatic activities. At this rate this isn’t a good tradeoff, and shall just be avoided at all.
       
      On lesser extent, but more down-to-earth example: letting go of rapists may end up in society’s insecurity and tension, leads to riot, then halting all activities in it. Bad trade-off in the end. 😉

    On personal point of view, I’d like to note that defining “good” is subjective to each person by nature. Nevertheless, there’s a way to make it seem more objective — that is, to consider it on the base of worth-to-worth and consequential results. Comparing the eventual trade-off with the decision made can be of some good measurement; though it doesn’t apply in every case.

     

    ……

     

    Part II – On Universal Moral Conduct

     

     
    6. The Collective Goal

     

    Based on our discourse thus far, you may have guessed how it would sound. Apparently it’s not different from the ideal of utilitarianism per se. That is,

    To maintain the sum of collective and individual “good” (i.e. happiness) in the longest duration possible

    Pay attention to the keyword “duration”. The sustainability, as I have described in part 4, plays important role in this aspect. Simply said, nobody wants to have happiness that ends fast — or, in worse scenario, ends up as a nightmare. 😉
     
    When I said about “universal” moral conduct, it is more like these — as digested from the points I have described before.

    Maximize your happiness wisely; Respect others’. Keep your environment in good form for everyone’s benefit. Do not be dangerously selfish, so that you end up ruining everyone’s previously existing happiness.

    One may ask, though:

    Why does it have to be sustainable? If you can live with it all your life, and then the system breaks as soon as you die. It doesn’t cost you anything at all, right?

    Well, actually that’s true. At least for me. If I die first and the system breaks down later, I don’t have to care — I’m lucky to have enjoyed it all my life.

    To this question, I freely confess, the answer is only through altruism. In the system of which we take no interest after leaving, then it’s the possible answer.

    Nevertheless, there’s this interesting quote I saw while reading a linux guru’s interview in local magazine:

    “My mentor told me back then: ‘if you feel that you have learnt much from the open-source gurus and net forums, be grateful for it. That is, by sharing your knowledge to the newbies like you once were.'”

    From old InfoLinux magazine I ever read. Well, perhaps that’s also one good idea… 😛

     

    ……

     

    7. Side Issues

     
    Back in that discussion, I was mentioning something aside these utilitarianism and ethical things; though are still related in the discourse of ethics. It was about two matters which will be addressed below.

     
    7.1. About Religious Ethics Influence

     

    Despite my being agnostic and doubting the truth about God/religions in common, I still manage to react rather positively towards them. Quoting — once again — from my own comment,

    I do think that metaphysical grounds (in this case, religions) may prove its usefulness — I do find some religious teachings fits well to help us developing as mankind. Among them Golden Rule, Christianity’s idea of love and compassion, and Gandhi’s ahimsa. There are also some hadith that (IMO) conduct some good morality… They provided me some leaps of understanding of morality, which in turn helped me in developing those personal values.

    While I see myself as mostly utilitarian person, I do find that some religious teachings possess a usable merit of their own. And, to some degree, many of it would fit to my utilitarian value system scheme.

    I do have admiration for Golden Rule because of its simplicity but, nevertheless, outstanding idea of “don’t do to other what you don’t want to be treated as such”. It fits with the idea of sustainable source of peace — as well as Christianity’s teaching of love and peace.

    Another came from the Koran, which as follows:

    And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine.

    (109:4-6)

    That, of all things, implies an idea of acknowledging different beliefs and religions between people.

    While I’m merely an agnostic, these messages have their versatility to suit to my contemporary idea of universal value of norm. I don’t necessarily believe in God and/or religions. However, I do think that humanity may inspire from any wisdom they have inherited through their long history. Be it from philosophy, religion, or perhaps anthropology and history as well.

     

    7.2. About System-Efficiency and Contrasting-Happiness Ideas (Re: LGBT and Same-Sex Marriage)

     

    This topic was also mentioned, though slightly. Back then my view was as follows:

    When deciding “good” and “bad” of things, I don’t see them per se; rather I try to see the usefulness of it.

    Perhaps I’d better illustrate with example. For instance about morality, I don’t support same-sex marriage. Why? Simple. Marriage is intended to protect children’s rights; they are born penniless and powerless. An ideal marriage not only protect the children’s finance until they’re ready to work by themselves: it also proved acknowledgement to the infants, provide legal status, and — in addition — assuring inheritance from their parents. There’s a legal certainty about who’s whose father, who must be held responsible financially, etc, etc. This is for different-sex marriage (DSM).

    In same-sex marriage (SSM), there’s no benefit out of it. They don’t have children whose legal and financial needs to be protected. Some ruling may enable them to adopt child, but that’s just making new problem out of nothing! It’ll just become an inefficient system with bulky mechanism. 🙂

    That’s why, I prefer DSM and disregard SSM. In term of usefulness and efficiency, it doesn’t comply with my standard.

