I like singing. I do it every time I’m driving, while I’m by myself, or when I’m feeling like it.
A few days ago I attended a musical class: sing by jktarthouse. It’s out of my usual zone, but I convinced myself it’s good to try new things. Since I’m confident in my ability to sing, I thought it was going to be easy. And oh boy how wrong I was.
While singing in choir, we have to be sensitive enough to determine which note we are singing. Basically, you should have a good ear for notes. And because everyone was singing in each assigned notes, you will sing while unable to hear your own voice. I’ll be honest, it’s hard. And moreover, since it’s a group project and my voice range was baritone/bass, I should give up on the chance to sing by myself, because soloists are mostly sopranos and altos. Or to put it in another word, I feel like the complement in a group project.
To make things worse, while singing, my notes were all over the place.
Despite the terrible experience, I was totally happy I joined the class. Because I now unlock more about myself, what I like and what I don’t like.
I asked a friend who was in a choir group if what I experienced was normal and yes it was, but practice makes perfect. People will eventually be able to know which note to sing and sing accordingly. But I don’t think I want to do any more training to be in a choir group. It’s different from running or exercising. When I run or exercise, I exhaust myself and sometimes feel like giving up, but I keep doing it because I’m passionate about them, I like them, it makes me feel good. But this time, I just don’t feel the fire inside me.
Passion is the fuel for the soul.
Me, 2025
*notes: it goes without saying that in this context, I’m not talking about occupation. Passionate about your job is a good thing, but not everyone has the luxury to choose a job that suits their passion. I’m talking about hobby or doing anything in general.
There are 2 activities where I meditate, having conversation with myself, and giving birth to great ideas: taking a bath and riding a motorcycle. One of these thoughts is about marriage.
I think about this when someone I followed on Instagram has just recently married. In previous videos before marriage, I saw his eyes were playful and full of energy. But after marriage, his gaze changed, more serious, joyless, and seemed like under pressure. (I kid you not, I kinda have this special power to sense). While noticing this, my mind wandered around different things: Why do we marry? Why do men and women marry? Do we marry because it makes us happy? Or because it’s a responsibility? Or because it’s expected? or is it because we love each other? How can we make promise to always be together forever when every day we see a different person?
I always think that marriage mostly benefits the women. Red flag. I know, but hear me out. First of all, in traditional sense, especially after having kid(s), they don’t have to work anymore. Basically men have to work harder to be able to pay living cost for two people, and more if kids are present. Before marriage, they only have 1 person to be responsible for. After marriage, they will have 2, 3, and more people to be responsible for. And then, from where I grew up, it’s always women who glorify the idea of marriage, as if it’s the purpose of their life, while men treat marriage as a responsibility.
But then I imagine myself entering women’s mind and suddenly my perspective changes totally. If I were a woman, then marriage is also a scary uncertain thing: Entering a new life with a new set of responsibility as a wife; Making sure the household is organized; Managing family’s finances; Making sure my husband doesn’t spend money irresponsibly; Being pregnant and having kids, need to do it with the right person; Nurturing the kids; If I work, I have to sacrifice my career to take care of kids, and what if my husband is infidel? I have to divorce and what about the career I have built so far?
And the reason why women glorify marriage? It’s because of societal pressure. Especially in Asian countries, women are expected to have kids after marriage. After certain age, it’s getting harder to have kids. That’s why they are eager to get married, because there is a time limit.
And then after considering both perspectives, I’ve come to a conclusion that marriage is harder for women. While men sacrifice their time and energy, women sacrifice their whole body and soul. Please put in mind that I assume both men and women are both responsible people, not including those irresponsible judol addicted lazy husband and menye-menye rebahan habisin duit wife. Knowing this, even though marriage is harder for women, but somehow they dreamt for it? Maybe they are built for pain? Maybe their tolerance for pain has been heightened by their monthly cycle, and now they treat pain as a challenge? Idk.
