Apologia pro semita meo

Or defense for my (university) course. Or something like that.

Looking at my writing alone, one probably cannot tell that I am actually a chemist-in-training. 

I have been told for ever that I belong to the science stream. I suppose I do. I always excel in the sciences, my maths is not so bad, and am mostly a creature of logic. Nevertheless I have always suspected that I have some penchant for the Arts, if only an inkling of it. Take my linguistic pedantry; it's been there since I was at junior high level. 

A former teacher said that a person should not be pigeon-holed. That is something I'll always remember, since it confirms my aforementioned suspicion. To label a person as science person or humanities person is just shallow thinking, Of course, it is alright to categorise for certain purposes, say, for education streaming or screening potential employees, for example. But many cannot see the underlying complexities beneath the labels, and end up seeing people as caricatures of sorts; inadvertently oversimplifying and degrading them.

So, despite my proficiencies in seemingly mutually exclusive areas, I ended up in the science. Why? Because, as those who have gone through it can tell you, you can only choose a narrow area. I should digress a little bit to describe my education philosophy. One of my students asked me before, why he has to do English, or Maths, or other subjects, for that matter. I answered, because a person has to be equipped with all areas of knowledge until certain level. At least junior high level, or if you can, high school level, in my opinion. This level is arguable, but I think the paramount criteria are: 1) It is enough to get by in life, 2) It gives enough glimpses of the area in consideration to stimulate interested students to specialise in it. You have to specialise, simply because the amount of human knowledge is too enormous that one cannot know everything in-depth. This vantage view of education is illustrated nicely here.

Next question, why science not other things? (Note that I do not differentiate between physics, chemistry, or biology here, simply because just as you should not pigeon-hole people, you should not compartmentalise science, if you can afford not to). Take a look at my process of elimination. Take into account my nature: I am quite pragmatic, but not shallow; and most of all, am a pursuer of knowledge. I crossed off the humanities, since I doubt I can make a decent living out of it; besides I have greater talents for science. I crossed off business since I do not want to end up as money-making machine. I have read accounts of people feeling empty despite having great wealth (more like, from literary works. Literature is a lens on humanity, more on that next time). I thought to myself, why wasting time learning about laws that can change. Perhaps such is the nature of the said emptiness, the accomplishment of nothing. Another reason that I can put up quite eloquently, if I may say so myself, is that the financial and economic systems are just creations of man, that is, artificial and transient. The laws of nature that science seeks after, on the other hand, are enduring, and will be there as long as this world as we know it exists. To this, a friend countered: but money makes the world goes round. To that, I quipped: perhaps, but I know angular momentum sure does.

Why not engineering? I have already revealed a little that I am interested in the inner working of the universe, more so than applying it into design, to produce technology. I am more interested to be at the frontiers of knowledge, and make a little dent on the current boundary. But the very fundamentals are also not for me. In science and engineering tree, maths is the root; physics, lower stem; chemistry, upper stem; biology, branches; engineering, fruits. I chose chemistry because of its centrality; there is balance between the fundamentals and the applications.

Academia, then. First, I enjoy teaching. Second, as I said, I want to be at the frontiers of knowledge, so I have to do research. I have to admit that the prestige of professorship is also quite alluring. But a darker reason is that I am just plain dastardly. I want to deal with the world from the the lofty ivory tower, dealing with living indirectly, cocooned by the scientific bubble. Say what you may, but I am of the opinion that there is a need for scientists to be separated from the 'world' at large, even though the separation is artificial. In The Glass Bead Game, Herman Hesse depicts a world where this separation is even made geographical. Castalia is the central of academia, much like Vatican is the central of Catholicism. Castalia is called 'aristocracy of the spirit', which has an inkling of elitist connotation. Yes, the separation is unnatural, nevertheless necessary, to protect the scholars from 'money, fame, rank'. Not for everyone, but I feel that it is for me. Deep down, I am just fragile: I don't have the ruggedness to take on the world by its horns; it will break my spirit.

Ultimately, whatever field you are pursuing, keep in mind your purpose. Mine is the pursuit of knowledge, truths that are everlasting. Then to pass on this knowledge for generations to come. 

That you are here — that life exists, and identity; 
That the powerful play goes on, and you will contribute a verse.
-- Walt Whitman