Why We Need a New Welfare State by Gøsta Esping-Andersen

This one is more of a report on European welfare states. By comparing the welfare policies of Scandinavian nations with those of the Southern European nations, the authors wish to portray the ideal welfare state.

The authors tackle four major issues that concern our social economy: child-centered social investment, new gender conflict, quality of working life and elderly welfare. Wealth distribution and social welfare have - to some degree - been compromised due to capitalization and globalization. It is convenient to think that the adherence to market comes at the expense of income equality. However, despite this conventional belief, the authors argue that it is possible to establish a welfare state which still promotes innovation and incentivizes private firms. And this is a certified statement.

The book is very factual and informative, and a lot of the facts are summarized in tables - which are not exactly easy to interpret. Highly recommended for those who are interested in health care/public policy.

Grace and Grit by Ken Wilber

Plato once said, "Men and women were once whole but were torn in two, and the pursuit and desire of that whole is called love." There can't be a more accurate description of the love that Ken and Treya Wilber shared over the short five years of their marriage. The two fell in love "at first touch" and despite the shortness of the time they spent together, Ken and Treya shared the strongest spiritual and emotional bond than any that I've ever seen in either literature or in real life.

However, that does not mean that one should expect a heartbreaking, tear-jerking, tragic love story in this book. The book is in fact on spirituality and psychotherapy more than anything else. The author Ken Wilber is a renowned American philosopher and a spiritualist, whose wife is diagnosed with stage 2 breast cancer only a few days after their wedding. Ken temporarily suspends his regular writing jobs in order to fully devote himself to his new role as a "support person" for Treya. Although Treya encounters multiple recurrences and metastasis cancer all over her body (brain, chest etc), not to mention complications with diabetes and chest cold, neither Ken nor Treya gives up hope: the human mind is an incredible force.

It's not because Ken and Treya are some kind of enlightened philosophers that they were able to endure the series of treatments and countless trials of orthodox and alternative therapies over the course of five years. They too, like many other cancer patients, encountered self-hatred and naturally questioned "Why me?" The couple's marriage was jeopardized at one stage because of the emotional duress both of them were under. Nevertheless, their "religion" (or their openness to all religious teachings) and the strength of their characters allowed for the Wilbers' innder strength and endurance. For example, one of the most enlightening moments for Treya is when she finally internalizes Plato's philosophy, which ascribes the characteristic of "doing" to male and that of "being" to female. It gives Treya an opportunity to objectively review her past and design an ideal lifestyle and personality for her remaining days, no matter how short a lifetime she has left. She strives to balance the masculine and feminine sides in herself, and an interesting concept which she calls "passionate equanimity" becomes her goal. Even when she is given a few months to live, she never ceases to help others suffering from cancer and constantly seeks ways to train both her body and soul to fight cancer.

The effects of Treya's illness on her spirituality are incredible, but so are its effects on Ken's spirituality. Ken regains his daemon (it means 'fate') and becomes more committed to his daemon without having to worry about displaying daemon to others through publishing books. He learns to accept his new role as a support person for Treya, and demonstrates selflessness and devotion that can only come from a genuine heart.

The Wilbers' religious affiliation is also extremely fascinating. They are not "Buddhists" in the conventional sense - although they would be classified as Buddhists. They don't follow the Buddhist lifestyle but use the Buddhist method to arrive at spiritual tranquility and achieve profound understanding of the Self. This, Ken Wilber explains, is the difference between exoteric and esoteric religions. Exoteric religion focuses on seeking salvation through belief in some form of a Creator figure, and requires one to adhere to specific customs and moral codes. Those who engage in Esoteric religious practices on the other hand, aspire to transcend the common myths and realize what is ultimate "Self" or "Witness." Ken and Treya hope to arrive at this "enlightenment" and search for their spirit through meditating - to conclude that when you realize that you cannot find your spirit, then you have already found it.

I highly recommend this book to those who are either agnostic or atheist, and to those who rarely engage in spiritual contemplation - like myself. Although I can't say that this book has completely changed my religious viewpoint (I remain agnostic), it taught me that there is more to religions than just "God, please listen to my prayers." A religion does not only try to explain the relationship between self and the absolute, but also within one's multiples egos, as well as between one and others. The book is powerful, not because it celebrates some supernatural occurrence and attributes it to a religious belief. Rather, it is powerful because it explicates the ongoing process of enhancing quality of life through open-minded spirituality.

