Sometimes I think it is heavy to always discuss hard topic. As I started to use Google Reader yesterday, suddenly I have an impulsive thinking about Google Inc.
Having started in 1998, it has grown rapidly as one of the most influential Internet corporations. It was only a search engine in the beginning, but it expands in size and in services provided owing to its user-friendly set up and its growing popularity. In my point of view, Google is one of the best illustrations of globalization and multi-national corporation.
I set Google as my home page in the Mozilla Firefox browser. Gmail is my primary email. I read Google news everyday and I use Google Alerts to read Cambodian news. Earlier this year when I was organizing Dramatics Week, I uploaded a video on Google Video. This Website, Blogger, is also one of the services Google provides. I search most of the things in Google. I subscribe RSS through Google Reader. Google penetrates my Internet experience.
I believe I am not the only Googler. There are more people who use its services more than I do. Not talking about the rest of the services, the importance of Google cannot be neglected. Despite not being favor of appreciating its dominance, its success is hardly to be combatted.
An idea jumps into my head. While the term "McDonaldization" becomes more known, it must be interesting to start a study of "Google-lization". As Internet is widely used nowadays, the effect induced by Google, notwithstanding its virtual nature, must be valuable to have a deep research and analysis.
Nonetheless, a litte person and being as poor academically as me has almost no way to conduct such a study; and I don't think I have the wisdom and the patience to work this out. Furthermore I believe there will be studies about this topic in the future.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Philosophical interest
After the end of the semester, I borrowed three books from the library and read them during the days in the East Coast, Australia. They are part of the series of A Very Short Introduction, published by the Oxford Press - Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.
I have been interested in philosophy for a while, yet I did not pay much effort. To record my recollection, I recall my first formal lesson of philosophy was the existentialism I took in my first semester, year 1. It is an interesting subject; unfortunately I was too fresh and not prepared to study this great subject, so it was sort of wasted and I did not do well.
Nonetheless the unit has hereafter caused my notice to matters related. Existentialism is a very difficult subject, and it takes so much time and energy to understand the logic. Until now I am still on my way to understand it, so I am not going to discuss more. Anyway it brings me further interest to read some books afterwards.
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are three of the greatest men in philosophy. Socrates invented Socratic method - to develop an idea or a belief and convince the others through arguments and discussion. Plato was the founder of the Academy, the first school of philosophy which marked the independence of the subject. Aristotle was considered as one of the most important person in scientific history, and influenced the development of science and philosophy.
The three books briefly described their lives and introduced their most important ideas. Socrates pursued and worked out the virtue he insisted. He claimed he was not a wise man and did not possess any knowledge; he also found the Socratic method, which was about to discover his own belief through arguments. Plato invented the idea of Forms and discussed how kwowledged was to be taught from one to another; he developed philosophy into an independent subject and his own platonism influenced the philosophers until now. Aristotle was a genius that he studied heaps of science subject and wrote the first book about biology; his logical thinking inspired hunreds and thousands of scientists afterwards. What a coincidence was one was the student of another - Socrates was the most important person in Plato's philosophical life while Aristotle was the most outstanding students of Plato's.
After reading the books, while I was waiting for the flight back to Perth from Sydney, I wrote down some of my thoughts provoked by the books.
Most things interlock with each other. In my life, there were countless coincidences. ONe of the most common examples is I often encounters some vocabulary right after I've just realized what they mean. It is interesting to see the connection among various items/incidents; meanwhile the reason for this is yet to discover. For one single item, it is probably not hard to explain, but since events somehow connect to each other, I think it is beyond my ability to grasp the answer that why things happen incredibily.
Some people suggest God holds the control. God is often protrait as a human-kind, but it's probably because of the limited imagination of man. What is God? Some claimed they talked with God before, or God sent them messages. The most outstanding instance was Jesus, who said he was the son of God. Who created God? How did man create this term with a divine meaning? If God can talk, somehow it means God is just another living creature. What form is it? What structure is it? If it controls the world order in such a complicated way, there're too many questions aroused.
Some say everything is written in the book of life. We've got no idea of what it is. If it is a book, we don't know who wrote it and the reason behind. Plato and Laozi had a similar view that they thought it was under some sort of Form. Scientists fail to find the answer.
