Tuesday, 9 September 2014

Is it wise for the Singapore Government to suffer the continuing existence of the Philosophy Department at the NUS?

You should also find the comments below at but I just have a feeling that they will be deleted and undiscussed.

It is interesting that comments are always closed at their Philosophy ANUS blog at

Have you heard of Slavoj Zizek? His genius is in mastering the language and jargon of pretentious philosophers and regurgitating its contents as a comedian while pretending to be a Marxist philosopher. How many of you can do that? I am happy to come to Singapore to explain exactly why the Singapore Government should close down the NUS Department of Philosophy as soon as possible and put in its place the Department of Logic, Reason and Truth in Simple Clear English in which I shall have a lifetime sinecure as Head of Department.

Most of Western philosophy is navel-gazing and trying to substitute God with the puffed-up theories of puffed-up pretentious philosophers who really have nothing to say and are only trying to remain in academia in order to have a source of income.
Utterly incomprehensible. What does this all mean?

Will these unwise philosophy lecturers and students attempt to answer my questions or simply delete my comment and disable me from commenting on this page? We shall see!

The wise can often predict the future ...
The commonsensical definition of "healthy" must be "not unhealthy", and this means to not be suffering from illness.

Why does this obvious truth need to be philosophically examined?
Is it the purpose of philosophers to express incoherent ideas obscurely in order to fool the stupid into thinking these philosophers wise if they do not understand?
What is the nature and purpose of asymmetrical friendship?

Are you sure you do not mean "charity case", such as giving money to a beggar?

Not all our so-called friends are our equals, but we pretend to treat them as if they were equals, or we would have to call them our "clients" and they would have to call us their "patrons". In our egalitarian age this is probably not advisable.
Going to school and paying attention in class is necessary for knowledge.
Due process and a judgment perceived as fair to all parties concerned would give people the impression that the rule of law is being followed and that they live in a just society.

I bet no philosophy student who went to this can explain this in simple language, which would confirm that they have no idea what he is on about either.
First, define liberalism. The world needs common sense more, I would have thought. Can liberals define liberalism comprehensively?
There is subjective and objective reasonableness.

What is reasonable for a sane man to do is not reasonable to expect a lunatic to do.
Did you know that the Chinese word for "good" contains the character of female and child?

What does this mean?
Who is Mr Moore and Mr Wright?
It is pretty clear that Confucianism cannot be adopted for 21st century Singaporeans and Chinese because of their demographics.
Just require all voters to be taxpayers and lift the requirement of paying tax from the low-waged. This should instantly disenfranchise most immoral and unmarried single mothers who are a burden on the state and who will only vote for high-taxing and high-spending political parties of the Liberal Left.

Secular Koranism, however, can be. It is the idea of infusing your legal system with Koranic principles.

I have never heard of presentism till now, but have heard of futurism. Is there such a thing as "pastism" or is that just what we would call "history" then?

When you talk about presentism, do you really mean "current affairs"?
Philosophy students: are you very wise people, or have you been tricked into wasting your time and money on a useless course "teaching" you how to talk pretentiously about nothing and against the dictates of good sense as well as making normal people with common sense hate you?

Will you be a disappointment to your parents and end up being employed or unemployed subversives?

Is Western philosophy the biggest con of all time?

If we are arguing about the relative merits of, say, Communism, Fascism, Feminism, Liberalism etc we must first define it.

Many philosophers seem ignorant of even this requirement.

Or perhaps they would be wise to avoid politics altogether in case their academic careers hits a brick wall.
If "internalism" exists, is there such a thing as "externalism"?
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
The moral question is to ask oneself what one should do.

Here is another philosophical question: should Singaporeans be wasting their time studying philosophy when it is obviously just a huge heap of hooey?

Do they have that luxury?
I trust False Memory Syndrome was discussed at this talk. Was it?
Now, what can this all mean?
An aesthetic experience is finding something beautiful with perhaps the ability to describe it eloquently. Culture and literacy required for this exercise.
"Do you know you’re not being massively deceived by an evil demon? That’s a familiar skeptical challenge."

I have no reason to think I am "being massively deceived by an evil demon".

The more interesting and relevant question he should have asked was "How do we distinguish between truth and falsehood as well as good and evil?"
"Do not try to read between the lines when there is only one line" is what I think Ray Buchanan is trying to say.

This pearl of wisdom did not need 2 hours to communicate, not for me anyway.
Understandably, academic philosophers want to make simple ideas complex, otherwise they would be out of a job.
The kind of envy that makes us acquire the thing envied which is also good in itself using honourable means and inflicts no harm on anybody is the good kind of envy.

The kind of envy that makes us acquire the thing envied which is also evil in nature and purpose eg the thrill of gambling, serial killing, being a sex predator etc using foul means while inflicting unnecessary harm on others is obviously the bad kind of envy.
Why don't you try to philosophically analyse the Koran instead?
All leaders should be selected for their wisdom, eloquence, strength and charisma if we know what is good for us.
Why would Singaporeans need to be told that they are not characters in THE MATRIX?
Some people have all the luck. Boo hoo! Life is so unfair! Let's have higher taxes and more laws! Yay!
Are there more successful alumni than Mr Yeo actually in paid employment?
Was this a talk about freewill and determinism, but couched in more pretentious and obscure terms?
If you don't like immigration, then you must discredit feminism. Feminism stops women infected by it from having enough children, prevents them from bringing them up properly and doing well at school, which is supposed to equip them with the skills to be productive citizens.

There is no point claiming that immigration is right and good when you already know most voters hate it and believe the rich don't mind it only because they are rich.

Since nothing appears to be happening at their Facebook page and they have not even got round to deleting my comments and disabling me from commenting, I have taken it up with the Australian Association of Philosophy, who did exactly that when I invited them to defend feminism.
18 members, 11 women.  How's that for gender balance?

No comments: