End of a decade: A review of Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 2

Severus Snape: “You have used me. I have spied for you, lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter’s son safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter—

“Albus Dumbledore: “But this is touching, Severus. Have you grown to care for the boy, after all?“

I guess I should count myself as part of a generation of people that practically grew up with Harry Potter. As I recall, I was in Form 2 when Harry Potter & The Philosopher’s Stone came out and I’m in the final year of my 5-year university course now. I opted not to refresh my memory on the books for this movie, to avoid the inevitable comparisons. And I chose to see it in 3D out of convenience because my nearest theatre was showing it (+1) at the earliest possible time (+1).

To my surprise, the theatre was not full even at midday on a Saturday. Perhaps most of the Potter enthusiasts caught it on the premiere day, I thought to myself. The opening scene sets the mood for the rest of the film – a somber march to a final conclusion. Even the giant Warner Bros. logo appears more ominous than usual.

The film picks up directly after the events of its predecessor, where we find Harry Potter having just buried Dobby the elf. The first act is a thrilling break-in of the Gringotts bank by our trio with the help of the goblin Griphook. Here, Helena Bonham-Carter shines as she plays a nervous, polyjuiced Hermione in Bellatrix Lastrange’s form. After collecting the horcrux in the form of Helga Hufflepuff’s Cup from the vault, they escape via dragon.

We then get to meet Dumbledore’s brother Aberforth who rescues Harry. Ron and Hermione when they apparate into Hogsmeade and set off a Caterwauling charm alarm. We also get to see a portrait of the young Ariana Dumbledore which appears to be the centrepiece of the living room. But regretfully, we don’t get to see any of the backstory between the Dumbledore siblings or Grindelwaal which would have added tantalizing depth to the movie.

Harry sneaks into Hogwarts with the sole purpose of finding the remaining horcrux. Sensing this, Snape launches a crackdown on all Hogwarts students in the Great Hall before Harry reveals himself. He is swiftly pushed aside by the awesome HBIC Professor McGonagall. She forces his ouster in startling fashion following a fiery one-sided duel from her formidable wand. But there is little time to cheer as Voldemort sends a chilling message to Hogwarts to prepare for his arrival.

The Battle of Hogwarts ensues as Voldemort’s forces attack Hogwarts itself. For me, the highlight of the movie is the following part where we see Snape’s final showdown with Voldemort. The dark wizard is insecure that the Elder Wand is not under his command because he did not kill the previous owner (Albus Dumbledore). Thus he unleashes his pet snake Nagini on Snape (which was a little bit frightening for the little ones). Harry finds Snape in his dying minutes, only to retrieve a few drops of his tears for the pensieve.

We learn that Snape and Lily were childhood friends, and he could only watch as the woman he loved fell for the seemingly arrogant James Potter. When the Dark Lord rose for the first time, he begged him to spare Lily Potter. On that fateful night at Godric’s Hallow, Lily refused to step aside to the Dark Lord in order to protect her son, Harry. Voldemort unleashed a Killing Curse which rebounded on Harry as a result of his mother’s willing sacrifice. Snape is seen at the Potter home later, in grief at Lily’s death. He changes his allegiance to Dumbledore’s side in order to avenge Lily’s death and his true colours are revealed.

Dumbledore was in fact dying after inflicting himself with a horrible curse during his last horcrux adventure with Harry. He had ordered Snape to kill him in order to ostensibly show his loyalty to Voldemort. And as for Harry himself, Dumbledore knew that in order to defeat the Dark Lord, Harry must die. This horrified Snape who had sworn to protect Harry to honour Lily’s memory and sacrifice. Snape then reveals his patronus, the shape of a doe – the same as Lily’s. He still had feelings for her after all these years.

I think that the story of Snape, the half blooded prince, is the climax and tour de force of the movie. It is storyline most unexpected and that has been slowly revealed over the seven books – that Harry’s most disliked teacher was the one who was protecting him all along. The rest of the movie simply pales in comparison to the complexity, depth and emotion of Severus Snape and his relationship with Harry and Lily Potter.