Within the boundary, the knowledge of science is infinite; however boundary exists. Regardless of God, book of life, Form or so on, we know nothing beyond the boundary. In another way, we can't break through it. We have no way to know if human, or the universe is actually only like a glass box with water and fish. Astronomists tell us the universe is expanding all the time, but we don't know where it has the space to expand. Stop talking about huge matter, nonetheless we dxo not know many tiny matters. As basic as all of our acknowledgement, are we bound to know them? Where does our intelligence come from? Why do we have evolution? Why is everything changing? In films about going back to the past, it is always said that one could not and should not change anything. However, what if it was actually what should have happened? It is not only that we don't know the answers, but we do not even know how to find out the answer. It sounds a hopeless situation. Too difficult.
Another question: why do we believe things are what they are? To some extent I would say we're just following what our senses, body or brain tell us. What if these things in fact lie to us? Perhaps the answer is simple: we have no alternatives. Our own body is the only thing we control directly. Certainly there should be some arguments about this statement, yet it is true in certain condition. However, the truth is not known; it is just our only choice that we can only believe everything we experience or are told.
To me, trust is too fragile and weak. Nonetheless as long as this is the only choice, it has to be maintained firmly. Otherwise our mental system might have collapsed.
Many things are beyond our intelligence to manage or understand. Even trust can be doubted, such as what it is exactly, how it is formed and whether it is "trust" to trust. However, to think in this way will be like what another book I am currently reading (to be discussed) say that it becomes skepticism, although I am also interested to know how or why human determine certain degree of doubts to be skeptic.
I do not know how to conclude. At the moment I am thinking about atheism and theism, a worthy topic. Yet it is very complicated and I cannot discuss it without further knowledge. I am too shallow for this now, but I hope I could learn more later. I believe this has something to do with the books, as they stimulate my choices of reading.
A little episode - I told my friend about my interest, and guess what he replied - "Usually the people who read or study philosophy are crazy, or turn to be crazy finally".
I denied, despite the fact that crazy people is said to always deny they are crazy.
I have been interested in philosophy for a while, yet I did not pay much effort. To record my recollection, I recall my first formal lesson of philosophy was the existentialism I took in my first semester, year 1. It is an interesting subject; unfortunately I was too fresh and not prepared to study this great subject, so it was sort of wasted and I did not do well.
Nonetheless the unit has hereafter caused my notice to matters related. Existentialism is a very difficult subject, and it takes so much time and energy to understand the logic. Until now I am still on my way to understand it, so I am not going to discuss more. Anyway it brings me further interest to read some books afterwards.
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are three of the greatest men in philosophy. Socrates invented Socratic method - to develop an idea or a belief and convince the others through arguments and discussion. Plato was the founder of the Academy, the first school of philosophy which marked the independence of the subject. Aristotle was considered as one of the most important person in scientific history, and influenced the development of science and philosophy.
The three books briefly described their lives and introduced their most important ideas. Socrates pursued and worked out the virtue he insisted. He claimed he was not a wise man and did not possess any knowledge; he also found the Socratic method, which was about to discover his own belief through arguments. Plato invented the idea of Forms and discussed how kwowledged was to be taught from one to another; he developed philosophy into an independent subject and his own platonism influenced the philosophers until now. Aristotle was a genius that he studied heaps of science subject and wrote the first book about biology; his logical thinking inspired hunreds and thousands of scientists afterwards. What a coincidence was one was the student of another - Socrates was the most important person in Plato's philosophical life while Aristotle was the most outstanding students of Plato's.
After reading the books, while I was waiting for the flight back to Perth from Sydney, I wrote down some of my thoughts provoked by the books.
Most things interlock with each other. In my life, there were countless coincidences. ONe of the most common examples is I often encounters some vocabulary right after I've just realized what they mean. It is interesting to see the connection among various items/incidents; meanwhile the reason for this is yet to discover. For one single item, it is probably not hard to explain, but since events somehow connect to each other, I think it is beyond my ability to grasp the answer that why things happen incredibily.
Some people suggest God holds the control. God is often protrait as a human-kind, but it's probably because of the limited imagination of man. What is God? Some claimed they talked with God before, or God sent them messages. The most outstanding instance was Jesus, who said he was the son of God. Who created God? How did man create this term with a divine meaning? If God can talk, somehow it means God is just another living creature. What form is it? What structure is it? If it controls the world order in such a complicated way, there're too many questions aroused.
Some say everything is written in the book of life. We've got no idea of what it is. If it is a book, we don't know who wrote it and the reason behind. Plato and Laozi had a similar view that they thought it was under some sort of Form. Scientists fail to find the answer.