And then after short contemplation, to conclude my thinking, I think marriage is for building a family, to further the family name, in which the kids are at its core. I know I know. What if the family can’t produce a child and don’t want to adopt? To be honest, I don’t have the answer for that. For me, kids are the one thing where the husband and wife can work together to build. Without kids, I can’t imagine something else they build together. Maybe marriage doesn’t have to have something to build together. Maybe just companionship is enough. Or maybe without kids, there is still something to build and I just don’t know it yet.
Sometimes I also think, maybe marriage doesn’t have to be that complicated. If you love each other, you want to be with each other no matter what. Whatever comes after, we solve it together. Funny thing. Even as I’m writing this. I’m having second thoughts. Just having love for each other will never work. It only happens in a fairy tale. The fact is this: love fades over time. To ensure marriage can last, respect is what’s needed. So that love can keep regrowing from respect.
Before I begin, I’m telling you what’s happening around me. I’m sitting at Fore Coffee in *secret location in case I got famous and someone stalks me in the future* on a Tuesday evening, listening to Creep by Radiohead. Feeling the music and not trying to sing along. It’s a perfect time to be alive.
By reading the title you might think, “ew why so negative” “nobody cares” “are you proud after cutting someone off?” Well it’s okay if you think all that, sometimes I have that kind of negative thought to myself, too. And sometimes I’m not always sure I do the right things. And that’s where narratives come to play, there’s always justified reason why I do things I do.
First of all, I want to declare that I’m a firm believer of a thousand friends too few, one enemy too many. That’s why I’ve been living my life in peace with no fear of enemies. If I don’t like a person, I would try to avoid confrontation and possible interactions as much as possible. In case we share the same location, well I don’t mind to move, or you can always find ways to not meet him. By avoidance, I’ve actually I’ve reduced the chance of someone becoming my enemy. I’m not really sure is this is the right approach to life. But I’ve found my peace by not seeing and even realizing that person exists.
But life is not always that simple. People are divided into unlimited spectrums. And I don’t think it’s wise to categorize people into good and bad people. People are combination of both. And the only thing that matters is how we perceive them. That’s why in the previous paragraph, I don’t avoid bad person, I avoid someone I don’t like.
Back again to the title. Now I’d like to tell you what happened.
Okay, so in my case, I know this person since university, let’s call him Jeff. Jeff was an atheist but recently he found his way back to his religion, which is Flying Spaghetti religion. In his religion, they believe there’s an invisible and imperceptible Flying Spaghetti God that all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-everything. He had taken interest in my religion, buddhism. A few years ago, he asked question about buddhism and I answered as best as I can. Then we still connected and occasionally discussed about politics. One day, out of the blue, which was recently, he asked questions about buddhism.
He asked, “Our condition now is the fruit of our previous life’s deeds. Does that mean Buddha see poor people and be like, “it’s your own fault, because you did a bad thing in the past life”?” I thought, yes Buddha will know the cause of poor people’s condition but Buddha will certainly doesn’t think about blaming anything. I answered, “Yes. And sometimes there’s the follow up question: poverty breeds conditions that make people do crime, like stealing. While poor people are more difficult to do charity, it’s easier for rich people to do it. Does that mean Karmic law is cruel? If you do good things, after being reborn, it’s easier to do more good things, while if you do bad things, after being reborn, you gravitate towards doing more bad things? But the answer to these questions is: that’s how it is.” Then he asked, “I see and I understand, but that’s not an excuse to hate poor people, right?” I was confused but I wanted to know more what he meant, “Not at all, who said that poor people must be hated?” He answered, “”It’s your own fault” “Take that, it’s because you did a bad thing.” those things Buddha said.” At that point, I exploded. First of all, Buddha never said those things. Second, I don’t understand how realizing someone’s condition is a fruit of his previous life is an excuse to hate poor people. Reading his text feels like he imagined Buddha as a hateful being that hates poor people. Like all of a sudden, where does hating poor people come from?? What does that even mean? Do I even exist? I could have said words that might hurt him about his Flying Spaghetti God but I chose not to. Rather than making enemies, I usually just resort to making him not existing. It leads to more peace and less enemies.