Good things aside, there were some parts of the movie that were not well done. The epilogue was presented to us almost literally from the books and it was laughable. Harry, Ron and Hermione did NOT look 19 years older. Only Ginny could have passed for a mom. And there was little sense of emotion or nostalgia of any kind during this scene. It really kind of all fell flat for me. And don’t get me started on how they undermined Harry and Ron’s friendship in the movie to make way for Ron and Hermione’s “romance”. I had always imagined that the core trio’s relationships would be strongly developed, but Ronald Weasley’s role as Harry’s best friend was severely underestimated in this film. He didn’t even seem to flinch when Harry announced he was going to face Voldemort in the Forbidden Forest alone.

But all things aside, when the Pottermania subsides, Harry Potter will likely be the top grossing movie franchises of all time. And what is the future of Pottermania? Well, thankfully, JK Rowling is not going to stop with books and films. She’s created an online portal called Pottermania where her work lives on. And as a true thank you to her legions of fans, it will be available for free hopefully, for decades more to come.

A Review of Transformers: Dark of the Moon

There are some movies where you become drawn into a fictional reality, perhaps because of dynamic storytelling where we breathe the script vicariously through characters that borrow a part of our egoistical identities (They give it back at the end of the movie and we are left with just an empty popcorn box).  Well after the first two installments it’s safe to say that Transformers is no such a film. Nevertheless, I was a huge fan of the television series and owned many a transformer toy so I felt obliged to see the final film of the trilogy, named Transformers: Dark of the Moon. (Spoilers ahead)

The film opens with a clever montage that juxtapositions an alternate reality of actual historical events. In this case, we find out that the Apollo 11 mission sent to the moon in fact discovered not just moon rock but an alien ship belonging to who else but those enigmatic robots that just can’t keep their junk from falling into our solar system. We learn that the ship was piloted by Sentinel Prime, the previous leader of the Autobots and he was ferrying technology that would change the outcome of the battle in Cybertron for the Autobots. The ship of course is the mythical Ark of transformers canon, and Optimus Prime discovers that the Soviet attempted to use a fuel cell found in its wreck, resulting in the Chernobyl accident (continuing the theme of “yay let’s use historical events to make things cooler”).

We then find that our protaganist Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf) has ditched or should I say upgraded Mikaela (the recently fired Megan Fox) to an English girl, Carly Spencer (of authentic Transformers canon), played by the stunning Victoria’s Secret model Rosie Huntington-Whitely. Unfortunately this is the most appropriate description of Huntington-Whitely’s performance as she seems to have perfected the wide eyed, slack jawed effect and somehow gotten stuck with one expression. In fact, in the middle of a chaos in the climax of the film, there is a laughable scene where the camera pans towards her doing ONLY that for a good 15 seconds.

I can't really act so I'll just try to look pretty

Sam seems to have suffered from a post-Transformers life crisis where he struggles to find a job that would give him enough stimulation and meaning. He eventually finds work in a mail room under an OCPD boss by the name of Bruce (John Malkovich). His girlfriend however, works for Dylan Gould (Patrick Dempsey) who appears to be a wealthy business magnate with an interest in cars.

Meanwhile, Optimus is sulking (we know this because he uh, remains quiet in his trailer truck mode) at the news that the humans have withheld knowledge of the Ark on the dark side of the moon. He scrambles to put his massive metal foot on the moon to retrieve Sentinel Prime (voiced by Leonard Nimoy), who with tentacle bears bears a striking resemblance to Captain Barbosa. Using the matrix of leadership, he revives his former leader and has a talk with him apparently and awkwardly in the middle of the African savannah. Sentinel Prime reveals to the humans that he was carrying pillars to build a space bridge that would turn the tide of the Cybertronian War.

The Decepticons however, have been laying low, waiting for Sentinel Prime to be resurrected, presumably so that they can get in on this bridge thing. They are executing humans connected to the Russian and American space missions to the moon. One of them, Sam’s coworker Jerry Wang (Ken Jeong) manages to slip in information about “the dark side of the moon” before being assassinated by Laserbeak. With the help of the now eccentric former agent Seymour Simmons (John Turtturro), he uncovers evidence that the Decepticons were at the Ark way before Optimus and have the bulk of the space pillars. Next thing you know, Sam is alerting the Autobots that Sentinel Prime is in grave danger.

During the escort mission to get Sentinel Prime to safety, the former Autobot leader throws a curveball of his own, by revealing that he had made a pact to work with Megatron. He kills Ironhide point blank and runs away with the pillars. With Megatron at his side he activates a space bridge that transports hundreds of Decepticons that have been lying dormant on the dark side of the moon. His next plan is to transport Cybertron itself to Earth’s vicinity and enslave the human race as some sort of cheap labour force to gather resources.

