Pessimism reigns on Valentines – “The valentine I know nothing about.”

To all the ill-informed star-crossed lovers, what do you know about neither love nor the meaning of Valentine? A derivative from strength and courage seems very inappropriate to a day celebrated solely for love, or is it a symbolism to gather one’s bravery to rival the cowardice in one, and bring forth the power to expel the lust and greater desires for one’s crush? We drag our feet through the heavy snow happily than ever entertaining our desires for hastened and untamed love. But what is this tradition you speak of, of this artificial euphoria induced by mere chocolate and opiates – am I seeing what you are seeing? That such gifts and splendors are greater than the purest of pure emotions and bond?

It fails as a society for lovers to mark special days to prove their love, to such extent to save money to buy flowers and chocolate would it not only produce unnecessary jealousy and gluttony to play, to those especially, who are not accustomed to such sudden drama? Why say, do lovers have to rejoice in a difference of such a day, when any other were supposed to be as great or as loving, since the beginning of their shared love? I do not see the point that marking would do, but only a failure to keep their standards as a couple should do. Does neither Romeo nor Juliet even know of the slightest of what true love is or was it simply an urge for unchaste lust? As we all know well, nothing comes forth in irrationality and unplanned feelings, but only of malevolence and misunderstanding.

Oh why does Cupid’s Arrow sting so great, when love is not accord by volition but gamed by a fiendish play? – playing with the hearts of young youths. The tradition plants the seed of expectation in tender hearts and blooms and haunts them as the tale begins to cease, insinuating the harshness of adulthood – which we think we all know too well. A single shot, at least finish this trickery! Unrequited love, and addition to endorphins, only sorrows the soul, and pains and urges and weakens thy heart that would only sway and withers in the presence of glimpse of unintended warmth.

A princess or prince even! Come and befit my hollow soles and tell me what you see in my humble stead! But then again, what do I know of such beast? Let loose for once, and surmount as much as you will, be not afraid of failure or of other’s expectation – try it, go on, see for yourself what you are missing!

Time is the one thing we can truly be stingy about, so why waste your time and wait when every second matters; coming out to your crush on Valentines only means possible competition, and cowardice and failures of such. Experience a greater potential of happiness with him/her if it was meant to be by asking your love to simply be for once or twice and thrice at most! And I know, as you do too – It’s difficult and awkward.

Debate on Unsolved Problems #2 – Problem of Evil

If, God is truly Benevolent, then why does different forms of Evil – be it the Seven Sins or other forms of malevolent workings, such as tricksters etc. – are present throughout time, surely this proves that there are some incoherency within the belief of such Deity?

I am aware that it is possible from Paley’s perspective, that for now, we due to the constraints of our mortal knowledge are not able to perceive or to acknowledge the purpose, complexity and order of such power, but even so, this does defy the need of such negatives for if God is truly good, then it consequently follows that He could also create the most efficient world there is, one akin to the idea of Utopia?

Is it possible to defend the religious account of the classical theistic God whilst accepting the fact that evil does exist? If so, please enlighten me!

Debate on Unsolved Problems #1 – What is Art?

This problem originally arose from the practice rather than theory of art. Marcel Duchamp, in the 20th century, challenged conventional notions of what “art” is, placing ordinary objects in galleries to prove that the context rather than content of an art piece determines what art is. In music, John Cage followed up on Duchamp’s ideas, asserting that the term “music” applied simply to the sounds heard within a fixed interval of time.

While it is easy to dismiss these assertions, further investigation[who?] shows that Duchamp and Cage are not so easily disproved. For example, if a pianist plays a Chopin etude, but his finger slips missing one note, is it still the Chopin etude or a new piece of music entirely? Most people would agree that it is still a Chopin etude (albeit with a missing note), which brings into play the Sorites Paradox, mentioned below. If one accepts that this is not a fundamentally changed work of music, however, is one implicitly agreeing with Cage that it is merely the duration and context of musical performance, rather than the precise content, which determines what music is? Hence, the question is what the criteria for art objects are and whether these criteria are entirely context-dependent. – from Wikipedia.

Alf: Well I think in order to attack the question appropriately, I believe we have to first establish the term “art”. Art can be defined traditionally to many of the following: as a “skill as a result of learning or practice”; arti – “just”; artios – “complete”; artizien – “to prepare”; artus – “joint”; arnam – “make”, art – “manner mode”; ar-* as a prefix – “fitting together” or lastly it can also be defined as “a sense of cunning and trickery” – first attested circa. 1600.

Judging from the derivatives of the term art, I think the underlying conclusion of the term “art” therefore is the – intention of making, through practice, a product that imbues a sense of sensual appeal in terms of aesthetics or sentimental value.

In that case, in respect with the instances mentioned above, I believe it is still considered a piece of artwork according to my criterion of art, for clearly the subject has gone through the process of erudition of Chopin’s etude in terms of practice, furthermore, the end product of the piece did in fact appealed to our senses, even if a note was occasionally misplaced at certain instances. Variations of the piece therefore can also attribute to the sentimental value derived from the subjectivity of the musician’s approach to the piece, be it rubato or occasion transferal of playing style(s) (legato to staccato), it has clearly done nothing fundamentally wrong, for Chopin himself did not indicate how the piece should be played note by note, and thus, does offer a sense of freedom for the musician to input their musical desires in order to incorporate their own sense of workmanship into play – excuse the pun.

*Another personal note to my friend Stephen, I do not wish to argue the truth of freewill in my given response, for it can wait for another future debate once we both consolidate our raw ideas further.