Sunday

Went library today to study, ended up spending much more time reading instead.

Read "10 Philisophical Mistakes" and re-read "101 Philosophy Problems".

Hated "10 Philosphical Mistakes". Read the prologue and the first "mistake" and i thought that the author is merely taking in stands in controversial debates and rebutting against opposing views.

I expected the book to be as objective as possible and use logic and systematic deduction to show some errors made by famous Philosophers in the past. However, the author seems to be focusing a lot on practicality. For example, the author claimed that determinism (the abscence of free will) is flawed because that would nullify moral responsibility. He assumed the existence of moral responsibility, even though there is indeed a need for it.

Another flaw will be his statements on objectivity and subjectivity. His arguements on absolute objectivity is ironically filled with subjective opinions and debatable definition. My conclusion after reading his points is that absolute objectivity can only exists subjectively, since absolute objectivity is a concept that can only exist as a theory, an idea or a thought. ok actually i'm a bit confused myself, because if everything is indeed subjective, then should the law: "Everything is subjective" be objective?

ok, watching yet another movie today.