Gould is revealed as a human Decepticon agent and he places a transforming spy probe-watch on Sam’s wrist to find out Optimus’ plans. The Autobots are condemned to exile and sent in a rocket into space, but not before it gets shot down by a Decepticon lying in wait. It appears the Decepticons and Sentinel Prime have full control of the Earth. They lay ruin to the city of Chicago and barricade it’s centre to make way for the space bridge. (For it would be much more dramatic than say going to Antartica).

Sigh...one can only hope that is a Protoss Carrier

To nobody’s surprise, the Autobots return (they were in the rocket boosters that fell off and returned to Earth) and save the day even though they are heavily outnumbered. This doesn’t stop Sentinel Prime from activating the space bridge and summoning Cybertron itself into full atmospheric view. Yes, for Michael Bay hopes that the awesome visuals will distract you long enough before you remember the laws of physics and realize that planets have gravitational fields. Also the titular “moon” is conspicuously nowhere to be seen during the epic appearance of Cybertron. You’d think it would be awesome for them to transport Cybertron to within Earth’s gravitational field only to have it collide with the moon.

Optimus is cornered by Sentinel Prime and has his arm amputated before Megatron comes to save his day. Yes you read that right. None other than Carly Spencer herself personally approaches the mangled tyrant (he’s still missing most of his robotic cranium) and whispered to him words that would make him jealous of Sentinel Prime’s position. An absurdly ridiculous scene. But anyways to cut the story short, Megatron distracts Sentinel Prime just enough so that the one-armed Optimus can kill them both.

So what exactly does Transformers bring to the table? It’s sort of like imagining what would happen if the actors in all your sitcoms played their roles in the nude. Transformers is almost pornographic in the way it presents action and violence. Sparks fly, robo-tentacles constrict buildings, and metal is shredded all over the place without discretion. (I now shudder at the thought of Michael Bay-directed porn). Sometimes I got the feeling that I was trapped in the scene witnessing pointless destruction. The chaotic climax of the film stretches so long that you wonder if you’re watching an unending CNN coverage of Chicago’s destruction by robot aliens instead.

I was waiting for "Optimus, I am your father"

The character development is extremely weak, save for Sam Witwicky. We know very little about the Autobots except that they preach freedom for all sentient beings. I could hardly see the purpose of including the Wreckers in this film as they disappeared from screen as quickly as they were called upon. The household sized Wheelie and Brains were poor comic relief and I found myself not caring what happened to them in the end.

There was minimal interaction between Bumblebee and Sam – one of the highlights of the first movie. The Decepticons including Soundwave and Shockwave are completely underdeveloped and reduced to unrecognizable and twisted metal hulks that speak jibberish (or don’t speak at all) and have weird spider mouths. I have to say it but most of them just look ugly.

Shockwave was upset he didn't get more of a speaking role

But at the end of the day, Transformers is not about characters or storytelling. It’s not even about the Autobots or Decepticons – they are merely the toys in the toybox. It seems to me that the mantra of this movie is about pushing the limits of special effects and porno-violence to thrill the audience. An this admittedly it does very well evidenced by the applause I heard at the end of the movie.

Pixar’s first truly rotten tomato

I have to be honest that when Pixar first announced that it would be making a sequel to 2006’s Cars I was dumbstruck. I thought it was easily the weakest out of Pixar’s stable of quality unconventional movies. So I was not the least surprised to learn that the early reviews are in and Pixar’s streak of 11 certified fresh movies on Rottentomatoes has been ended! Perhaps the studio was thinking about the merchandising prospects of Cars instead. So let’s take a look at Pixar’s run thus far:

1.Toy Story (1995)
RT rating: 100%
Box office: $361,958,736
– The one that started it all. I never treated my toys the same way again.

2. A Bug’s Life (1998)
RT Rating: 91%
Box Office: $363,398,565
– I remember that this movie warranted many repeats during my school days. Loved the insects.

3. Toy Story 2 (1999)
RT Rating: 100%
Box Office: $485,015,179
– Better than the first toy story. I remember more about this film than the first one.

4. Monsters, Inc. (2001)
RT Rating: 95%
Box Office: $525,366,597
– It was so good that I still wonder what happened to Boo to this day. A tantalizing sequel was initially announced, but it’s now confirmed to be a prequel instead…darn.

