Recently, I've been listening to the band Karmin a lot, which has some really catchy songs and a very interesting style. It's a pop duo consisting of Amy Hiedmann and Nick Louis Noonan, two very talented musicians. It's really unique and doesn't easily fit into any one particular genre- a mix of hip-hop, rap, pop, and alternative can be found in their music. The sound is very distinguishable and stands out from the otherwise homogeneous collection of typical pop music. They've recieved more attention lately with songs playing on the radio like "Brokenhearted," and "Hello."
One of my favorites by them is "I told you so," a catchy song that isn't as well known as their hit yet just as well done. The rhythm is upbeat and captivating, the chorus is simple yet catchy with some really nice harmonics, and the rap is well done. The rap, especially in the second verse, rivals that of popular artist Nicki Manaj, going really fast and delievering lyrics that are less meaningless. Amy's rap makes her talented yet underrated. However, the duo is indeed gaining popularity.
The partnership seems to work very well- Amy raps and Nick plays different instruments, including trombone and guitar. He also provides back up vocals, and his good voice makes him a really underrated yet nonetheless talented musician. Amy can also play guitar and sings, and so the two are able to produce some excellent and varied songs.They started primarily by doing covers of various artists and posting them on Youtube. Because of their hits, Amy has started to become the face of their band, which is unfortunate seeing as Nick does great backup and insturmentals.
All in all, Karmin has been getting more attention lately by many people including myself, and it is very likely that the talent, the unique sound and the catchy hits will continue to gain popularity. Links to some of their songs below.
I Told You So: www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEalWO4IjC4
Brokenhearted: www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8cbak34DR0
Hello: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_I0DBUA_GI
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Frankly Speaking...
"...the best of us did not return."
Apparently, though I don't remember initiating this, I am a fan on Facebook of Donald Trump's page for the Celebrity Apprentice. One of the posts they made which recently showed up on my news feed asked the question, "Would you backstab to get ahead in the workplace?" Seeing as how I don't even remember signing up for updates from the page, I didn't comment on it, and it left my mind for awhile. The above quote from Victor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning made me think of it again.
One of the themes in the powerful narrative that Frankl presents us is what happens to people in horrible situations. Do we abandon our values, our morals, and our very identity as it is stripped away from us? Or do we still have them to cling to when we suffer? We've spent time in class discussing this very idea and question.
I think that it's much more important to hold onto morals and to who you are than to trade them for something. Naturally, this is much easier to say than to do, especially in a situation as dark as the holocaust where life and death were dependent on that very decision. But whenever possible, it's important to hold onto who you are and the values you hold than to trade them off. If you loose those, you might as well be dead. Your identity, who you are, is important, and what are you without it?
The Apprentice practically runs on the famous motto, "it's nothing personal. It's just business." But we're human- our entire lives have personality to them. The workplace, albeit less personal, is still a place where people interact and where people are people. Our world functions with relationships and with people and personalities. I don't think that business is an excuse to remove identity and justify wrongness in order to get ahead.
Frankl's narrative helped me get that idea. Even in the darkest situations, where everything is removed from you and life and death hangs in the balance, morals and identity shouldn't be abandoned, but clung to. The choice wasn't to live or die, but to die whole or live empty. Of course, this was one of the worst chapters of human history and that decision was very real and very hard- I by no means mean any disrespect to the survivors of the holocaust. If anything, I simply mean that if there is a choice to keep your identity or relinquish it for an advantage, that your identity is more important. Frankl's narrative is a more extreme account of that idea.
A comment on The Apprentice question of backstabbing to get ahead read, simply, "it's nothing personal, it's just business." Frankly, I disagree.
Apparently, though I don't remember initiating this, I am a fan on Facebook of Donald Trump's page for the Celebrity Apprentice. One of the posts they made which recently showed up on my news feed asked the question, "Would you backstab to get ahead in the workplace?" Seeing as how I don't even remember signing up for updates from the page, I didn't comment on it, and it left my mind for awhile. The above quote from Victor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning made me think of it again.
