The Philosophy of Solitude

Nobody enjoys being left alone…or so the society thinks.

Individuals who hide behind the walls of isolation are just a bunch of cowards who don’t possess enough bravery to face the imperfection of human beings that has disturbed them to an intolerable level…or so the society thinks.

I believe otherwise: it is our nature to live all by ourselves.


Yes, Aristotle‘s concept of zoon politicon puts people as social animals, political animals, who would not survive without the help of others. I’m not sure if I understand the argument behind his notion, but his empirical observation might be surprisingly wronged.

We were born from a mother, that is a factual truth. However, being part of a family is not even a choice we make. Some of us are, indeed, lucky enough to receive love from our given parents (whom we don’t pick from a market’s display window, by the way), but some others are less fortunate in a way that they have to build their own kit-to-survive-childhood institution named orphanage. Some others fail to even understand why they were born when they’re unwanted. Okay that went a little bit off the main line. My point is, there is no unfalsifiable justification to a subjective view that we are all born social. Although, you can always argue the other way around.

My main, semi-physical evidence to prove the case to you, ladies and gentlemen, is the existence of our thoughts–subsonscious, undermind, or other alternative nouns that English is kind enough to provide us with.

No one, I repeat, no one can ever understand another person’s idea completely.

Not even Plato towards Socrates. Our brain, sometimes stimulated by rationality or faith, produces insights that are solid enough to require extra efforts for one to break in. Everyone has the right to compose a thorough explanation in order to assist a second party to enter your room of thoughts, but there will always be a shadowy section of which they would not comprehend completely. The same framework can also be utilized to shed some light upon analyzing our dreams–one of our most personal belongings.

So I contend, as long as human still owns the attribute of private properties–a wholly different realm whose entrance is not accessible by another person even when the owner wishes so, we are pretty much secluded creatures.

Another bad news, even love might have been designed to put us into a state of extreme alienation. Peek into Jeffrey Eugenides, in The Marriage Plot:

Madeleine fully understood how the lover’s discourse is of an extreme solitude. The solitude was extreme because it wasn’t physical. It was extreme because you felt it in the company of the person you loved. It was extreme because it was in your head, the most solitary of all places.

In the end, I don’t necessarily expect you to understand such a saturated theory, because I know you wouldn’t. I comprehend that we were all born as unique individuals, not as groups of people, with our incomprehensible minds as a valid distinction.

You should not, however, misperceive me as a skeptic to social or even romantic interaction between human beings. I always admire, as a matter of fact, how people are able to create some kind of connection with others–whom of which was once a complete stranger to their own being.

Most blessed of all are people who believe in, and find, their true love–despite the solitudeness they were naturally born with. Have a blissful week!

Is Grey a Disguised Black or a Deceived White?

Some of you might disagree: since thousands of years ago, the most difficult quest of human being is to solve the never-ending riddle of our own complex sets of brain cells.

It is hard, my dear friends, because there is no such thing as a finish line which we can visualize in the end of the road–ergo, it would take perpetual endeavours to do so. Let’s admit it once and for all: our mind evolves. What used to be a ‘truth’ is now a ‘lie’ (Remember when church was the only omnipotent institution?) and, to add an external problem which makes the game even more intriguing, the shape of our world is constantly altering.

Having known that the possibility of discovering a completely satisfactory answer to the mystery of human’s elusive mind is near zero, most of the people fleed to the study of secondary questions: natural science. These people try to explain how atoms react to each other, how numbers have a certain pattern that amaze us all, as well as how carbons are processed in our body. Natural scientists are blessed to experience a temporary happiness of being able to produce knowledge and mastery through experiments–but deep inside, I believe that we all keep that drop of curiosity to find out how mankind produce thoughts.

Social scientists are therefore, brave intellectuals who dare themselves to shed some light on the primary inquiry: how does a person think? What can be the raison d’etre behind one’s action? Why not the other way around?

Some of them are labeled as psychologist, communication expert, theologist, anthropologist, sociologist, and–top of all–philosophers. One tries to explain what comprises fondness, another elucidates the idea behind one community’s political preference, while the rest analyzes our society’s consumptive behavior. If they’re stubborn enough, they might as well go to the extend of explaining why human needs a God–and religion.

