“There exists in our society a widespread fear of judging . . . [B]ehind the unwillingness to judge lurks the suspicion that no one is a free agent, and hence the doubt that anyone is responsible or could be expected to answer for what he has done. . . . Who am I to judge? actually means We’re all alike, equally bad, and those who try, or pretend that they try, to remain halfway decent are either saints or hypocrites, and in either case should leave us alone. Hence the huge outcry the moment anyone fixes specific blame on some particular person.”

“Socrates provided her model of thinking. In the agora or the gymnasium, he questioned others to see what ideas would not stand up. When he was alone, thinking continued as an internal version of that same dialogue. It was “the silent dialogue between me and myself,” Arendt wrote. It made the thinker like two speakers internally, “two-in-one,” always testing possible beliefs and actions, grappling with the reality of the outer situation by a kind of inner company.”

“But we would think it arrogant for one person to stand up and coolly say to another-”I, so-and-so, having considered it carefully, judge that what you, Mr. X, did, was morally wrong. I need no more authority to judge you than the fact that I am a fellow human being, and that I have judged by good examples, and asked myself what I, myself, could not live with doing.” Of course, it would be a very curious world in which one constantly dared to judge others, and not so much one’s enemies. As Arendt always insisted, the real moral issue was never with one’s enemies, who like the Nazis could be so obviously evil) but with one’s friends, and those one loved.”

Finished reading Haruki Murakami and the Music of Words a few days ago. It is written by Harvard professor Jay Rubin who also translated a few of his books. Some food for thought:

“Neither of us is interested, essentially, in anything but ourselves. OK, so I’m arrogant and he’s not, but neither of us is able to feel any interest in anything other than what we ourselves think or feel or do. That’s why we can think about things in a way that’s totally divorced from anybody else.”

I really wonder whether I am like that, that I am unable to feel any or even slight interest in anything other than what I self think or feel or do. Did I tell you I think I am pretty arrogant, self-conceited and selfish? Then again, some people think being selfish (Ayn Rand) is a good thing. Ok, next quote:

“Haven’t you offered up some part of your Self to somone (or some thing), and taken on a ‘narrative’ in return? Haven’t we entrusted some part of our personality to some greater System or Order? And if so, has not that System at some stage demanded of us some kind of ‘insanity’? Is the narrative you now possess really and truly your own? Are your dreams really your own dreams? Might not they be someone else’s visions that could sooner or later turn into nightmares?”

This second quote reflects a big fear of mine, and something I see in a lot of people. In exchange for yourself, for your ability to critically think, we receive a narrative in return that makes the decisions for us, what to do in moral dilemmas, how to live our lives and even what we shoud like. We are being told what to do, feel, like and think. The concept of Insanity in this regard, then, takes on a different meaning than just ‘being crazy’, but instead reminds me of Foucault who regarded insanity as a normalizing discipline by way of categorizing (behavior, norms, etc) in an attempt to regulate society. Insanity, thus, is an unconditional trust in this morally superior narrative, excluding any other “crazy” one. After all, you know something the other does not know. [..] Scares the hell out of me.

While everybody is wondering whether the US should invade Iraq or even contemplating when, Fallows of the Atlantic has a bit of sense by asking “do we really want to invade Iraq”, giving his arguments assuming if we do and win, what the hell are they supposed to do with Iraq?

In a comparison to the case of China invading Taiwan, which is arguably a lot more justified in terms of sovereignty than the US invading Iraq, this very same question of what the hell to do with the invaded country, full of terrorists, presumably if you do not kill off every single citizen, is a big deterrent for actual invasion.

Maybe the US should give this some thought. Either that, or kill off every human being in Iraq.