5. Finding Nemo (2003)
RT Rating: 98%
Box Office: $867,893,978
– I never got to see it until much later, but I didn’t get the hype about this film

6. The Incredibles (2004)
RT Rating 97%
Box Office: $631,442,092
– Thought it was good family fun, but way overrated

7. Cars (2006)
RT Rating: 74%
Box Office: $461,983,149
– Pixar’s first critical “flop” was still respectably “fresh” by RT standards. But as for me, I found the idea mostly uninspired and I didn’t even bother to watch it.

8. Ratatouille (2007)
RT Rating: 96%
Box Office: $623,722,818
– This film impressed me with its maturity…and also its delicious looking food

9. WALL-E (2008)
RT Rating: 96%
Box Office: $521,311,860
– An instant classic space opera which does not rely on dialogue

10. Up (2009)
RT Rating: 98%
Box Office: $731,342,744
– This film was a brilliant and heartfelt adventure with an unexpected pairing of leads

11. Toy Story 3 (2010)
RT Rating: 99%
Box Office: $1,063,171,911
– I really think this is the most nostalgic and emotional of all the Pixar films..that’s why it’s so awesome.

12. Cars 2 (2011)
RT Rating: 33% and dropping
– I think I will skip this as well.

Rage and Serenity: The Dynamic of Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr

I have to admit that the intensity of Xmen:First Class blew me away. It wasn’t the action sequences or special effects that captivated me. Rather, I was heavily impressed upon by the strong dynamic between the young Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr played brilliantly by James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender. This is a character driven movie. first and foremost.

They came from wildly different backgrounds. The young Charles as a boy grew up in a mansion in New York, while Erik came from the concentration camps of Auschwitz. It was there that Erik discovered that emotions, chiefly anger, activated his power of magnetism, but this came at a traumatic cost of losing his mother. Meanwhile, Charles discovered his own kind early on, in the form of Raven/Mystique, played by the stunning Jennifer Lawrence. They develop a sibling bond over the years.

We then see Charles at Oxford University, publishing his thesis on mutation. His only friend at the time appears to be Raven, and ironically despite his power of telepathy, his genetic jargon of a pickup line doesn’t work as well with the ladies. However, his promising research on mutation lands him the attention of the CIA, in the form of agent Moira McTaggert.

It is during a CIA operation to track down archvillain Sebastian Shaw that Charles and Erik finally meet. Charles, using his power of telepathy saves Erik from certain death by convincing him to give up Shaw. Xavier brings Lensherr to the CIA’s secret “Division X” facility. Charles is the more softspoken and naively kind one. Erik on the other hand, is sympathetically depicted as angsty and bent on avenging his mother and finding the people responsible for creating his mutation.

They go on a mission together to recruit mutants and their friendship thickens. There’s great chemistry here between McAvoy and Fassbender. It’s easy to feel why they developed such a close bond. Both have finally met someone they regard as an intellectual equal, and their emotional friendship inevitably follows. Charles teaches Erik to unlock the full potential of his powers by tapping into his deepest and most vulnerable memory. They engage in philosophical discussions on their mutantkind. Charles believes in using their powers to help mankind, while Erik believes mutants are the evolutionary superior beings. They are shown playing chess together in intimate environments. In one scene, they are sitting at the statue of Abraham Lincoln overseeing America’s most phallic structure. Suggestive imagery indeed. It’s a joy just to see them both so comfortable in each other’s company.

Charles Xavier: Listen to me very carefully my friend. Killing Shaw will not bring you peace.
Erik Lehnsherr: Peace was never an option.

The crux of the movie is Erik’s intention to destroy Shaw, the person who created his mutation. In their final mission set against the tense backdrop of the Cuban Missile Crisis, we see Charles and Erik working hand in hand to bring down the powerful villain mutant. Indeed, Erik even utilizes his powers to shield Charles from harm as the their plane goes down. But it is here that their ideologies clash again. Erik mercilessly kills Shaw while Charles protests in vain. When the human lives are at stake, Charles sides with them while Erik wants to vanquish them. Although, to be honest, you almost want to side with Erik at this point considering how the humans have treated the mutants (with missiles).