Maybe you’re wondering why I suddenly get angry at this question. It’s harmless, after all. Well just a few days ago, we had a little debate about Buddhism in Myanmar. He used buddhist extremists in Myanmar to justify his Flying Spaghetti extremists. But to me it’s so incomparable. I forgot what happened next in the conversation but in the end we just held back with our own opinions.
Then I did a quick checklist about this person on my mind: 1. What is he in your life? A friend. 2. What has he done? He tried to undermine my religion. 3. And how does it make you feel? Anger. 4. Do you think you can forgive this person? Can’t. *this account has been blocked* and bye.
Yeah that’s the story. I’d be lying if I don’t sometimes wonder if I did the wrong thing. Maybe I should listen more, maybe there’s another perspective that I didn’t see, maybe I shouldn’t be so impulsive and block him right away. I shouldn’t do this every time there’s a disagreement because in the end I will have no friend. Maybe if I held back a little, I could have changed his mind.
But in the end, it already happened. And there’s also another side of me that knows he tried to make me feel shameful about what I believe, and that’s the core reason why I did what I did. Since it already happened, no point in wondering if I did the right thing or not, better move on to life.
One of the best moment of TV series history. I had chills watching it for the first time.
Okay now.. focus. F.O.C.U.S. So the confession is, that I had been having troubles reading books. It was because the current book in my reading queue is Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes. And this book is super super hard to read. Maybe I’m stupid. But I already searched the summary through ChatGPT, I also tried looking for detail explanations on Google, Youtube, Quora, you name it, but no answer satisfies me. I feel like there’s something more to the actual book than those summaries.
So what I’m gonna do now is to read carefully chapter by chapter; one by one. And remaking the book with my own language. Of course there will be misinterpretation, after all, I’m not a philosophy student, let alone expert. I’m just a regular chemical engineering graduate who eventually works at his father’s factory because the money here is much more promising. And it lets me have the lifestyle I yearned for my entire life.
Okay without much further due, I’ll begin.
LETTER
Okay first of all he addressed this book to deans and doctors of University of Paris. Then he stressed the importance of proving the existence of God and continuity of the soul (TEoG & CoTS) through philosophical means rather than theological means, so that unbelievers can be convinced better.
*let’s pause*
I wanted to show you how difficult it is to read this book, so here is the screenshot of a part I will sum up.
my summary is: Since soul continuity doesn’t have proof, he will bring forward an argument so clear and precise by using his method of finding the truth.
Good enough? Okay let’s continue.
*continue*
Then he mentioned that all his work is put in this book, and he argued to prove those 2 things (TEoG & CoTS) by bringing primary and only most important arguments and he dared to bring those arguments as demonstrations. No other better arguments can be found by human intelligence (I like his confidence). But he was also doubtful that his argument can be grasped by people. The search for truth is more important than challenging the soundest views.
At last, he told the professors that he sent his work to them because they can bring impact since everyone respects University of Paris. And also asked them to correct if there’s error and complete if there are gaps and imperfections. He believed if they bring forth his proof, people will believe the existence of God and continuity of the soul. In the end he mentioned that he put his trust on them since they are known to support Catholic Church.
The book cover. But I read the English version that can be freely found on the internet.
PREFACE
He mentioned that this topic was discussed in his previous book: Discourse on Method; but not in depth since he wanted to learn readers’ response to it and judge accordingly. Also in Discourse on Method, he asked readers to criticize his work, but only 2 objections worthy to note.
Although human mind does not perceive itself to be anything other than a thinking thing, it does not follow that its nature consists purely in its being a thinking thing, purely means excluding everything else that might be said to belong to its nature. (I’ve read it multiple times and I almost fainted doing so). –> Descartes replies: his meaning was that he was aware of nothing at all that he knew to belong to his essence, except the fact that was a thinking thing, or a thing possessing the faculty of thinking. However, in the present work he will show how, from the fact that he knew nothing else as belonging to his essence, it follows that nothing else in fact belongs to it.