One of the themes in the powerful narrative that Frankl presents us is what happens to people in horrible situations. Do we abandon our values, our morals, and our very identity as it is stripped away from us? Or do we still have them to cling to when we suffer? We've spent time in class discussing this very idea and question.
I think that it's much more important to hold onto morals and to who you are than to trade them for something. Naturally, this is much easier to say than to do, especially in a situation as dark as the holocaust where life and death were dependent on that very decision. But whenever possible, it's important to hold onto who you are and the values you hold than to trade them off. If you loose those, you might as well be dead. Your identity, who you are, is important, and what are you without it?
The Apprentice practically runs on the famous motto, "it's nothing personal. It's just business." But we're human- our entire lives have personality to them. The workplace, albeit less personal, is still a place where people interact and where people are people. Our world functions with relationships and with people and personalities. I don't think that business is an excuse to remove identity and justify wrongness in order to get ahead.
Frankl's narrative helped me get that idea. Even in the darkest situations, where everything is removed from you and life and death hangs in the balance, morals and identity shouldn't be abandoned, but clung to. The choice wasn't to live or die, but to die whole or live empty. Of course, this was one of the worst chapters of human history and that decision was very real and very hard- I by no means mean any disrespect to the survivors of the holocaust. If anything, I simply mean that if there is a choice to keep your identity or relinquish it for an advantage, that your identity is more important. Frankl's narrative is a more extreme account of that idea.
A comment on The Apprentice question of backstabbing to get ahead read, simply, "it's nothing personal, it's just business." Frankly, I disagree.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
What does this mean?
"I knew that I had shattered the harmony of the day, the exceptional silence of a beach where I'd been happy. Then I fired four more times..."
Why? That's the question I had while reading this part, a question that was never really answered even after the conclusion of this story. Why did Meursault kill the Arab? He doesn't even know the answer himself. He knew it would accomplish nothing, he knew he could have walked away- so why? Why did Meursault kill the Arab?
It's a tough question- nobody really knows why. And so then the question must be, what was the point? What was this meant to show? What does this mean? And there, we can find an answer.
The author of The Stranger, Albert Camus, had a widely-known belief in the existential philosophy, one that says that nothing can rationalize human existence and there is no answer to the question of "why am I?" This philosophy, at its core, says existence precedes essence. Meursault is the character who exists, but feels no meaning to his existence, no essence. He knows death will come to him and all others one day, and he therefore doesn't care when that time is. He simply lives; he doesn't feel meaning to his life.
And maybe that's the whole point- that the meaning of his killing was to show that it had no meaning at all. He knows life will end one day, for him and the Arab. He sees no reason to allow them to live longer if they will one day die either way- in his view, there is no meaning in the life they'd otherwise live.
It's a rather depressing outlook, in my opinion, to think that life has no meaning. I do believe that if one has that outlook, as Meursault did, their life will indeed have no meaning. But maybe if we think ourselves to be meaningful, maybe if we believe that existence is not absurd and irrational but instead real and true, and if we act differently from Meursault in a situation like this- maybe then, we'll have meaning.
That's the answer to the question of "why?” Meursault had no reason, he saw no meaning. He knew death would come either way, and didn't care that he was allowing it to come sooner. Albert Camus is showing us the absurdity of the human existence, that there is no answer for the question of "why do I exist," since, by the time our individual lives come to an end, we will die.
But I disagree. I may be naive and foolish, but I can’t live with the thought that life has no meaning. I’m not like Meursault. When I’m standing, gun in hand, the barrel pointed at the head of another man, I see something. I see all the things that can happen in life, and I see the meaning life really has. Unlike Meursault, I lower the weapon. I walk down the hot, red shore in the other direction.