But at the climax of the movie, Charles is hit by the stray bullet that would paralyze him as Moira attempts to stop Erik from destroying the human warships. Erik rushes to Charles’ side and blames Moira. It’s a heartwrenching scene as Erik holds the wounded Charles in his arms and realizes they both do not have the same vision for the future of the mutants. And he realizes that they must go their separate ways as rivals. This leaves Erik with a “void” that he fills by recruiting other members into his team. Raven joins Erik, now known as Magneto, while Charles, Professor X, goes on to open a school for mutants.

I’ve always thought that Xmen had a remarkably mature theme on mutants and their differences with humans that can be applied to racial discrimination and the LGBT community. But what makes me like Xmen:First Class is that it highlights both the eclectic heights and devastating lows of friendship. Perhaps human beings secretly desire to find another human being as awesome and as powerful as their own selves – and it is fascinating to watch when it does happen. And as for our central characters; I’d say it’s a tragic love story of friendship gained and friendship lost.

The Catcher in the Rye

Being in a rural area is different. I don’t know why anyone would choose to live here. I mean there’s nothing to do at night, and few places to eat. It’s not like I like nightlife in the first place, but knowing that there’s nothing out there come dark sucks.  Worse still, life crawls along at a snail’s pace – people get lazy. I miss civilization. The only upside is I have some spare time to read Catcher in the Rye, by the enigmatic author J.D. Salinger who once admitted this novel has autobiographical elements.

The title of the novel comes from a peculiar fantasy of the protagonist, when a misheard lyric of a poem (Robert Burns‘ Comin’ Through the Rye) reminds him of children playing in a rye field near a cliff and how he would like to be their protector, catching them if they come near the edge.

It is a remarkable novel, narrated by our protagonist, Holden Caulfield, a 16 year old boy who comes from an apparently well family and recently dropped out from an elite prep school named Pencey. He is a middle child and we know his father is a wealthy lawyer. His older brother D.B. is a successful writer in Hollywood. Although he seems to have everything, his view of life is cynical and he is discontent with it.

Most of the story takes place in New York City after he has been kicked out from school, and we are given a startling ground’s eye view at life in the Big Apple circa the 1940s. But it is the adolescent themes of depression, sexuality, alienation and angst that really drives the story. His depression probably stems from the loss of his younger brother Allie due to leukemia and his witnessing of a boy’s apparent suicide after being bullied at school. Holden also seems misanthropic towards the other boys at his prep school and pretty much everyone else except his little sister, Phoebe. He calls almost everyone who ticks him off a “phony”. This lack of social connection has an obvious effect on him. Throughout the novel, Holden is filled with bouts of loneliness and depression.

There’s an unabashed account of Holden’s sexuality here as well. We are told of the girls he has been involved with. We know he thinks about sex constantly. We know he is a virgin and became hesitant when he has an encounter with a hotel prostitute. Later on, we also know he has homophobia when an ambiguous advance by a former teacher freaks him out.

Although the story takes place in the setting of only a few days, it is highly detailed as Holden’s seems to have an inability to concentrate; his thoughts are rapidly shifting from one idea to another. Holden’s thoughts are almost completely about himself and his feelings of angst towards other people. Towards the end of the novel, Holden develops hallucinations and paranoia in addition to his depression.

Finally, the novel ends as we find out where Holden is telling this story from. He’s been sick and has been spending time in mental hospital, but he’ll be back in school in the fall. Then he admits that he has been missing some of the people he has condemned in his story – his old schoolmates from Pencey. He ends with a poignant warning:

“Don’t ever tell anybody anything. If you do, you’ll start missing everybody”.

I’m intrigued as to what psychiatric diagnosis Holden would have. He has depression, hallucianations, difficulty sleeping and sometimes racing thoughts. A case could be argued for post-traumatic stress disorder (following the loss of his younger brother), bipolar disorder or even schizophrenia. (I’ll leave it to after I finish my psychiatric posting)

What I really like from this book is how stylized the narrative is; dark, slightly narcissistic with a punch of humour and highly idiosyncratic. It’s liberal use of profanity and slangs makes Holden Caulfield seem not only real, but relatable. I’m downright surprised how much I like this broody and seemingly unlikable character. To the author’s credit, lthough the novel is set 60 years ago, the adolescent themes are so well depicted here that they appeal to generations of readers to this day.

