ArrowsInk

Tag: christianity

  • Death: An Old Friend

    Death: An Old Friend

    Death is an old friend, that many times we never speak of. It comes in its mystery but is always dependable in its actions. One of my favourite depictions of death and the dead is from Greek mythology when Hades, the god of the underworld, snatches Persephone away down, because that is the characteristic of the death and the underworld. His actions are driven by the domain he rules and the reactions from her mother is not so different from ours ,when death knocks at our door.

    Philosophy on Death

    Death has been an age old question and many philosophers have written extensively on the topic:

    Socrates believed death would either lead to a dreamless sleep or a blank wall (nothingness), or a passage way to another life. But it would be pointless to be fearful, regardless of what death would greet us with.

    The Vedas, views all beings as souls and spiritual in nature, after death a soul is reincarnate, taking birth in another form (Think of it like how hermit crabs find new shells when they outgrow their old ones).

    Plato, believed death opened up the door to an ideal world and from the horses mouth: “I am afraid that other people do not realize that the one aim of those who practice philosophy in the proper manner is to practice for dying and death.” Freeing the idea of the body from the mind (sounds familiar?)

    Epicurus ever the pragmatic, believed death was simply the cessation of sensation-not good or bad. Making it inconsequential to us. He asserted our fear of death was the one thing holding us back from living lives of tranquility and fulfillment.

    The Stoic school of philosophy emerged in 3rd century Greece argued the time to perfect our virtues and live life to the fullest is today—by meditating on our mortality as a reminder that tomorrow might not arrive.

    Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius said:

    “Do not then consider life a thing of any value. For look to the immensity of time behind thee, and to the time which is before thee, another boundless space. In this infinity then what is the difference between him who lives three days and him who lives three generations?” [Meditations, 4.50]

    Sixteenth century French philosopher Michel de Montaigne wrote extensively about being meditative on death, urging the plain and simple premeditation of death as a way to learn how to die: “To begin depriving death of its greatest advantage over us, let us deprive death of its strangeness, let us frequent it, let us get used to it; let us have nothing more often in mind than death.”

    Twentieth century French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre saw death as a reflection of our meaningless existence. ”I think of death only with tranquility, as an end. I refuse to let death hamper life. Death must enter life only to define it.” Which at least opens up the conversation abit more.

    Otto Rank, the first existential therapist, said it best: “some refuse the loan of life to avoid the debt of death.” His solution the idea on the ”courage to be” –developing the strength to love knowing loss, to create knowing destruction, to connect knowing separation.

    Finally, 17th century Dutch philosopher Spinoza believed that when you’re dead, you’re dead … and preferred to focus on the joys of living rather than meditating on The End. Spinoza bought into Socrates’s notion that the unexamined life wasn’t worth living

    Death: Friend or Foe?

    If you are wondering what the answer is (Tough luck I’m clueless too). But I believe the answer may lie in between the ideas of meditating on death and thinking nothing of it.

    Personally, the concept of death was introduced to me early on through my religion. Like others I find comfort in discussing death and having layers to it with the variations of the afterlife.

    As a Christian, a verse I find that treads the ground of both meditating and thinking nothing of death is :

    ‘For me, to live is Christ, to die is gain’ – Philippians 1:21.

    The verse looks at death as a combination of what we read earlier from philosophers. It does not diminish the fact that death will come but it is knowing that you should live for something greater than yourself . The writer, Paul was a man that constantly faced death in his journey. When he wrote this, it was clear his current actions and its purpose, mattered despite staring death in the face. His philosophy of seeing it head on but knowing there is so much more was one of the things that fueled his life ambition.

    I don’t have the answers to death but I do want to leave you with the understanding that maybe there is something in your life be it religion, family, peers or your passion that can help you navigate and converse with your age old friend death.

    More posts

  • Let’s Talk Politics

    Let’s Talk Politics

    2024 was the year of elections (64 countries went to the polls and an estimate of 4.2 billion people were expected to vote). Looking back it’s important to ask how we can be engaged and active citizens in this process. This article breaks down some ways one can understand the election cycle better and how to effectively exercise their rights.

    As we just had our elections not long ago, I will be using my home country, Singapore, as an example of how to analyze your electoral system and how it impacts your choices.

    How is your Government Set-up?

    Always ask yourself, “How is my government set up and what does it mean for me“?

    So let’s break it down for Singapore-Westminster system (wear glasses and reads from old political science notes). A Westminster system has 3 separate branches of government the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.

    Think about it in terms of a Durian that has its spiky covering, flesh and core. The core is the executive branch- that is where the officeholders that are chosen by the prime minister function, they hold ministerial positions and essentially set the direction for the nation. The spikey skin-that is the judiciary that interprets the laws that we have as it has been passed down by the legislature.