Do you understand? Neither do I.
After reading again, I’ll translate again into my own version. Basically here it goes.
Objector : Dude, you said that you, a human mind, can’t perceive yourself as something other than a thinking thing. Just like the quote: I think therefore I am. – Like you can’t perceive yourself as a breathing being because you could have been deceived by evil spaghetti octopus demon to believe you are breathing. – But human mind’s nature doesn’t consist only in it being a thinking thing.
Descartes : I don’t care what you think a human mind’s nature is, but from my meditation, the only thing I’m sure is that I’m a thinking thing. But I will show you that from the fact that I don’t know any other thing that belongs to “me” other than thinking, it follows that in fact nothing belongs to “me”.
I’ve tried my best….
It doesn’t make sense that I have an idea of a more perfect thing than myself, that the idea itself is more perfect than me. More doesn’t make sense that the thing represented by this idea exists. –> Descartes replies: his definition of idea is ambiguous. In this book he will shows that from the fact that he has an idea of a more perfect thing, the thing itself actually exists.
my frustration when reading the Indonesian version of the book, which feels like translated lazily with Google Translate.
There are other many arguments attacking his conclusions, but he chose to ignore them since it completely missed his point for his proof of the existence of God; by them imagining God has human emotions; and by them deciding from their morality what God must and must not do. And Descartes is sure that if people follow his chain and connection of his arguments, they will understand how solid his arguments are.
Lastly in the preface, he will explain later in the book his thought process, and in this book also he will reply to objections; he also wants reader to fully read through all the objections and his replies before passing judgement.
It’s only the preface and I already want to vomit. But I think I get smarter 1%.
Today I finally spare some time to sit, open my laptop, and actually write some shit. It’s 12:30 p.m., the time when most people have lunch break. I have just finished having mine in Laksa Medan Ny. Guat, it’s nothing like mindblowingly delicious but it’s enough to satisfy my hunger. Right now I’m sitting at a coffee shop near where I stay, about 10 minutes, I looked it up yesterday on Google Maps, and judging from the interior and abundance of sofas, I thought the place was promising, which indeed it is! A sofa in a coffee shop is a must, I don’t understand why some places choose to put the most uncomfortable chairs, isn’t coffee shop supposed to be comfortable for customers? Maybe they choose to sacrifice customers’ comfort for profitability.
And back to this shit I’m writing, I’m trying to put every thought that comes to my mind carefully. Ah, there’s an interesting thing about this “Satu Watt” coffee shop in Taman Permata Indah, if you look at the review, I think there is 2 photos on the review that show the faces of the baristas/waitress in close up, and here the review goes.
lmao
and the lady on the right was the cashier that served me. I was like, girl did you know someone wrote about you on the internet? As I’m writing this piece, I think the owner asked her, “where was Dita?” And the cashier answered, “I don’t know, to the sea, maybe? Hahaha” I wouldn’t dare guess what happened between them, but being kind and fitting in are both equally important in life.
And for the coffee itself? Too sweet, even though I asked for less sugar, but it is way too sweet for me. I think I will not drink anymore of this. Must care more about my blood sugar rather than people’s judgement that I waste food.
not gonna drink this anymore
Every single one of my post should have a message to the reader.
I think for this one is that we should be able to prioritize what should be to what shouldn’t be. This is very controversial, but I think is wasting food is okay, as long as we don’t do it purposely. Ordered a food somewhere and the portion is too huge? Okay no need to hurt your stomach and killing your diet by forcing yourself to eat it. Health comes first. You can take away, and if you don’t want to, then just leave it, regretfully. But ordering food in large serving knowing you can’t finish it and planning to waste it? Then that’s condemnable. That’s my take, not going to both extremes.