Fear of the Unknown

I just watched Toy Story 3, an excellent film that will touch those who grew up with Toy Story 1 and Toy Story 2. This is a rare second sequel which holds its own, and I was impressed that Pixar has masterfully woven a complex and dark plot with solid characters that will bring back many childhood memories.  The persisting theme in Toy Story has always been friendship, and the relationship between the toys and their owner, Andy. That said, I’m kinda bummed Andy let go of his toys.

I also enjoyed the charming short film “Day & Night” which features an amazing excerpt from a lecture by Dr Wayne Dyer, a motivational speaker. The underlying message of the short film is simple yet powerful – opening minds and embracing differences between each other. In day-to-day life we may be oblivious to our own shortcomings, but if we take a moment and put aside our egos, I think there’s an opening for all of us to defeat this thing called the fear of the unknown.

“Fear of the Unknown.

They are afraid of new ideas.

They are loaded with prejudices, not based upon anything in reality, but based on… if something is new, I reject it immediately because it’s frightening to me. What they do instead is just stay with the familiar.

You know, to me, the most beautiful things in all the universe, are the most mysterious.”

What’s Wrong With Being An Introvert?

Analytical psychology is a subset of psychotherapy that was introduced by Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung (pronounced “yuung” as in the vowels in the word “book”). From this school of thought, the idea of psychological types was brought into the collective consciousness of human culture. Humans can be divided into two broad groups – introverts and extroverts and it is one of four dimensions of personality assessed by the popular psychometric instrument, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).

According to Jungian theory, where we get our “mental energy” defines whether we are introvert or extrovert. Hence, in introversion, this mental energy is directed inwards, towards a person’s own thoughts. While the concept of “mental energy” is no longer used today, we can redefine introversion as a person who is more concerned with and interested in his own thoughts or feelings rather than the external world.

The world seems to be dominated by egregious extroverts who are unable to fathom that there are people who actually need time alone. As an introvert myself, I find it highly offensive to see that we introverts are always being pushed by extroverts in order to adopt their lifestyle. It’s even worse to see other introverts being pressured to be more outgoing. The American Psychiatric Association has even proposed that introversion be included in the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Such blatant stigmatization on introverts is unwarranted.

In charismatic churches that feed on extroverted energy, introversion is frowned upon. An extrovert in class told me how he admired the sociability of such Christians and looked down upon those that are more reserved and quiet. Others have said that “quiet people” are selfish, arrogant or hard to approach. I’ve even heard students making outrageous claims that being “quiet” will lead to autism. Being an introvert does not mean not asking questions in class, or not being able to speak well in ward rounds. Other factors such as shyness (which is not synonymous with introversion), self confidence and anxiety come into play. There’s a big difference between solitude and loneliness.

Perhaps in the modern world extroversion is overestimated. While it’s true that extroverts get their energy from relating to other people, that doesn’t necessarily make them good company. Nor are they always the best people at delivering messages — although viewed as natural communicators, if they are always on “send,” others can struggle to “receive” the message and get a word in.

Introversion does have it advantages. We are less impulsive with our speech than extroverts, and usually think through our actions before we leap. I prefer socializing with one or two close friends rather than in large groups or parties, but that doesn’t mean I’m unfriendly. I enjoy spending time alone, whether studying or playing, but that doesn’t mean I’m misanthropic. For me, it’s suffocating to be constantly around people and I need time alone with my own thoughts to recharge. And ultimately, I hope introverts out there realize, there’s nothing wrong with that.

Why I’m An Agnostic

Today I was evangelized by a young paediatric oncologist who preached about how his belief in God helped him through medical school and work, keeping him away from the peer influences of alcohol and drugs. This incredibly nice but stoic doctor shared with me the New Testament and encouraged me to find a church.

Many people ask me where I stand on religion. Honestly, it’s not an easy or straightforward question to answer. I was brought up in a family who did not discuss God or religion, and even looked down on the overly religious. Nevertheless, my upbringing was no less conservative nor sheltered. From an early age I’ve always read about science and my fascination for it remains strong to this day.

The concept of religion really hit me in secondary school when I did not fit into any peer group. I was attracted to the Christian community because it seemed wholesome and understanding when most kids were nasty and mean. Hence, I decided to join a Christian fellowship, not once, but twice. It was easy to depend on a higher being for guidance and assistance. However, I’ve always felt on the outs when it came to worship. In the back of my mind, science rather than religion could answer the curiosities I had about the natural world. Religion seemed dogmatic and restrictive, especially here where the Evangelical Christians are influential with their brand of conservatism. Being oppressed for being different from my peers taught me to be tolerant, understanding and liberal.