TED talk by Michael Sandel

I read a couple of very interesting books over the past week, but I have been a little lazy with the posting.

In The Age of the Unthinkable, Ramo presents a very intuitive argument on how we must prepare for and adapt to the quickly-changing, very unstable world that we live in. His main point is that we need to see the bigger picture (the forest) instead of focusing on the problem at hand (the tree) - though he phrases it much more eloquently than I did. Throughout the book, I felt that his way of thinking was very Oriental, and then I realized that he has actually studied (and is studying) China in great depth and very affected by the Eastern way of thinking. I never really thought about it, but after reading this book, I felt very fortunate that I have been exposed to both Eastern and Western ways of thinking. There will be times in my life when my exposure to both cultures will come in handy.

Communism: A History is just a very concise historical account of how communism spread and the conditions that allowed for countries to accept communism or communist rulers. The book is very straight-forward and leaves not much room for questions. The author concludes by stating that communism is inherently a flawed philosophy and it can never be realized.

I came across a TED Talk given by Michael Sandel. He is a professor at Harvard and he recently published a book called, Justice: What's the right thing to do? He gives a very interesting talk on what a democratic debate is. Check it out: http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_the_lost_art_of_democratic_debate.html

The Idea of Justice by Amartya Sen

This is the latest (2009) book written by Amartya Sen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen), the 1998 Nobel laureate in Economics. Although written by a distinguished welfare economist, it is a book of political philosophy and ethics, much like John Rawls's 'A Theory of Justice.' Through this work, Sen explores the idea of 'justice' from multiple philosophical and political perspectives, and he introduces and criticizes many theories on justice along the way. The book encompasses numerous ethical concepts and theories, such as Transcendentalism and Contractarianism just to name a couple, which are a bit arcane. Nevertheless, Sen uses simple anecdotes and examples to assist readers' understanding and at the same time, provokes some seriously philosophical thoughts.

Sen's signature contribution is his concept of "capability." When we talk of "equality," we never bother to question, "equality of what?" To answer this, he distinguishes between "capability" and "opportunity." If a child who wants to stay inside the house today is restrained from leaving the house, his "opportunity" is unchanged in that he is still staying inside the house whether there is a restriction or not. However his "capability" has been limited because he can no longer exercise his right to stay in the house voluntarily. Therefore, Sen argues that with every right must come "capabilities" that allow citizens to execute their rights.

I was really surprised by how often the theme of justice was linked to epistemology. In fact, a couple of my high school Theory of Knowledge topics were discussed in this book! For example, in his discussion of rationality, he raises the question, "Is altruism rational?," which is very similar to my presentation topic for the course. To tackle this, he first talks about rationality: an act is deemed "rational" when it abides with the social norm. However, a social norm is not always "objective," for the (geographical) location, ethnicity or culture of a particular society affect what is called a "rational" behavior. According to the Rational Choice Theory, an ordinary person makes decisions that will maximize her benefits, in which case she will neglect to make a monetary donation to help her starving neighbor. However, if the person derived utility from an altruistic act, she would sacrifice a little portion of her income, a decision that does not comply with the social norm. In this case, is the person acting rationally?

Towards the end of the book, the focus shifts to democracy and human rights. One thing that struck me (because I couldn't believe that I had never thought about this) was perceptibility of human rights. Who declares that humans have certain rights? How do we know if we are born with them or society mandates them? To paraphrase the question: is human rights a child of law or parents of law? Sen asserts the latter because some legislation was caused by the legislators' belief in human rights. I think otherwise. According to Sen, some legislators believe in human rights; legislators make legislation; therefore human rights affect law. This would be saying that some people who believe in God go to church; God affects people and makes them go to Church; therefore God exists, which is clearly a flawed logic.

'The Idea of Justice' raises so many puzzling inquiries and I could go on forever pondering about them. The ideas of justice, fairness, right, rationality and reasoning are frequently spoken of, but I have been using them without a profound understanding of what they actually mean. In fact, I'm not sure if I'll ever learn to define these concepts accurately. It seems that our current policies and laws are built upon concepts that are fundamentally abstruse and open to multiple interpretations.