Once in my university time, my buddhist community friends and I had dinner at Nasi Goreng Mandiri, and one of them ordered one too spicy, so spicy that she cried and tried to stop eating it. I told her to just leave it, and she might ordered the less spicy one next time. But the other friends, almost all of them except me, supported (basically forcing) her to finish the nasi goreng. And finishing it she did. I wouldn’t dare guess what happened to her stomach that night.
This kind of situation sometimes makes me wonder, am I the odd one out? But my logic and everything I learned so far said otherwise. At that time I would think that maybe I was wrong. But after living 10 more years of my life, I’m proud to say I was right. I had been thinking while they had been following what has been told.
Hi! It’s been almost a week since I last made my post. I actually have made a lot of lists of topics I will cover, but I’ve been “waiting for the perfect moment” to write.
I already have certain routine that I follow everyday.
Waking up at 09:00 (a spoiled child, I know, right?) Playing with phone and taking a bath until 10:00 Start working until 12:00 Exercising and doing other things – flexible time until 14:00 Going back to work until 16:00 Free time – sometimes I jog, sometimes I play with my niece, if I’m tired, I’ll sleep – until 18:00 And time after 18:00 is uncertain, but from 22:00 I’m already in my bedroom, until I finally sleep between 00:00 and 01:00.
There, I have shared my secret private life, not that anyone care, maybe my hater will but I don’t believe I made an enemy. But a poisonous flower may bloom even in the most beautiful place, so I will not be so sure. And…. damn after reading it again, I already lived the 4-hour work day.
Even with a very slow schedule like that one, to write and to read, I did look for perfect moment. “I will read in a cafe when all my work is done.” “I will start writing when I’m feeling fresh and not tired.” “I will start to write after finishing this book.” and there it was why I was absent for almost a week. Waiting for the perfect moment never works out. I guess I should treat reading and writing like exercising and running, in which I have to keep up discipline and stick to the schedule.
But even as I’m writing this, I’ve read somewhere that there’s such thing as writer’s block. A hidden invisible wall preventing writers to write. But I’m not a writer, at least not yet. Or.. am I? I would not be so dared to call myself a writer if I only write a few posts. Back to writer’s block, in case of it, I have to take a rest and find inspiration elsewhere. Maybe it’s the same as rest time in exercising, which is very important to ensure your muscle can grow and not overtrained.
Maybe it’s all about balance
in which I have to be disciplined, but also making a fair judgement whether I need to rest or not.
Well as I’m writing this, it’s 12:51 a.m. Nine more minutes until my designated sleep time. Time to follow the schedule.
It goes without saying it’s just my personal review
I guess I have to make a few compact explanations about what this book is actually about before I begin.
Discourse of method is a few meditations -meditations here means chapter- that Rene Descartes, known as father of modern philosophy, made when he tried to create a method on how to acquire absolute truth. So that if everyone adopt his method, they can’t be fooled anymore, they can differentiate right from wrong, true from false, etc. Like for example, how can we be sure that something exists, not just an illusion? How can we be sure that our eyes don’t deceive us?
There’s lots of points I would like to make about this book. So I will make a list.
My first impression
It’s a very difficult book to read. For a few first times I read this book, I barely understood what he was trying to say. To be honest I thought when he wrote this, he was on his own world, detached from reality. Which after finishing the book, I guess that’s kinda true, which I will explain later.
Situations where reading this book becomes easier
To my surprise, this book is easier to read when you’re almost asleep, like your consciousness is between dream and reality, then you start to assimilate with Rene. I read the book as if I was him writing about this book.
It’s because this book is definitely like someone who ‘s sleepy or drunk. One thing he talks about A, and suddenly at chapter 5 he talks and explains about anatomy which has nothing to do with how to acquire truth.
To understand him better, you have to read this book, when you’re not a busy man, when you’re in your free, really free time, when you’re in a safe space, and when your survival instinct is turned off. Because from what I read, that’s how I imagine Rene is doing, which makes sense after learning more about his upbringing – being rich af.
