现实vs切实
Posted by: legilimency on: September 16, 2009
今天参加了培训。培训的宗旨是要让大家能够更好地适应新工作环境，因为大家都是参加标新局的计划的见习职员。非常感谢筹备单位的用心良苦，但是我认为今天（与明天）培训对我个人来说，根本没有用。有些东西，课堂上讲了、小组讨论呈现报告了、做模拟习题了，都不比在工作上边做边学来得有用。通过今天的培训，我也发现，自己对与工作的一些想法，以及其他人对与工作的想法，差异实在太大了。也许因为大学暑假时我都出外打工，历练自然比别人都来得多。
令我非常惊讶的是，大家都对薪金这方面感到不满。没有公积金，我也不计较了，反正更努力存钱就是了，还可以在更努力存钱的这一年内学习理财技巧。大伙儿的意思大概是这样的：我们的薪金是标新局资助的，公司都不需要花太多钱聘用我们，还要我们的工作水准跟非见习职员一样好或更加好，而且身为大学毕业生，薪金应该高一些，所以我们有资格要求加薪。我认为这个想法非常不切实际，也非常可笑。
说到这里，肯定有人会发言：你好没有大志，面对准则就低头不肯征求应得的员工待遇，怎成得了大器？我的反驳是：这不叫没大志、成不了大器，我这儿叫切实。
怎么讲呢？目前经济情况不佳，公司就算人手不够也都会因为节省开销而尽量不会雇员。但是标新局开发了这个新的计划让雇主受惠，雇主自然高兴能够低价请到高素质的知识分子为员工。所以我们不应该把自己想成廉价职员。当然，身为大学毕业生，我们的薪金与其他相同学历的非见习职员相比，（平均）确实是有一点低。向公司要求加薪并不是不可以，但是我不赞同将增加薪金当成工作的原动力，而应该看成是工作的目标。在目前的行情，有这样的起薪已经算很不错了，若还要加薪才能使到员工开始尽心为公司服务，那可真的太离谱了。
我强烈认为，要求加薪的第一条件是有卓越的工作表现。在工作范围里有所表现，要懂得如何主动把握机会，让上司看到所付出的努力，让上司认为自己以（比方说）三千元雇用了一位值四千元工资的员工，那么就有能力提出加薪的申请了。向我们（大多数）没有经验的员工，真的有很多东西得学习，累计经验。能够找到表现的机会会很好，但是也不能太强求。这方面也得看公司的内部安排。我非常幸运，碰到肯给我机会学习与表现，从中累计许多非常宝贵经验的上司， 但有些人的待遇却不如短期员工。
大伙儿对公司的要求很多，也很矛盾。不单只是增加薪金，而且还要公司提供表现机会，提供早九晚五的工作制度，要职位保障等等。要表现的机会，自然而然需要在工作上下功夫，工作时间也可能超过傍晚五点，但是为了经验、为了表现、为了得到加薪，在一些情况下，加班也成了理所当然的条件。不好好表现，不肯加班，要求过多，怎么还能要职位保障呢？我不需要培训来教授我这些道理。对我而言，这些都是很理所当然的。
钱不是一切。刚出来工作，薪金若不高，生活就节俭一些，少吃几顿好的，多走一些路，累计多一些经验，对工作付出多一点心思，将来还用愁薪金不够高吗？当然我并不是针对其他人的想法进行任何耻笑或辱骂的动作，只是觉得大家都太现实，而我太切实了。
Few Thoughts On “The Good German”
Posted by: legilimency on: July 12, 2009
- In: books
- Leave a Comment
This book was recommended to me by a good friend because I am intrigued by the (war) survivor’s guilt. For 500+ pages it took me quite a while to finish, but that was because I wasn’t too captivated with the main storyline. (Therefore, no spoilers.) Instead, I enjoyed the little poignant moments in the novel, when the various characters reacted to aftermath of the war.
Before reading this novel, I thought it was interesting that it is named “The Good German”, because popular history (or, history for the regular folks) often painted a very simplified picture about World War II: Germans –> Nazis –> Hitler –> Bad people. This leap in logic is horrifying, since not all Germans were Nazis, and not all Nazis became Nazis because they truly believed in Hitler’s ideologies. Some do it to keep their family alive. Others, to keep their ideas, hopes and dreams — completely different from what Hitler had envisioned — alive. A more accurate picture would be a nation paying a heavy price for the vision of one man. Honestly, I don’t think that is fair, but that’s what happened.