Within the boundary, the knowledge of science is infinite; however boundary exists. Regardless of God, book of life, Form or so on, we know nothing beyond the boundary. In another way, we can't break through it. We have no way to know if human, or the universe is actually only like a glass box with water and fish. Astronomists tell us the universe is expanding all the time, but we don't know where it has the space to expand. Stop talking about huge matter, nonetheless we dxo not know many tiny matters. As basic as all of our acknowledgement, are we bound to know them? Where does our intelligence come from? Why do we have evolution? Why is everything changing? In films about going back to the past, it is always said that one could not and should not change anything. However, what if it was actually what should have happened? It is not only that we don't know the answers, but we do not even know how to find out the answer. It sounds a hopeless situation. Too difficult.
Another question: why do we believe things are what they are? To some extent I would say we're just following what our senses, body or brain tell us. What if these things in fact lie to us? Perhaps the answer is simple: we have no alternatives. Our own body is the only thing we control directly. Certainly there should be some arguments about this statement, yet it is true in certain condition. However, the truth is not known; it is just our only choice that we can only believe everything we experience or are told.
To me, trust is too fragile and weak. Nonetheless as long as this is the only choice, it has to be maintained firmly. Otherwise our mental system might have collapsed.
Many things are beyond our intelligence to manage or understand. Even trust can be doubted, such as what it is exactly, how it is formed and whether it is "trust" to trust. However, to think in this way will be like what another book I am currently reading (to be discussed) say that it becomes skepticism, although I am also interested to know how or why human determine certain degree of doubts to be skeptic.
I do not know how to conclude. At the moment I am thinking about atheism and theism, a worthy topic. Yet it is very complicated and I cannot discuss it without further knowledge. I am too shallow for this now, but I hope I could learn more later. I believe this has something to do with the books, as they stimulate my choices of reading.
A little episode - I told my friend about my interest, and guess what he replied - "Usually the people who read or study philosophy are crazy, or turn to be crazy finally".
I denied, despite the fact that crazy people is said to always deny they are crazy.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Diminishing marginal return
A famous economic law, in my point of view, is applicable to many things happening in the current world.
The mid-term election of the US House of Representatives and Senate has just ended and the result is yet to be concluded. The Democrats are anticipated to win the majority of the House and may even dominate in the Senate since 1994.
Try to recall the previous two presidential elections in the US. The Republicans gained the victory easily. It was one of the prime time for the Republicans. In an economics, an economy is said to fall after reaching the peak. Additionally, an economy or a business is asserted to follow the business cycle - "periodic but irregular up-and-down movements in economic activity" (Parkin and Bade). Accordingly, after the up-period of the Republicans, it is probably the time for the down movement.
Reasonably one may argue the lost of the Republicans are due to many factors. I agree with it. I do not have a deep understanding of the American politics. As an outsider, I find that the victory of the Democratic Party does not mean the people truly support them. If it is put on the above economics theory, it will be only explained by the fact that it is time for the down of the Republican Party. I cannot see outstanding attractiveness of the Democrats.
Before the election has begun, some news reports already revealed that one of the strategies that the Dem was using in this election was to criticize the George W. Bush's administration. In particular, the Dem opposed the Iraq War and the corruption. The Dem did not need to emphasize its proposed domestic policy to appeal its citizens. At this point, it is not hard to suggest that it is not about the real strength of the Democrats that gives this result of the election.
I personally believe that while the stronger power or the greater victory a party gains, the more tremendous loss it will finally suffer. To me it is some kind of balance the world is trying to reach. Thereafter the Republicans are quite sealed to be the loser this time. Reading through many news stories, the Rep did not show a high morale to fight in a bad situation. They did not seem to be keen on a victory. It is ambiguous whether they believed they could win anyhow, or they thought they would lose however hard they worked. As I think they are clever enough, the answer will probably be the former.
Bush's term still has two years to go. Some estimated that the winning of the Democrats would slam the brakes on Bush's agenda. It is almost certain that the policy of the Terrorism War will be reviewed. Same as many people, I think the result of this mid-election is very important to the world. The US aggressive foreign policy will probably switch to be modest. It will be interesting to see how Bush will have to wrestle with the Democrats. As the US has led to some wars and foreign conflicts under Bush's rule, there will be a hard time for the US to modify or adjust their diplomatic attitudes. It is yet to know whether the US will keep its strong and hard world leading role. I hope not, as I am one of the increasing number of people who think the Americans are weirdoes.