But I was humbled by the kindness that some Christians showed me, and I accepted Christ via the Christian Fellowship in 2006. 4 years later, where do I stand? The Christian friends that I cherished so much have mostly faded away. It made me think to myself, was I just a tool, a “pawn” to be converted so that they could receive a blessing from their “King”? The Christians I met after that seemed dubious, hypocritical and shallow.

I never really appreciated the love and kindness that seemed to radiate from Christians until I saw how selfish and self-preserving those without religion can be. This highlights the stereotypical image problem of the solitary and un-altruistic atheist. The Church, for all its troubles and dogma, is a huge charity that helps out the community. Sure, there are many charities that are secular in nature, but are atheists too busy bashing religion to create a closely connected community? This brand of aggressive atheism is just as forceful as the evangelical movement and will meet strong opposition rather than understanding. (Disclaimer: I’m a huge fan of Richard Dawkins’ works on evolution, but even I can agree that his aggressive atheism is sometimes obnoxious)

To me, religion is probably a by-product of our ever-expanding brain capacity. It is the earliest “science”, where humans tried to explain the world at a time when they did not have the advanced tools to study natural phenomena. Evidently, spirituality has evolved separately in most cultures worldwide. Religion is the organization of this spirituality, with an authoritarian power.

Organized religion is something that I am against. I think it is healthy for people to develop their own unbiased thoughts and opinions and this is suppressed by organized religion. Science promotes critical thinking and at its best constantly forces us to challenge our own thoughts. It is this challenge, looking at things from different angles, self-reflecting on my own thought processes that made me highly curious on what makes people tick.

My opinion is that the concept of God is a perfectly natural part of the evolution of any sentient being that has acquired a reasonable amount of intelligence. Without religion, human history would be radically different. Religion has played a huge role in the rise and fall of civilizations around the world, and scientific progress could not be achieved without civilization. As science progresses by leaps and bounds, is religion truly still relevant? Perhaps, but not in its present shape or form. Human beings have this existential need that can be satisfied by spirituality. But it can also be satisfied by a thorough and competent understanding of science. Currently I straddle these two notions. Spiritually I feel connected to the concept of God, yet I do not feel obliged to follow religion dogmatically. I am also aware that it is through science that I can truly understand the natural world – and this gives me the greatest satisfaction.

Hence, I would classify my beliefs as agnostic in nature, which is the belief that the truth value of the existence of God cannot be known. Agnosticism plays an important role in the philosophy of religion because it poses a serious challenge to those theologians and philosophers who argue that knowledge about gods is possible. If agnosticism can be successfully defended as being at least rational, then the efforts of many religious apologists (especially those who try to prove the existence of God) can be called into serious question, if not rejected entirely as a castle built upon sand.

I do not believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, but I do believe in the intrinsically good message that it has. Nevertheless, my liberal curiosities are entrenched in the scientific method rather than religion. I enjoy this unrestrained freedom of thought at the cost of feeling like an outsider in the conservative Christian community. Moreover, I do identify with the more secular minded community but this community is especially rare for there is a line between secularism and being just plain ignorant (most people I meet are unfortunately laodicean when it comes to religion and science). My hope is that atheists and agnostics can build a stronger community of mutual interests so that science can be promoted peacefully rather than forcefully. Although we are all made up of “selfish genes”, to act selfishly is shortsighted because I strongly believe our genes resulted in behaviour that is altruistic in nature.

The Fish Tank Ward Round

Today I followed the ward round by the head of the paediatrics department at the hospital I’m currently attached to. The one thing that made my day was the fact that, in transit from one room to another, in the middle of the ward round, we stopped. In front of us stood a mighty fish tank, teeming with several species of fish that were oblivious to there whereabouts (right in the middle of a busy paediatrics ward). The head of the department eagerly inquired about the status of the fish. And a bright houseman, seemingly prepared, gleefully presented that the fish seemed to be in good health.