An idea that was brought up often in the novel is that for some of the characters, it seems that wartime was better than the aftermath. Taking the perspective of war veterans and survivors, I must say that I agree. For the (German) survivors, it was the atrocities they had to endure after the war because the Allied and Russian soldiers (as portrayed in the novel) thought that these Germans deserved it. For the war veterans, it was process of dealing with the fact that they had been killers, and those soldiers that were on the other side were human too, like them. Doing what they did because they had to.
People come out of the war with changed perspectives of the world. It’s depressing to think that a war is needed to change how people see others. We are more or less the same, just people caught in different circumstances and doing what we can to keep ourselves, our loved ones, and for the more idealistic folks, our ideals burning.
The surprise exam paradox — again!
Posted by: legilimency on: July 10, 2009
I cannot seem to be able to escape from this paradox, which first appeared on a good friend’s blog (by the way, you still “owe” me emails! Heh.), then on Wikipedia — was roaming around for articles to edit, and now in The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten Experiment #70. Very, very tormenting for my brain, but it’s a very good method to keep myself occupied during crazily-long bus rides. The way it is phrased in the three “sources” does vary a bit, and I was surprised to learn that it originated from a wartime Swedish radio broadcast.
So what is this paradox exactly? It involves a teacher and her class. One day, she announces to the class that there will be a surprise exam next week (any one day from Monday to Friday). However, there’s a catch: on the evening before the exam, the students will not know that the exam will take place the next day.
The students, being students, naturally want to “cut corners” by attempting to determine when the exam will happen. Through reasoning, they had determined that the exam cannot take place on Friday — such an exam will not be a surprise, since by Thursday evening if there’s still no exam, the test will definitely fall on Friday. And they can rule out Thursday as a probable day too, since Friday cannot be an exam day, and assuming they did not hear anything about the exam on Wednesday evening, an exam happening on Thursday will not constitute as a surprise anymore. By this line of reasoning, all the days of the week can be ruled out, since it is determined that the surprise test cannot happen. But surely the students are rudely shocked when they have to get through an exam that they decided not to prepare for.
On Truth, language and culture
Posted by: legilimency on: July 4, 2009
I was reading “The Pig that Wants to be Eaten: 100 Problems for the Armchair Philosopher” by Julian Baggini, Problem #47 – Rabbit. The conundrum is about a linguistic professor starting a lexicon for a previously undiscovered language used by a lost tribe. He hopes to gain more insight to this new language by relating it to the language he knows best, which is English. However, the problem of languages is that there are words in one language that might not mean one specific term in another language. In the conundrum, the professor was trying to define the word “gavagai”. He saw that whenever a rabbit appears, the tribal folks will say “gavagai”. So his first conclusion to the definition of “gavagai” is that it must mean “rabbit”. But how is he to know that “gavagai” cannot mean “delicacy” (perhaps this tribe eats rabbits like how we eat caviar), or “god’s form” (or maybe this tribe thinks their god takes the form of a rabbit)? Both suggestions are definitely far from “rabbit”, but since I am as fluent as the linguistic professor in this undiscovered language, surely it’s not too ludicrous to say that I might be as right as he is?
And how is this related to truth?
Previously I tried to consider truth as subjective to each individual. As such, truth becomes a rather fleeting notion — something we find comfort in when all other things seem falsified, but we are uncomfortable to come to terms with the idea that there might not be such a thing called “truth”. I think this conundrum pushes me further down this rabbit hole.
Even if we accept that there is truth, I still think there is no universal truth. As demonstrated in the conundrum, people who speak my language (in this case, English) and share a similar (urban) culture agree that when a little furry animal with long ears and red eyes hops into our field of vision and we are required to name it, we will say “rabbit”. I cannot deny that this is a case of us speaking the truth. However, when people of another culture, who speaks another language, are placed in the same situation, they might not call the animal with the term that means “rabbit” in their language. They might not have a term for “rabbit” in their language, since it can very well take on another meaning which we, urban English speakers, are ignorant of, and hence not consider to be the truth.
What is considered to be the truth to people of a culture might not be truthful to people of another culture. Something that is represented by a specific term in a language might not mean the same when translated to another language. So, language and culture makes the issue of “truth” more complex than I realized! One rather practical lesson I learned from considering this conundrum is that while doing translation work, unless we’re very familiar with the cultures of the two languages, the translator is at quite a big risk of misrepresenting the original text. 