On the other hand, I do not see the Democrats are strong and good enough to keep the public support. If the party wins only because of the weakening of its enemy, it will not be able to win the other time when the enemy regains its strength. People will see and judge the Democrats. The only way to maintain its power is to make achievements. The Democrats has to construct a good plan to gradually retreat from wars; it has to improve the country's relationship with other countries, such as Europe and the Middle East; it also needs to keep its prosperous economy. Otherwise the Democrats will lose soon.
ps. As a journalism student, I learnt the unhealthy journalism in the US. It is well-known that the reporting in US is usually unfair and unbalanced, with sensationalism and self-censorship for the Republicans. I am curious what the situation will be when the head is changed.
pps. I did not realize I will spend some time on the US politics, since I do not very much like the Americans and I am not very political.
ppps. I always think the economics theories are very philosophical and very useful in life.
In economics, diminishing returns is the short form of diminishing marginal returns. In a production system, having fixed and variable inputs, keeping the fixed inputs constant, as more of a variable input is applied, each additional unit of input yields less and less additional output. This concept is also known as the law of increasing opportunity cost or the law of diminishing returns. [Wikipedia]
The mid-term election of the US House of Representatives and Senate has just ended and the result is yet to be concluded. The Democrats are anticipated to win the majority of the House and may even dominate in the Senate since 1994.
Try to recall the previous two presidential elections in the US. The Republicans gained the victory easily. It was one of the prime time for the Republicans. In an economics, an economy is said to fall after reaching the peak. Additionally, an economy or a business is asserted to follow the business cycle - "periodic but irregular up-and-down movements in economic activity" (Parkin and Bade). Accordingly, after the up-period of the Republicans, it is probably the time for the down movement.
Reasonably one may argue the lost of the Republicans are due to many factors. I agree with it. I do not have a deep understanding of the American politics. As an outsider, I find that the victory of the Democratic Party does not mean the people truly support them. If it is put on the above economics theory, it will be only explained by the fact that it is time for the down of the Republican Party. I cannot see outstanding attractiveness of the Democrats.
Before the election has begun, some news reports already revealed that one of the strategies that the Dem was using in this election was to criticize the George W. Bush's administration. In particular, the Dem opposed the Iraq War and the corruption. The Dem did not need to emphasize its proposed domestic policy to appeal its citizens. At this point, it is not hard to suggest that it is not about the real strength of the Democrats that gives this result of the election.
I personally believe that while the stronger power or the greater victory a party gains, the more tremendous loss it will finally suffer. To me it is some kind of balance the world is trying to reach. Thereafter the Republicans are quite sealed to be the loser this time. Reading through many news stories, the Rep did not show a high morale to fight in a bad situation. They did not seem to be keen on a victory. It is ambiguous whether they believed they could win anyhow, or they thought they would lose however hard they worked. As I think they are clever enough, the answer will probably be the former.
Bush's term still has two years to go. Some estimated that the winning of the Democrats would slam the brakes on Bush's agenda. It is almost certain that the policy of the Terrorism War will be reviewed. Same as many people, I think the result of this mid-election is very important to the world. The US aggressive foreign policy will probably switch to be modest. It will be interesting to see how Bush will have to wrestle with the Democrats. As the US has led to some wars and foreign conflicts under Bush's rule, there will be a hard time for the US to modify or adjust their diplomatic attitudes. It is yet to know whether the US will keep its strong and hard world leading role. I hope not, as I am one of the increasing number of people who think the Americans are weirdoes.
On the other hand, I do not see the Democrats are strong and good enough to keep the public support. If the party wins only because of the weakening of its enemy, it will not be able to win the other time when the enemy regains its strength. People will see and judge the Democrats. The only way to maintain its power is to make achievements. The Democrats has to construct a good plan to gradually retreat from wars; it has to improve the country's relationship with other countries, such as Europe and the Middle East; it also needs to keep its prosperous economy. Otherwise the Democrats will lose soon.
ps. As a journalism student, I learnt the unhealthy journalism in the US. It is well-known that the reporting in US is usually unfair and unbalanced, with sensationalism and self-censorship for the Republicans. I am curious what the situation will be when the head is changed.
pps. I did not realize I will spend some time on the US politics, since I do not very much like the Americans and I am not very political.
ppps. I always think the economics theories are very philosophical and very useful in life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)