Minute details were not overlooked, such as the fact that fish pellets that were too small rapidly sank to the bottom of the tank, thus fattening the filter fish (DBKK) , while leaving the mid-tank dwellers malnourished. They even took note of a stray filter feeder that seemed a little too eager to spend it’s time near the air-water boundary of the tank. It’s reassuring to know that at times, doctor’s can just pause and not focus on medicine all the time, despite the constant demands of the profession. In fact, being consumed by medicine is one of my fears as I know I am an intense person by nature. To be able to look beyond the menial tasks, to be able pursue interests outside of the hospital – is paramount for the survival of our individuality.

On Friendship

This is a self-reflection article that I therapeutically wrote for myself. The reason it is shared is because it is a raw expression of thoughts that touches deeply on the virtues of friendship, and somewhere out there  people who value friendship would appreciate it.

To a dear friend.

We’ve been in a rut for too long. I really think that you got the wrong idea on what I want from you as a friend. I do not want to burden you with my problems or anything, when I share them it’s because I trust you a lot. Sure I’m alone, so what? I’ve dealt with it my entire life. Sure as a result I have higher anxieties and do not easily trust people to talk with. But this is something I carry alone and over the years I’ve coped with it though writing. I do not expect you to carry the burden of being a friend. On the other hand, I also do not expect you to push me aside because of it. It makes me feel more rejected than I already am. The chronic stress gives me a flight or fight response. I’ve contemplated just giving up so many times. But I think I shall not. This is why.

When I first got to know you I was really shocked that you shared many of the interests that I hold in high regard. To have someone share these qualities – it doesn’t happen very often at all. The conversations we have are really great – some of them among the best I ever had. Moreover you have anti-social tendencies that I also share. The rational, open minded and critical part of you is something that I admire. That’s why I still think it’s worth it to pursue a deeper friendship of mutual understanding with you. Most friendships are pretend, superficial and about utility, but I think that with you, because we share so much in common – there is much to be gained by being honest and close.

Commitment in a friendship isn’t about being forced to do things. Reciprocity or doing things for one another comes naturally in any healthy friendship. Talking every day or hanging out every day is not a prerequisite. But there’s a fine line because I often have many things to share with you on a daily basis that I assure you are not emo in nature.

You may be afraid that by being close it will allow me to throw a barrage of probing questions. But my intention is not to interrogate or judge you. In fact I’ve learned to accept the things about you that you do share with me. The things you entrust me with I keep with the utmost loyalty. But one thing I do not accept is this barrier that you put up because it is a defense mechanism. And it really distresses me that nowadays I have to put up an effort just to be able to say hi because you’ve built this great wall.

To be allowed into your views and your life – this is what close friendship is about, and it is one of the great things in life that you will cherish. To be a dependable friend is something that I give freely. You may think that the clinginess will increase but in fact, the opposite is true. If you understood the above, you will come to understand that when you show willingness to be close then my anxiety level with you will decrease a lot.

You just have to go back to the times when talking with you actually decreased my anxiety. Why? Because I felt that you understood and accepted who I am. You were supportive, enthusiastic and whenever you had problems you knew you could rely on me or tell me. Right now I feel like a reject because of your constant pushing away. I am also at fault for probing too much sometimes, but that only happens after I get pushed away.

The things that I ask are nothing new (because you’ve done them before) and neither am I forcing them upon you. This is a win-win situation. It’s something that you have to realize and see for yourself. Your experiences with friendships before may have been superficial, but I think if you just give it a try for once – you will see a difference.

Aristotle wrote extensively on his views on friendship. He divides friendship into three categories, namely a friendship of utility, a friendship of pleasure and a friendship of virtue. But of these, the highest form of friendship, Aristotle argues, is friendship of virtue. This type of friendship is based on a person wishing the best for their friends regardless of utility or pleasure. Aristotle calls it a “…complete sort of friendship between people who are good and alike in virtue…”This type of friendship is long lasting and tough to obtain because these types of people are hard to come by and it takes a lot of work to have a complete virtuous friendship.

Aristotle notes that there can not be a large amount of friends in a virtuous friendship because the amount of time and care that a virtuous friendship needs limits the amount of time one can spend with other friends. Aristotle argues that there are similarities between friendship of virtue and that of utility and pleasure, however; it is only the good that can endure in such a friendship. As Aristotle puts it, “it is clear that only the good can be friends for themselves, since the bad do not enjoy their own kind unless some benefit comes from them.”Friendship of virtue is only felt among the good, between few amounts of people, is resistant to slander and is long lasting.

Based on material from the Nichomachean Ethics by Aristotle