Why? That's the question I had while reading this part, a question that was never really answered even after the conclusion of this story. Why did Meursault kill the Arab? He doesn't even know the answer himself. He knew it would accomplish nothing, he knew he could have walked away- so why? Why did Meursault kill the Arab?
It's a tough question- nobody really knows why. And so then the question must be, what was the point? What was this meant to show? What does this mean? And there, we can find an answer.
The author of The Stranger, Albert Camus, had a widely-known belief in the existential philosophy, one that says that nothing can rationalize human existence and there is no answer to the question of "why am I?" This philosophy, at its core, says existence precedes essence. Meursault is the character who exists, but feels no meaning to his existence, no essence. He knows death will come to him and all others one day, and he therefore doesn't care when that time is. He simply lives; he doesn't feel meaning to his life.
And maybe that's the whole point- that the meaning of his killing was to show that it had no meaning at all. He knows life will end one day, for him and the Arab. He sees no reason to allow them to live longer if they will one day die either way- in his view, there is no meaning in the life they'd otherwise live.
It's a rather depressing outlook, in my opinion, to think that life has no meaning. I do believe that if one has that outlook, as Meursault did, their life will indeed have no meaning. But maybe if we think ourselves to be meaningful, maybe if we believe that existence is not absurd and irrational but instead real and true, and if we act differently from Meursault in a situation like this- maybe then, we'll have meaning.
That's the answer to the question of "why?” Meursault had no reason, he saw no meaning. He knew death would come either way, and didn't care that he was allowing it to come sooner. Albert Camus is showing us the absurdity of the human existence, that there is no answer for the question of "why do I exist," since, by the time our individual lives come to an end, we will die.
But I disagree. I may be naive and foolish, but I can’t live with the thought that life has no meaning. I’m not like Meursault. When I’m standing, gun in hand, the barrel pointed at the head of another man, I see something. I see all the things that can happen in life, and I see the meaning life really has. Unlike Meursault, I lower the weapon. I walk down the hot, red shore in the other direction.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
One Down, Three to Go
It's hard to believe that the first quarter of this year is already over.
When I programmed for classes back in February last year, this wasn't on my list of requested courses. It wasn't even a back-up. I originally programmed for speech & debate, but due to scheduling conflicts I was placed into this class. Luckily for me, it was a class that I was interested in and willing to take. And even luckier, today, it has easily become one of the best classes I ever took at this school.
The parts of the class I find most enriching are, naturally, not the parts designed for raw intellectual enrichment- not the lectures or the questions, not the quizzes or essays. Instead, it's the interactions with others, the debates and the discussions with my peers in the class. The reason is because, I think, philosophy is not just an individual contemplation of the world. It's a collaborative effort, and it gets better with more thinkers. More ideas, more challenges to your opinions, more unheard of and out-of-the-box thoughts. This is what makes the class enriching.
When I came into the class on the first day, I saw a big group of students who pretty much meant nothing to me. I knew some people in the class, but other than them everyone else was just filling up space in this building. I didn't consider those who weren't familiar to me as having much relevance, socially or intellectually. This is the only class I've really took that breaks that thought. After discussions and debates, I've gotten to see past random strangers and started to see fellow philosophers.
In no other class do I get to see complete strangers open up about their personal philosophy and their ideas and opinions. And thus, in no other class do strangers become everything but strangers to me. That's why philosophy is one of my favorite classes ever.
When I programmed for classes back in February last year, this wasn't on my list of requested courses. It wasn't even a back-up. I originally programmed for speech & debate, but due to scheduling conflicts I was placed into this class. Luckily for me, it was a class that I was interested in and willing to take. And even luckier, today, it has easily become one of the best classes I ever took at this school.
The parts of the class I find most enriching are, naturally, not the parts designed for raw intellectual enrichment- not the lectures or the questions, not the quizzes or essays. Instead, it's the interactions with others, the debates and the discussions with my peers in the class. The reason is because, I think, philosophy is not just an individual contemplation of the world. It's a collaborative effort, and it gets better with more thinkers. More ideas, more challenges to your opinions, more unheard of and out-of-the-box thoughts. This is what makes the class enriching.