幸福是什么？
Posted by: legilimency on: June 20, 2009
上小学时，我曾参加过讲故事比赛。印象最深刻的是得到全国第二名那一次。我们讲的故事名称就是“幸福是什么”。故事的第一句是：“每个人都想得到幸福。” 除了这一句，我可什么都不记得了。但是这句话缠了我好多年。每个人都想得到幸福，可每个人对幸福的定义都不同。
大家经常说，幸福是要自己去争取的。看到可以得到幸福的机会，就要好好把握。灰姑娘把握了机会去争取与王子在一起、摆脱被继母欺负的命运，而得到了幸福。幸福让人联想到快乐。与其说“每个人都想得到幸福”，不如说“每个人都想得到快乐”。人当然想得到幸福，因为幸福会为自己带来快乐，所以如果要快乐，就得自己争取。
我并不太喜欢这样去想“幸福”与“快乐”，因为我认为这样的想法好像很自我。争取幸福的过程中，如果给他人带来痛苦，那么我还会感到幸福吗？大家也常用到：“把自己的快乐，建立在别人的痛苦上”，如果我的快乐得经过这种途径得到，那么我还快乐得起来吗？
自己不幸福的时候，要是如果能帮忙到他人找到幸福与快乐，那也能算是一种幸福与快乐，不是吗？助人为快乐之本嘛。但是如果从这个角度想，帮助别人能为他人带来幸福，也能从中得到幸福，帮助别人就变成了一种自己所创造和争取到的机会，目标就是要得到幸福。
仔细想想，帮助别人竟然成为为了满足自己所需要的幸福而计划出的自私举动。真说不过去。
“Have you ever considered converting to another religion?”
Posted by: legilimency on: June 17, 2009
(This question was taken from Livejournal’s “Question of the Day”.)
My answer might sound contradictory: I have never considered converting to another religion. I do like reading and thinking about religion. I would love to read a few modules on Religious Studies if it was available. However, I think there isn’t much difference between one religion and another, simply because their fundamental ideas are similar. Religious people believe that there is/are perfect, omnipotent and omnipresent beings, and we look towards these beings for moral guidance and counselling when required. Believing in these beings give people hope in dark times. I know that religious differences have led to strifes and sometimes bloodshed, but generally I think all religions want their followers to do the good thing. What each particular religion considers to be “good” might seem morally suspect to other religions, which then leads to clashes.
Sometimes I get this weird idea in my mind: if I ever have to convert to another religion, I will take Moral Philosophy to be my religion. Since this is a subject that discusses extensively about our moralities, about what is “good”, and in relation to nearly every other discipline/topic under the sun, why not believe in the study of Moral Philosophy?
My view of this is going to sound naive, but here goes — I think the study of Moral Philosophy is fundamentally about answering the question of “What is good?”. In trying to seek out what is good, I think I am fine-tuning my moral compass too, because it is an ongoing process of shaping my beliefs. I discover ideas that never occurred to me before about morality, and I would try to incorporate those ideas into my life, or at least try to be less judgmental about what other people do. I would want to do more good if it is within my abilities, and become a better person, and also try and help others become better persons. Of course, there are more things that makes me feel guilty as well, and I will try to avoid doing those things if I can, too. So basically if I incorporate what I study into my life, I believe in Moral Philosophy and my belief in it makes me want to be good and do good.
That sort of makes it a religion, no? And makes a lot of other disciplines into religions, like medical science, feminism etc. Methinks it all depends on how someone incorporates such things into their lives.
Friend or Lover?
Posted by: legilimency on: June 11, 2009
The notion of love is quite a difficult issue to ponder over. As sentient creatures, we are capable of feeling love for other things or other persons. For example: I love the colour purple because it makes me happy; I love the feeling of sitting at a café with a friend, conversing about anything under the sun; I love the friend I’m sitting with at the café, because she’s been with me through thick and thin and she loves me in the same way too, and we understand each other the way best friends do; I love the man I am going to walk down the aisle with, because we’ve been dating for years and he’s been with me through my most difficult times, he finishes my sentences and vice versa, and we cannot wait to start the rest of our lives together as an entity (that is, as a married couple, co-own a house, have children etc).
From that description alone, it seems like the only difference between friends and lovers is a desire to start the rest of our lives together, and in sociological terms, starting a family unit. But as the conventions of “family unit” become increasingly vague nowadays, it actually might not seem too out-of-place if my best friend and I decide to live together and adopt children and thus call ourselves a family for the rest of our lives. But that does not make us lovers, even if my best friend and I happen to be of different gender. We could simply have decided to live together because we are best friends and it is always good to be roommates with your best friend – no worries about not getting along, and there will always be someone to share your joys and woes with, someone to help you out in needy times. And if we are both 45 and still spouseless, we could decide to adopt children because we don’t want to miss out the experience of having a family. Even at 45, that still would not make us lovers.
Wouldn’t a spouse be able to provide all that, too? And with the (positive?) benefits of sex?