Within the past fortnight of not posting here, my brain has been producing quite a list of points to discuss about. Most of them involve human’s idealistic notion of romance, but I also spare enough space for daily observations:


1. In a ladder of fondness, admiration stays at the bottom.

Fahmi and I once debated on whether admiration comprises tinier particles of love or is it admiration that contributes to the bigger building of love. He confidently suggested that love is just 1% of admiration (I’m pretty sure he had Real Madrid in mind when he said ‘admiration’!), while I contended elseways. Unlike admiration which focuses you on one’s fine traits, love helps you see perfection in their flaws.

So, here goes my proposal.

There are at least 3 distinct verbs to express different levels of fondness: admire, like, and love. Of course, English is generous enough to leave us quite a collection of alternatives: adore, care, appreciate, adulate, worship, and the list goes on–but for now, we’ll just stick with the trio.

At the lowest floor of the pyramid, is when you admire a person because you find them attractive. The popular word for it might be–to have a crush? You just seem to notice a certain trait, degree of cleverness, or physical appearance that interest you–thus captivate your attention at some level or another.

The next step is when you like them, triggered by further interaction with this individual. It is, however, a bit tricky, because there comes the two-prone possibility of either losing the interest completely because he/she doesn’t meet your expectations, or falling even deeper into their charm. To ‘like’ does not, however, provide the quintessential tolerance for weaknesses. You simply live in your nice imagination of him being the perfect prince–or her being the most beautiful lady.

The bad news? They’re not. They are, as a matter of fact, just human beings with flaws. There goes the key to get to the next, final level: acceptance.

Have you managed to take these imperfections–be it false tunes, covered wound, or stained habits–as an inseparable aspect of your beloved, you are ready to love them. Indeed, the wind blows tighter up there: every event just seems to reveal itself as a potential threat for your feelings. You will, by then, get familiar with anger and jealousy which are, surprisingly, the validating properties of your fondness.

2. A true leader climbs their ladder.

After a long, midnight discussion with Jessica (while recalling lessons from my Management Principles course a year ago), I realized that a leader is just a person who is foolish enough to admit that he/she is.

You see, being a leader is just a role that human chooses to take from time to time. Some of us needs it to achieve a vision, some of us wants it for money, but it doesn’t matter, really, as long as we understand that being trusted as the leader is never a means to prove that we’re better than anyone else in the team.

It rather means that the rest of the people in the team are better than you in preparing the events, in fundraising, and in doing the publication–but in the end, you get some of the credits because it’s you who decides to stay there, stick them together, stand up and motivate when everybody’s down, and take the blame when a decent coordination does not take place.

We further agreed that a true leader climbs their ladder in order to have a first-hand experience of being a follower. This idea has also been approved theoretically, where leaders are ought to be a staff at their first years so that they can understand the grassroot situation before getting to lead anyone else.

3. What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

…including uncertainty. My English teacher once said that in order to survive, human needed a fair, balanced amount of certaintly and uncertainty. A man, for example, needs to be assured that he can eat in the next morning, but at the same time life would be too boring for him if he knows exactly what food he’ll be eating everyday. This has been a very interesting concept to me, and I’ve been trying to find other examples ever since. I take ‘job’ as certainty and ‘projects’ as uncertainty–or ‘marriage’ as certainty and ‘love’ as uncertainty. In this regards, surprises at birthdays still make sense despite the fact that they are very predictable, because the time and place will always remain as uncertainty.

4. Books are sentient beings. Period.

A friend shared me a link to Mortimer J. Adler’s prose on How to Mark a Book. To quote his exact words:

I contend, quite bluntly, that marking up a book is not an act of mutilation but love.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait in there, Mr Adler, did you just say that smearing books with symbols all over its pages is an act of love? I think I have to stand against that idea. He did

make a valid point when he says that:

…But the soul of a book can be separated from its body. A book is more like the score of a piece of music than it is like a painting. No great musician confuses a symphony with the printed sheets of music. Arturo Toscanini reveres Brahms, but Toscanini’s score of the C-minor Symphony is so thoroughly marked up that no one but the maestro himself can read it.

Then again, music scores are nothing like idea-condensed books. (When I said ‘books’, you understand that I refer to thoughtful ones, not some market-based sets of words, right?) No matter how much you love–or hate–a book, it is a sentient being who deserves to be treated well for it is a physical manifestation of thoughts. Great conductors do not make notations on lines of magnificent sentences–they compse new symphony through marking scores.

I say, if you fail to appreciate the body, you can hardly understand the soul. Although in the end, people might express love through different ways,

5. God must be hiding a happy-ending scenario behind the existence of these conflict-triggering religions.

As much as I have this tendency to invent confusing questions about–and for–God, I apparently am still the very conservative girl back then who has an auto-pilot that drives herself into possitive assumptions about Him.