    Now who is the flesh? That’s who is usually voted into parliament in the Westminster system. The legislature comprises of the president and members of parliament. Their role is to help interpret the laws of the land, offer suggestions and advocate for changes during parliamentary discussions.

    Credit: Icon made by vectorpocket from Freepik.com

    This is where the magic happens , the part in which society has the most control over is in the legislature, because they choose who represents them in parliament. Which makes elections a pivotal and interesting time.

    Pro-Tip: The government websites provide readily available information on how your government is set up. (Use it)

    How is voting done?

    There are various ways votes are counted and distributed. Here are a few examples:

    First-Past-the-Post (FPTP)
    • Example: Used in the UK, Canada, and India. In this system, the candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins. No need to get a majority (50%+1); just the most votes, even if it’s a small margin.
    • How it works: Each district elects one representative. Voters choose from multiple candidates, and the one with the most votes wins, even if it’s not an outright majority.
    Proportional Representation (PR)
    • Example: Common in countries like Germany, Israel, and the Netherlands. In this system, the number of seats a party gets in the legislature is proportional to the number of votes they receive.
    • How it works: Instead of voting for one individual candidate, you vote for a party. The party then gets a percentage of seats in proportion to the number of votes they get. This leads to more representation for smaller parties.
    Single Transferable Vote (STV)
    • Example: Used in Ireland, Malta, and Australia (in some cases). STV is a form of proportional representation where voters rank candidates in order of preference.
    • How it works: Voters rank candidates. If a candidate gets enough votes to meet a quota, the surplus votes are transferred to voters’ next preferences. This ensures a more proportional outcome.
    Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP)
    • Example: Used in New Zealand and Germany. This system combines First-Past-the-Post and Proportional Representation.
    • How it works: Voters cast two votes: one for a candidate and one for a party. The first vote decides the local representative (FPTP), while the second vote ensures proportionality in the overall assembly.
    Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV)
    • Example: Used in elections for mayors in places like San Francisco and in the Australian House of Representatives.
    • How it works: Voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate gets a majority, the one with the fewest votes is eliminated, and those votes are redistributed based on voters’ next preferences, continuing until someone has a majority.

    In Singapore, we use the First-Past-The-Post System across our various constituents:

    • Single Member Constituency (SMC): Each constituency elects one member of parliament (MP). Voters choose one candidate to represent them.
    • Group Representation Constituency (GRC): This is a system where a group of candidates runs together to represent a constituency. GRCs typically consist of 4-6 candidates, and each group is required to have at least one member from a minority community. Voters choose a team of candidates instead of just one, and the whole group wins if they receive the majority of votes in the constituency.

    What should voters take note

    First things first, take the time to understand your country’s electoral laws. If reading through them sounds daunting, there are plenty of videos and short-form media that break it down in a more digestible way. Understand where your choices heavily matter.

    In Singapore, our General Election (GE) is where the action happens. Back to the durian analogy—the flesh is what we consume, and we need it to be palatable for our taste buds. Just as durians come with varying levels of sweetness and bitterness (and, yes, I only know D24…sorry), each person has a preference when attending rallies, listening to speeches, or reading party manifestos.

    For Singapore: the information you’re hearing on policy changes will only be relevant if that party secures 2/3 of the seats in Parliament.

    Now, after you’ve absorbed that, start paying attention to what’s happening on the ground. How are the elected officials engaging with the community? Are they implementing initiatives that are visible and relevant to the district they’re serving?

    You’ll quickly realize that there’s no one-size-fits-all solution. Every district has its own unique needs, strengths, and weaknesses. Just like how everyone has different preferences when it comes to durian, what works for one community may not be the same for another. So, think about what you want to see in your community.

    Now, what do we do with this information?

    Well, we observe. Watch the seeds that have been planted by your elected representatives and see how well they’re doing in nurturing them. Find out how they’re advocating for your issues, whether it’s in Parliament or through other channels. Remember not everything happens within the walls of the parliamentary chamber. A lot of progress is made outside of it too.

    Hope this helps you to exercise your civic duty with a clear understanding rather than a safe understanding.

    More posts

  • Poirot vs. Holmes: Contrasting Detectives

    Poirot vs. Holmes: Contrasting Detectives

    Hercule Poirot and Sherlock Holmes are two of the most iconic detectives in literary history. While Agatha Christie was undoubtedly influenced by Arthur Conan Doyle’s legendary sleuth, Poirot stands as a very different kind of investigator. This article explores how Poirot approaches his cases in contrast to Holmes, diving deep into their respective moral codes and legacy and how these differences have left a lasting impact on the genre of detective fiction.