谁是你的蒙娜丽莎
Posted by: legilimency on: June 7, 2009
我非常喜欢听这首歌“蒙娜丽莎的眼泪”。
除了优美的旋律，歌词也叩人心弦。《蒙娜丽莎的微笑》是达芬奇的著名画作，但是这幅画隐藏了很多秘密：蒙娜丽莎到底是谁？她为什么在微笑？她为何没有眉毛？无数位学者经过了多少的研究，得到了很多不同的结论，始终没有明确的答案。蒙娜丽莎的身世，终究是一个不解之谜。
在那首歌曲中，蒙娜丽莎代表了一位得不到的恋人。有时候，命运的确作弄人——在错的时候让你遇见对的人，在对的时候让你遇见错的人。蒙娜丽莎的神秘，变成了心中想要却又得不到的爱人。你看得见他，却没有办法走进他的心房，没有办法不让他的心被别人砸碎，没有办法阻止别人让他流下失恋的泪水。
俩人的邂逅与交往，对当事人说，都发生在“对”的时间。走到分手的地步时，“对”的时间就变成“错”。出现比对方更适合自己的人时，“对”的人就变成“错”的人。对与错虽然需要自己去判断，但是两者这么轻易的变化，尝试断定对与错真的有用吗？面对这样的变化时，应该珍惜现在拥有的，还是放弃眼前，追逐可能得不到的？得到了不一定就好，得不到也不一定是亏。
也许你心中有个蒙娜丽莎，有个你得不到却又很想要的人。得不到的东西，往往都被认为是最好的。得到了之后，“最好”往往都也会贬值。得到了之后，贬值了，开始后悔当初的穷追不舍，那又何苦？
你会要揭开蒙娜丽莎的真面目吗？
Achieving Contentment…..?
Posted by: legilimency on: May 31, 2009
The other day, I came across a good friend’s blog and he discussed about the situations of three (fictional) men: X, Y and Z. X is the average guy, just that his life has not been quite smooth-sailing lately: there had been a series of unfortunate events – his car got totaled, he lost money in the stock market, and he developed chicken pox. Therefore he complains a lot about his current plight. He considers Y, who (rather unfortunately) is born without his legs and has an abusive father. X compares their situations, and concludes that he does have quite a lot to be thankful for, despite his temporary setbacks. But he looks at Z, who is handsome, extremely wealthy, physically fit and has loving parents.
While my good friend’s view is that Z’s state may cause X to be envious, he also thinks that X should not be envious because X does not deserve to be in Z’s position. If X can be contented with his situation when he compares himself with Y, then why does his feeling of content dissipate when he sees Z? It seems like contentment is not an easy thing to achieve, after all.
The Role of Role-Playing
Posted by: legilimency on: May 22, 2009
- In: film
- Leave a Comment
Note: Since this discussion involves a film, it will contain spoilers for people who have not watched Wong Kar-Wai’s In The Mood for Love or 花样年华 (1997), starring Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung. So if you don’t wish to be spoiled, skip my discussion (which will be accessible with the ‘Read the Rest of the Entry’ button later on in this entry).
Perhaps the most well-liked (and famous, too) of Wong Kar-Wai’s films is Chungking Express (重庆森林). However, as someone who had previously taken on a number of roles in school drama productions, I am very attracted to In the Mood for Love instead. This is not a difficult film to understand, really, even though Wong’s films does make the audience exercise their minds with subtle, yet haunting questions about life.
Role-playing is a central theme in this film, which is the whole point of my essay. As an artistic device, it allows us to escape from the reality for a short while, and step into the shoes of someone who’s not ourselves – someone with a different past, different personality, different experiences. You get to do things you might not imagine yourself doing in your real life. You see things through a different set of eyes, and wonder what would be going through the mind of the character whom you are playing. It is refreshing, to be able to explore another person’s psyche (albeit a fictional person most of the time). At the same time, it is also escapist. I wonder what do people think of role-playing?
This is an essay which I had written (with very minor revisions) for a class in Film Art, during my time in university. It turned out to be one of the classes that I enjoyed immensely, because it greatly deepened my passion for films. My professor has a copy of this essay, and now I shall post it up here too, with screencaps from the film! Of course, the copyrights goes to Paradis Films. I took the screencaps from the film’s DVD.
- None
- legilimency: Ah I think you understood me correctly :) A mistaken belief is a judgment we place on another person's claim that his beliefs satisfied him (i.e. true
- asimplenbeautifulthing: hmmm.... my impression was that you accepted that truth is "a justification of an issue that satisfies oneself (for the time being, at least)". On tha
- legilimency: Reading textbooks with a critical eye is all that we do in Literature, actually. Great mind exercise but with so much to read, sometimes we're tempted
