random no. 1

My English essay is due 18 hours from now, it's on Paradise Lost, and I didn't finish it yet...
If this poem is written two or three hundred years later, it'll go on bookstore shelves under "Apologetics" in the "Religious" section rather than a fictional epic poem.

So I decided to write a completely random blog. It's May 28, six days from June 4th. It's been twenty years since what happened shook the world, the world except the place it happened on.

Anyways, the song of the day is Allegro, Opus 3.3 a.m. by Eason Chan. I think it's the first studio recorded Jazz song by him. Ciao!

Masks

"Science is the new religion."

I don't know where I saw that, but if here religion means superstition, then I can totally see it on TV.

When watching the news reporting near hospitals, the reporter always wear a mask. But while he is in Mongkok, he doesn't.


Why does he wear a mask outside a hospital? Are there dark clouds roaming above it, creeping death and disease over everyone who stands near this place? And why doesn't he wear a mask in Mongkok? Does he have assurance that the million people (quite literal) beside him are not sick? Not even having the common cold?

Besides, contrary to popular belief, masks don't prevent you from getting cold, influenza, etc...
It only reduces the chance of the mask wearer transmitting his/her sickness to other people. A mask only protects our mouths and noses, it doesn't protect anywhere else, especially the eyes, which is vulnerable to bacteria too. If a mask can protect you, it can protect you only if you dress like this...

So why wear a mask? It is simply because of fear, fear that if I don't do what is "scientific," death and sickness will befall me. People understand things superficially and half-heartedly, just like catholics in the medieval times. If I wear a mask, I'll be safe. If I wear a rosary, God will protect me.

Or maybe... the company that produces the masks paid the news reporters to help impose the fear to watchers.

So... is science the new religion?

Arsenal...Arsenal?

I didn't follow much football (soccer) these days, but I still have a liking for some clubs, particularly Arsenal FC. Like many other people, I come to like the gunners because of Thierry Henry, who was a vital part of the team. It was of utter disappointment to the fans that he left for Barca in 2007, and I thought Arsenal would be in a mess. But the truly indispensible part of the team is its manager Arsene Wenger.

He definitely has an eye for young potential players, and these people brought much life to the games they played and created much magic together. The club turned out fine after two years. Among many are Van Persie, Flamini, Walcott, Hleb, Cesc Fabregas, who became captain of Arsenal at only 22.

His team is always... cost effective, if you will. The gunners doesn't have that solid star filled line like Man utd or Chelsea (other than its defence). I think Wenger is somewhat like a Warren Buffet of the football market. He has a good eye for potential stocks, buy them, then sell them at a good rate. For example, Flamini and Hleb. Whenever we've found a good line, he always has something to sell. The average age of our line is amazingly young, and while seemingly without many stars thus much guarantee, we've stroll through pretty well. However, there is always that fear as a fan that the young players can't create the magic...

Go goooooooooooooooooonersss!!!

Top: Hleb Bottom: Flamini

Afterthoughts on debate

I study philosophy, and people always thought it goes well with debating (in Chinese, for your information).

Well, it doesn't, as the audience, ie. judges, are not all receptive to what that violates common sense.

To most people, what that appeals to common sense is what they call "logical." However, philsophers always call into question our common sense believes. Commen sense morals are the most easily spotted believes. For example, one would say it is "logical," or it is common sense that "killing is wrong." Why is it wrong to kill? Most judges would say it's immoral, but of course, it is just an example of common sense morality and does not answer any questions.

To convey to the judges things that violate common sense most likely guarantees your losing the debate. Thus the contents we wish to be included to our debate is determined by the judges as well.

We can't, for example, put in an argument for idealism, ie. only ideas exist and material objects don't. Or make a stand on ethical egoism, that is moral standards are really solely dependent on our liking. Judges are most likely to say that it doesn't make sense.

Then what follows is the most difficult to answer in philosophy: Is it that the proposition is so weird that it can't be true, or is it a surprising fact?

Sondry Serendipity

Welcome to my new blog.

I used to have a xanga blog, but since its complication, facebook, and my laziness in updating it, I stopped using it for a long time. If you like to visit, it's www.xanga.com/archyami

Note that you need a xanga account to read it. Time and again I found my old blog posts quite interesting, not to mention some... rather embarassing ones.

"Sondry Serendipity"

"Sondry" marks when I set this up, and what this blog has. I'm studying the General Prologue to the Canterbury Tales, "sondry" is a middle English word in it meaning "various." And well... it sounds cool.

I thought it would be nice to have an alliteration as my title, so I asked a friend who I thought would give me an idea. She gave me the word "serendipity," which means finding something fortunate when I wanted to find something entirely different. Since many of my previous blog posts or notes are quite random and they were never planned to be so, "Sondry Serendipity" would be quite fitting as the name for the blog.

I picked the colour because it feels like the name.

And so start my real hobby!

trivia: Italian for "serendipity" is, you guessed it, "serendipita'"