    History of Detective Fiction

    Detective stories have long been ingrained in human storytelling, from ancient religious texts like the Book of Daniel, to the early Arabic Arabian Nights, and even countries having their own prominent detective-esque figures. However, no detective remains as iconic in popular culture as Sherlock Holmes, the archetype of the logical, methodical sleuth. Holmes’ place in history was cemented from his first appearance in A Study in Scarlet (1887) and remains unparalleled in influence.

    Yet, thirty-three years after Holmes’ debut, another detective emerged one who would challenge Holmes’ reign. Hercule Poirot, a Belgian-born former police officer, introduced an entirely different approach to crime-solving in Christie’s *The Mysterious Affair at Styles* (1920). Though Poirot and Holmes share similar intellectual gifts, their respective approaches to justice could not be more different.

    Holmes’ Influence: Poirot’s Roots in Detective Fiction

    Christie, like many authors of her time, was undeniably influenced by Holmes. After all, Sherlock Holmes set the bar for detective fiction. Both Holmes and Poirot are masters of deduction, yet their methodologies diverge in important ways. Holmes is the embodiment of the Victorian ideal: tall, lean, analytical, and detached from the emotional complexities of the people around him. Poirot, by contrast, is a short, pot-bellied man whose sharp mind and acute attention to detail are equally formidable. He may not physically intimidate like Holmes, but his intellectual prowess, especially in understanding the psychology of a crime, makes him unique.

    This physical difference symbolizes their contrasting approaches to detective work. Where Holmes relies on cold, almost mechanical logic, Poirot’s brilliance is psychological. Poirot’s “little grey cells” are a metaphor for his ability to decipher human behavior, motivations, and emotions, qualities Holmes often overlooks which is how he gets bested by Irene Adler. This shift from logic to psychological understanding in Poirot reflects the changing world of detective fiction, moving away from the strict rationality of the Victorian age to a more nuanced, introspective approach in the aftermath of World War I.

    Poirot’s own backstory as a refugee and his Catholic faith further emphasizes the moral complexity of his character. Christie made him more than just a detective; he is someone who grapples with questions of morality, justice, and human frailty, qualities that Holmes, whose emotions often remain enigmatic and distant, lacks. Whereas Holmes’ moral compass is mostly objective and rational, Poirot’s decisions are guided by his personal understanding of human suffering and frailty.

    Poirot’s Moral Code: Justice Beyond the Law

    Poirot’s sense of justice is not simply about solving a crime. It’s about seeking the truth while understanding the human nature behind the crime. His approach goes beyond legal frameworks and often delves into the psychological motives driving the crime. For Poirot, justice isn’t a rigid concept confined to the law, it is a balance of understanding the nuances of human behavior and choosing the right course of action, even if it means bending the law.

    One of the clearest examples of Poirot’s moral ambiguity comes in Murder on the Orient Express. In this case, Poirot makes the controversial decision to allow a group of murderers to go unpunished, understanding that their motives, an act of vengeance for a horrific crime (The crime was inspired by a real-life tragedy). This decision is based on compassion, something that Holmes’ without Watson would not have considered. Holmes, after all, is purely driven by his logic and adherence to the law. His pursuit of truth rarely accommodates the emotional undertones of a case. Poirot, by contrast, would see the emotional core and weigh his decision in a much more subjective manner.

    Holmes pursues cases like a scientist, his emotions held in check, focusing on facts and observation. While this makes him incredibly effective at solving crimes, and a fun read it can sometimes render him insensitive to the complexities of human relationships. Poirot, on the other hand, has an element of emotional investment with cases which gives him the ability to truly understand what justice and gives his stories and judgements weight.

    Both fascinating to watch.

    Poirot’s Lasting Legacy in Detective Fiction

    Poirot’s popularity didn’t arise solely from his intellectual brilliance; his emotional intelligence and psychological depth gave him a unique place in detective fiction. Holmes may have epitomized the rational, analytical detective for the Victorian age, but Poirot represents a shift toward understanding the complexities of human nature. In the aftermath of World War I, a period rife with moral ambiguity and emotional trauma, Poirot’s approach to justice provided insight, and moral flexibility resonating with readers in a different way Holmes’ cold, intellectual approach did.

    Holmes may have been the quintessential detective of the logical age, but reshaped the genre, adding emotional and psychological depth that would influence generations of future detectives. Christie’s sleuth was not just solving crimes; he was unraveling the human psyche itself.

    Conclusion

    Though both Holmes and Poirot share an exceptional intellect, their approaches to justice, crime-solving, and human nature could not be more different. Holmes remains the embodiment of Victorian rationality, while Poirot represents a more modern, emotionally aware approach to the detective genre. Together, they represent two sides of the same coin, but each unforgettable.

    More posts