Rumor has it, God closes certain people’s heart from receiving the light for particular religions. My brain has it, it would be a too shallow, and poor, description for Him.

You see, I possess this preposterous habit of watching people walking down the street from the window of my room. One day, it just came up to my mind that each of them–destined for a different story and religion–must play their unique role in God’s master plan. As quoted from Cin(T)a:

Why would God create us different, if He only wants to be worshiped in a single way?

I once said to a friend over coffee that I would feel awfully betrayed if God does not own any happy-ending scenario behind this diversity of religions He has created on Earth. At the status quo, I can say that I still am very much disappointed to the existing conflicts it triggered.

My most favorite story line would be Dwinta’s concept of ‘destination’, while the second-best alternative would be this: God’s actually playing a trick by designing us with a limited container for faith but endless curiosity for truth so that we would ask one another, share ideas, and basically, interact. Because otherwise we’ll just stay at our safe houses of unitary religion.

6. Movie is not a character-killing product.

Instead, it’s a character-producing one.

I wholeheartedly believe that there are many of us who have been let down by novel-based movies, and I’m not proud to say that I used to be one of those furious audience. Harry Potter, Sense and Sensibility, One Day–you name it–true readers don’t really fancy movies.

Of course, I truly understand that movies are intended to please our audio-visual and not mere imagination, and thus are challenged to be eye-and-ear-catching, which are still very tolerable, until I met (the movie) Sherlock Holmes (last year) and Professor Moriarty (yesterday).

Here is all I need to say: my handsomely smart English man has turned into a laughing stock while the brilliant antagonist does not have the fierce expression I expected. So no, people, I won’t take it anymore. I decided to reach out for acceptance through seeing Sherlock (the movie) and Sherlock (Doyle’s) as two different persons.

And with that, ladies and gentlemen, I rest my last case in 2011. I don’t even know what point I was trying to make back there, but always remember that getting lost in a bookstore might still be the best bliss that we can get so far.

Oh and for 2012, let’s keep my friend’s idea in mind: dreams are not genetic and self-driventhus–before it’s too late–let’s revisit our old dreams and see if we can make them come true (like having–HAHA). Happy new year!

A (Not So) Brief on Almost Everything

Not posting for almost a little too long, I got myself stuck with a lot of ideas to break down. At first I was about to write a single post for each thought, but then I realized that it’s gonna take such a long time and space, so I decided to compact them all into a single post. I hope that you treat every point as valuable as a full post, and–since the post is going to be quite long–I also am humbly asking you to at least read the bold sub-titles and continue to its paragraph if you find them interesting.

The world makes you think that, success or failure, you deserve what you get.

I happened to have stumbled upon Alain de Botton’s TED Talk, and I could hardly stop myself from attentively nodding to Watson’s screen (That’s the name of my laptop, yes.). What I really want to quote from his 16 brilliant minutes of British-accented speech is this:

Back in the middle age, when you saw a poor man on the street, you would say that he’s unfortunate. Today, you call people without job as losers. There’s a big difference between these two terms, and it is constructed throughout 400 years of evil meritocracy.

Another way to say it in modern English: “There are too many random factors that contribute to your path of success; being on the top of a society-constructed pyramid/career does not always mean that you’re better than those at the bottom.” In which, I wholeheartedly agree. Some people get to decent colleges because they have their parents’ money. Some extremely smart people ended up selling shoes at their father’s shop. We really have to recreate our concept of ‘ social structure’.

One funny example: the bald guy was born earlier, so he got the chance to convey my own thoughts to a larger audience. I was born later in a developing country whose people, generally, do not care about impractical philosophy discussion. This surely can’t be explained by the principles of meritocracy.

People who read too many romance tend to complicate things.

I always think that a perfect love story will only happen to people who don’t read novels–or watch drama movies. I myself have consumed too many fiction books that have various plots to not have assumptions on what would happen next, making it impossible for me to fully enjoy the not-knowing-state and be surprised of how people show their affection to each other. In other words, these stories eradicate your sacred idea of uniqueness. A research additionally showed that these novels and movies actually make women set their expectation of relationships very high when, matter-of-fact-ly, it is unlikely to happen unless the guy is some exceptional alien who thinks–or at least understand–the way female beings do.

‘Be yourself!’ is so last year.

