I just thought the literal interpretation of the quote applies greatly to the current atmosphere Malaysia is in. It's up to your interpretation whether to take it as a spot or as the hidden spot behind the spot. Ain't everything like that in the Information age? Everything has its hidden meanings. But sometimes, the person who created the quote wants you to use your brain and heart to choose which meaning you're 'comfortable' with.
Interpretation is for statements. This is an underlying principle that has been established since the 1600s... Jean Jacques Rousseau was in the 1700s.
Interpretation may not be for statements. It may be a principle but may not apply to everyone or everything. Just like white and black, there may be grey... or... it may be a principle now but it may go through a reformation later which the principle may not hold water anymore.
Which just defeated the purpose of you posting it... Black is black, White is white, grey is grey, if you see things different, check your eyes (grey != White != Black). I'm just giving you a hard time.. Theories are interpretations of people on things. Interpretations on interpretations are redundant. You can't tell a man how he should think (you can't interpretate an interpretation - you form your own opinion instead of subscribing to it). But you can't change what Social Contract is. It is an established school of thought. It's sorta like challenging relativity in a sense (within the confines of that argument). Time and tide change. But theories never change. New theories surface. But theories never change. You either agree to it or you don't. Simple as that. Which is why you have many schools of thoughts on the same issue. The point people argue over is which is better. Not what each is about (nothing to contest over on that regard). But I digress.
On interpretation, it not only depends on YOUR state of mind, but also the state of mind of whoever reads/views it. For example, if I tell you that your wife is very beautiful... I may mean just that, or I may mean that I'm interested in her.. or that I'm hinting that you don't deserve someone like that, and so on. You, on the other hand, can perceive that as "I'm great to be able to snag a wife like that", or "I better watch this bugger closely" or "Did I just get insulted???" This applies to the Negarakuku song.. or even the words that come out of our "esteemed" Ministers' sweet-sweet mouths. But frankly, this is nothing more than a political ploy at inciting racial tensions before the upcoming elections. Take a look at what Farish A. Noor has to say here. This part especially... So, you see, it's not so much they really give a shit about whether namewee is singing about Islam or even the Malays. If they did, they would have made noise about it a LONG time ago. He made an earlier video (which they now allege is a brand new one) that had been circulating on the Internet for over half a year.. if not a year or more ago. Links to the video have been forwarded umpteen times via e-mail and forum posts. Surely they would have seen it earlier. But why only now are they making so much noise? Simply put, Badawi and his SIL knows that the people are angry. No matter how the newspapers spin tales of how good the economy is, or how much the administration is doing for any one race, not all the people are fools. Check out the amount of dissent online. It's unprecedented. Which is why they need something controversial, something racial to blind the eyes of everyone else. Remember, they have always counted on the separate component parties to win over their "people". UMNO fights for Malay rights. MCA for Chinese rights and MIC for Indian rights. BN IS a racist coalition by nature. To win Malay votes, BN will play the race, religion and NEP cards without fail. That's how they win the elections time and time again. MCA and MIC will always promise fair treatment and freedom for the Chinese and Indians. Same old promises. Always pulling on the race, religion and NEP strings. IMHO, it's gotta stop. FIFTY years of Independence and we still have RACE-BASED parties???? Even South Africa had officially foresworn race-based politics. And to think our government had the gall to assume a higher moral standing than the South African government in the past. To stop all this racist nonsense, it has to start with us. The royals ARE with us. Wear YELLOW on Independence Day to show your solidarity with the royals. Stop voting according to race and religion. Start THINKING about the government you want. Start VOTING for the government you want.
Then there's nothing more to say. When you say theories never change. WHat do you mean? Do you mean theories put out are statements that stay as they are even when new theories put these old theories to sleep? But the old theories never change? Doesn't make sense. New theories are bound to change the basic of the old theories making them obsolete. But these old stories are to be the basic of these new theories existence. Without old, there won't be new. As is Social Contract, it may become the base of something new turning the old obsolete or not in used anymore. But still, it should be there for a new to exist or be in existence. Black is black, white is white, grey is grey, that's your interpretation. But when I interpret your interpretation of whether black is really black or the non-existence of white, white is really white or the non-existence of black or even grey is grey or just a word to describe the existence of both grey and white. When interpretation on an interpretation, both maybe from the same individual or a different one, then it spawns arguments, who's right and who's wrong. And from here, things will reform, whether to accept one or the other or not at all. Reformation is bound to happen. Principle is bound to be replaced by a new one. New is bound to replace old. New theories come forth replacing old ones. We move forward and look back. But history may not be progress. But time changes things, thoughts, lands. Today may not even be remembered by tomorrow.
Beautiful thing about theories is unlike murder cases, philisophical theories exist and don't get cancelled out. People still study Plato and Aristotle. Why? It's not because 2000 year old theories have become obsolete. You can't compare schools of thoughts with CSI (theories on how people got killed etc Or the age old theory that people thought the Earth was flat). Broaden your definition of theories. Theories such as Social contract is general principle (read:Fundemental law) not you're wrong or right (there is no such thing in this context). However, principles are distinct. Social Contract was developed in an anti government setting (revolutions, etc). HOWEVER, it was also a socialist movement (hardly what anyone wants in Malaysia - with their large middle class). Philisophers argue day and night till they die and still might not get anywhere. However, the underlying principle is not open to 'wrongful' definitions. They try to poke holes into each other's belief but even they don't contest the meaning of each other's school of thought. It is what it is. Communism is on the down fall (for example), 50 years from now, will people still study it? Will the definition of Communism change (not who currently believes in it)? It won't. Communism is communism regardless. I nitpick over this: You can't misinterpret what social contract is. It is what it is. Its what it was when Hobbes coined it in the 1700s. It is what it is over 300 years now. It is an theory not in the sense of you're right you're wrong. It is a theory of which it is a accepted General Principle (the other definition of theory). Therefore it is a fundemental law. If you 'misinterpret' what fundemental laws are, that is not an opinion, that is an error. And that ladies and gents, is my point. These things are not open to debate because they are what they are regardless of time or people and aren't open to being debunked. Why? There is nothing to debunk. Quoting that dude, although nice words, was quoted out of context as the book was cited (social contract theory) and he promotes socialism (borderline totalitarian) which is not congruent to what we want (at least I hope). Oh yea, I'm not defending Social Contract. I'm no socialist (its all mine mine! - greeddius basturdus). Just defending Schools of thoughts (management has schools of thoughts as well. ).
Some guy wrapped up in terrorist costume threatened Namewee http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFQcYECke68
Hmm... I only have one thing to say in response to that video - NO BALLS. Namewee proudly shows the world his face when he sings his songs. What right do you have to threaten people when you do not even have the balls to show your face? ROTFL!