Rene Descartes is like me
When reading his writing, I feel like I resemble him a lot. First of all, he wasn’t a very good writer. That’s why the book is hard to read. It is understandable as he made a disclaimer that actually he wanted to make a method “only” for himself to pursue the truth. And there are a lot of other disclaimers in this book. And finally it made sense to me that reading this book is easier when I enter his mind and read from his point if view.
The second way he resembles me is that I catch the vibe that he is a kind of person that doesn’t like to be criticized. By making lots of disclaimers, he remove readers’ opportunity to criticize him, as he already know where he’s wrong at and point that out first.
Third, I strongly think he’s an INTP just like me. A lazy thinker. Which after one google search, apparently I’m right.
Rene Descartes may fool the world but oh no not me
One of the most famous controversy of Rene is that by using his method, he concludes that God must exist because humans are imperfect, therefore there must be a more perfect being which is God. First of all, lazy. Second of all, I don’t believe someone with the thinking capacity of Rene make such poor argument, especially when it’s about God.
Therefore, I strongly suspect that during the time of his writing, for his writing to be able to be publicly accepted, he must have inserted the prove that God exists through his method. That way even the church might help him distribute his meditations. Needless to say I think he’s at least an agnostic. The kind of God he believes in is Spinoza God. In sixth paragraph of chapter 4, he mentioned something that he deemed is perfect, which is the quality of God, they are: limitless, eternal, unchanged, all-knowing, and all-powerful. When I read those, that’s the universe! The same kind of God that Buddha taught us. Not the kind of God that gets angry, sad, jealous, and tests humans for his belief.
I think, therefore I am
This is the most famous quote from his work. We exist because we think. If we don’t think, then we don’t exist. I once read a disagreement from someone about this famous quote. They say that something could exist even if it doesn’t think. But to me, Rene is right.
Imagine the world, the vast universe. There’s no doubt it exists. But then imagine there’s no subject, there’s not a single thing in this universe capable of thinking. Only rocks and gases, no observant at all. Nothing. Then does that universe exist? Something exist because it enters someone’s mind. If there’s no “someone” to know something exist, then isn’t that thing the same as not existing?
That’s why at first, I thought Rene was just a lazy person who has too much free time to think about unimportant things. Then the next thing I know I feel like he is a strong thinker, just a bad writer – that my judgement remains unchanged. And I must acknowledge that his work doesn’t have any real world application since his method on how to acquire absolute truth is impractical, it could took eternity to acquire truth. But when I enter his mind, I know that even though it’s impractical, Rene must be satisfied to have found the method to do that.
I’m not actually a blogger, or a writer. But I do like to talk, but in my 28 years of living I eventually realize I suck at talking. I am better at conveying my message through writing. Reason being is I like to take things slowly, my thinking process is slow but thorough. Sometimes if I talk, the thought process lags behind while the sentence is pouring out. My English was not as good as most people, or as some of my sophisticated friends speak. But one thing I have is my confidence. Well when I type this, I feel confident. But I notice my confidence fluctuates like a wave, sometimes it’s there and sometimes it’s gone, almost vanished. And eventually my confidence is a factor of things I put value in. My work. When I feel like recently I did not do any productive work, then I feel down, even insecure when meeting with friends. But when I have lots to do, I won’t even think about feeling down, and my confidence soars through the top.
From above paragraph, I guess you can see how my brain goes from one thing to another, drifting, just like water flowing down the river. But even that would not be a correct analogy. Or maybe like a lost person in the jungle, one time he’s turning left and suddenly he turns right. ADHD much? But since I’m not diagnosed, I think it’s unfair to those actual ADHD people. But hey, if I were them, I would not care much.
The reason why I’m making this blog, all so sudden, was because I wanted to review a book: Discourse on Method by Rene Descartes. But since on Instagram there’s only so many words you can write, then I decided I need something, some platform where I can write. Apparently now Medium is too monetized. Then I turned to my old friend, wordpress.com.
“I don’t really care, I just don’t really care,” said the person caring about not caring about anything.
Goofythinker 