I once had a discussion with some friends about whether or not we should really be ourselves at all times. Putting the riddle of ‘how do you really know which one is your true self’ away, we came up with what we call as ‘conditionality’. This means the skill of being able to equalize our frequency to the person we’re with. For example, when you’re out with your yeyek friend, to some extent loosening yourself up to a bit of yeyekness doesn’t hurt. The goal of this behaviour is mainly to befriend and understand the subject in a much better way. We concluded that ‘being ourselves’ does not always benefit us in every situation.

The process of learning a language always creates a certain prejudice to its words.

Especially when you don’t live in the native speakers’ environment and merely study it from weekly courses. Teachers who see English as a foreign language will never get you any close to the real language. They tend to tell you to memorize vocabularies and relate it to a certain translation in their own language. This is where the problem starts. For example: since average English-speaking Indonesian started their lesson back in elementary school, once they hear the word chair, they will always relate it to a physical seat. So even if you know that when a professor is endowed with a chair in economics it means that he becomes a professor, you will always have an image of a chair pops up in your head. Tell me I’m right.

A bit off the topic, a year ago, an abla (Turkish pronoun for sister) told me that Arabic is the universal language of our souls. This is indeed very highly related to Islamic believes and make no sense for secular people, yet I love the idea that every person in the globe actually speak a singular language. This notion also explains why we are told to read the Quran in its purest form, before any translation occured. Because regardless our conscious does not fathom anything, our soul does.

Soulmate is a floating, never-to-be-verified concept.

Ranked second after fate, the idea of soulmate always tickles my brain’s philosophical realm. The big concept is that ‘there is a special someone that is destined to be your company for the rest of your life’, right? This means that you’re cluelessly searching for a single man, or woman, out of 9 billion people in the world? How do you even know where to start? A hypothesis? My questions would then be:

  • At what point can we be assured that someone is our ‘other half’?
  • How can you confirm your faith before the story even finishes?
  • Is relationship/marriage only a tool to officialize this hypothesis? Because you now, married ‘soulmates’ divorce, too.
  • If your partner cheats on you, does that negate the idea that he’s your soulmate? What are the indicators?
  • Is death then the only validation to prove your hypothesis?

Feelings will always deceive owners. Thenceforth, I believe that unless you can quantify its premises, it never really exists.

Making mistakes is the best way to learn.

Almost a month ago, my friend wrote something on being wrong. He summarized Kathryn Schulz idea of the–quoting his own words–misconception of human understanding of erroneousness. I’ve just watched the whole video myself and I turned into wonder as she explicates her genuine, provoking thoughts.

We should never stop entertaining the possibility of being wrong.

The idea of being right at all times will eventually kill you because it becomes harder for you to admit that someone else’s argument makes more sense than yours. I believe that being wrong once in a while is an att

ribute of humane, that it is inherent in everyone. The only difference is on how we react when we realize that we are. Next time we’re wrong, let’s learn to forgive ourselves.

A different approach should be applied when we talk about proofreaders, though. Let them be all tortured with shame and people’s ridicule when they fail to correct the wrongs, because hey that’s what they are paid for! Haha.

Being paid takes a part of your freedom.

I’ve just come to an epiphany that maybe, people love blogging because they don’t have editors who scrutinize whatever crap they write. I am now a labor that is paid on $15 per day to write articles, so I have to accept the fact that I’ll have someone who supervises my work and wake me up to make improvements on this and that. Dee Lestari once tweeted about how your relationship with passion will change once it becomes a profession and I’ve just understood that she’s totally right. For now, I will try my best to make sure that I’m worth the money they pay me for. Oh and I really, really hope that the government also think the same way.

Some people don’t judge but are very judgmental about how people will judge them.

Like, “I don’t think that my speech would impress them that much because I’m just an unimportant person from a second-class college and they’re Harvard guys.” These negative thoughts, ladies and gentlemen, are very deadly. These kind of people don’t even bother taking care about that guy who sits in the corner wearing a pink shirt, but they do care too much about whether or not people will see them as gay if they put on the same outfit. The worth-a-try solution is to stop doing that on purpose.

Indonesian people need to be trained on ‘laughing strategically’.

This aptitude is very practical and useful in one-on-one conversations. I sometimes find it hard to really harmonize my laughters into others’ because sometimes I laugh too early and sometimes too late. It would be nice if an expert can share their ideas upon when we should laugh loudly, quietly, or when we should just be silent all the way.

That’s all I can say for now. Thanks for reading thoroughly (which I doubt that you did)!