    My view on this is, although SSM is all about happiness, I don’t see a need to support them. That is more to the efficiency and usefulness of the rule.

    However, I do support the rights the SSM couple as long as it is about universal human rights. I am against discrimination for them — what I don’t agree is about the legal fuss for an importance that, for me, doesn’t have strong enough foundation. My stance on this is rather on the middle: I ‘m not staunch that it mustn’t happen, just that I don’t feel there’s any benefit out of it.

    That said, any law — or conduct — that gives away too little or no benefit, or inefficient in its manner, isn’t considered “good” by me.

    Another fitting example will be Indonesia’s government SPMB (national college entrance exam) form showing “Warga Keturunan” (i.e. descendant of immigrants) field. While this is reflecting truth and probably useful for statistics, this is — in my opinion — a dilly-dally. Let alone the possibility that those citizens may as well feel offended!

    ***

    Move on to the next case. This one isn’t naturally related with the essence of “efficiency” I just have mentioned; rather it’s about the presence LGBT themselves.

    I personally think that I can’t prevent anyone’s emotional (or hormonal) affection to each other, even if I wanted to. So there goes. Simply said, I’m neutral in this one. My only minor concern is that, if they are going for PDA — just don’t do it near the people intolerable to it. For their own sake. 😉

    My note is, if they can be productive, useful, courteous, and mingling positively in society, then it’s categorically alright. So there you have it.

     

    ……

     

    8. Wrapping It All…

     
    So, it comes to an end. I hope that you have been able to get a big picture of my own definition of “good” and “bad”, and some of my contemporary world-view. Of course, like any other means of man-made idea to define ethics, I expect that this is far from perfection. I suppose that there are even loopholes in it, though.

    The intention of writing this post is to inform about how I perceive the world, and how I considered an ethic suitable for my own use (thus also replying some questions I received back then 😛 ). I’ll be more than happy if anyone would tell me what they think; or showing loophole(s); or — by any means — giving feedback that may result in fruitful discussion. 🙂
     
    Thank you for reading. Replies and inquiries can be sent via the comment facility at the bottom of this page.

     

     

     

    ——

    Note:

     
    [1] Statement-based reply discussion, i.e. somebody commented on something, then I reply his/her answer based on the statements/questions he/she uttered. For most cases this provides lively dialogue, but I often find this mechanism hindering for long and vast subjects.

    E.g. when somebody talked about my utilitarianism, I was focused on it, rather than explaining the big picture along with it (i.e. the simultaneous self-and-collective utilitarianism, etc.). The space and formatting was also little compared to a blog post; hence my decision of writing this one. ^^

    Read Full Post »

    Viva Espana!

    Singkat kata, pergelaran Euro 2008 pun berakhir. Dan yang berhak meraih trofi untuk kali ini adalah…

    …pasukan matador dari Spanyol. 😀

    Salut!

     

    poster-casillas

    [photo taken from here]

     

    *img-clap**img-clap**img-clap**img-clap**img-clap*

     

    Dengan mengandalkan pass pendek dari kaki ke kaki, disertai dengan penguasaan yang dominan di lapangan tengah, Spanyol sukses menumbangkan Jerman yang hendak memperoleh Piala Eropa untuk keempat kalinya. Penyelesaian akhir yang mantap oleh Fernando Torres di depan gawang Jens Lehmann menjadi coup de grace — Spanyol unggul 1-0, dan Piala Eropa pun kembali berlabuh di Andalusia setelah empat dekade.

    Meskipun demikian, hasil ini tak lepas dari performa Jerman yang cenderung di bawah form tadi malam. Entah kenapa Michael Ballack dan Bastian Schweinsteiger seolah kehilangan kreativitas dan kesulitan mengalirkan bola ke lini depan. Lapangan tengah Jerman pun tenggelam di bawah dominasi Marcos Senna dan kawan-kawan — yang, lebih parah lagi, justru berulangkali sukses menembus kotak penalti dan membahayakan gawang Jens Lehmann. 😐

    Bagaimanapun, Spanyol sudah membuktikan diri sebagai yang terbaik. Permainan atraktif dan menghibur, defense yang kokoh (cuma kebobolan 3 gol!), dan lini tengah-depan yang dominan — tidak salah kiranya jika slogan “best team wins” disematkan untuk El Matador di Piala Eropa tahun ini. ^^

     
    Viva Espana! *img-clap*

     

     

    —–

    Ps:

    BTW, saya tak akan mendukung Sutrisno Bachir di pilpres 2009. Boleh saja kalau mau kampanye, tapi mbok ya yang tepat waktu dan tepat sasaran. Terutama pada waktu partai semifinal Spanyol vs. Rusia tempo hari; kental betul political speech-nya. 😐

    Pencinta bola ingin koresponden di Austria membahas kabar dan taktik, Pak, bukan politik! 😮

    Read Full Post »

    « Newer Posts - Older Posts »