When I came into the class on the first day, I saw a big group of students who pretty much meant nothing to me. I knew some people in the class, but other than them everyone else was just filling up space in this building. I didn't consider those who weren't familiar to me as having much relevance, socially or intellectually. This is the only class I've really took that breaks that thought. After discussions and debates, I've gotten to see past random strangers and started to see fellow philosophers.
In no other class do I get to see complete strangers open up about their personal philosophy and their ideas and opinions. And thus, in no other class do strangers become everything but strangers to me. That's why philosophy is one of my favorite classes ever.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Voltaire, Camus on Election Day
It is hard to tell who the renowned philosophers Albert Camus and Voltaire would vote for in the 2012 presidential election. However, from what we know about each philosopher's ideas and the ideas of the candidates, we can make some guesses.
Camus's philosophy is hard to grasp at first. On the surface, it seems that he is a nihilist, someone who believes life is meaningless, and has no reason for being. However he only conveys this idea through his character Meursalt in The Stranger. His own personal idea is likely different from the relevant human condition he sought to brought to light. This is evident in his essay, "The Myth of Sisyphus," where he indicates that a person who lives in the most miserable conditions can somehow find a bit of happiness. He would probably vote for Obama, as he has served and has been viewed as a shining light, a beacon of hope in the world of darkness. He has given meaning and happiness to many Americans, reflecting Camus' philosophy of finding happiness in darrkness.
Voltaire, on the other hand, has a slightly different philosophy. While it's unclear of Voltaire's position on the specific issue of meaning, he has clear positions on philosophies and issues of the day. He satirizes religious officials and public ministers, he portrays the world in a very dark way, and brings to light important issues that were overlooked at the time he lived- things like greed and slavery. These views mark him as open-minded and nonconformist, and definitely progressive for the day. He would probably write-in Stephen Colbert, a man with very similar views and attitudes today as Voltaire's long ago.
Camus's philosophy is hard to grasp at first. On the surface, it seems that he is a nihilist, someone who believes life is meaningless, and has no reason for being. However he only conveys this idea through his character Meursalt in The Stranger. His own personal idea is likely different from the relevant human condition he sought to brought to light. This is evident in his essay, "The Myth of Sisyphus," where he indicates that a person who lives in the most miserable conditions can somehow find a bit of happiness. He would probably vote for Obama, as he has served and has been viewed as a shining light, a beacon of hope in the world of darkness. He has given meaning and happiness to many Americans, reflecting Camus' philosophy of finding happiness in darrkness.
Voltaire, on the other hand, has a slightly different philosophy. While it's unclear of Voltaire's position on the specific issue of meaning, he has clear positions on philosophies and issues of the day. He satirizes religious officials and public ministers, he portrays the world in a very dark way, and brings to light important issues that were overlooked at the time he lived- things like greed and slavery. These views mark him as open-minded and nonconformist, and definitely progressive for the day. He would probably write-in Stephen Colbert, a man with very similar views and attitudes today as Voltaire's long ago.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Worlds of Meaning
"Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world."
This is perhaps my favorite line in Albert Camus's essay on the myth of Sisyphus. Can a man condemned by the gods to forever roll a rock up a hill and watch it roll down, only to roll it up again, find meaning in such a repetitive, trivial task? Is there meaning? And we, in a way, are doing that exact same thing: living our repetitive, robotic lives, doing things over and over again, and finally dying. Is there meaning?
No. There isn't. That is, if you look at our existence from that angle. If we look at ourselves on a universal scale, it is true- we have no meaning. We're just a speck of dust in an infinite universe, a planet taking its place among the cosmos, and the creatures upon it unable to have even the slightest ripple of impact on the rest of the universe. But let's zoom in a little closer. Let's look at it from a worldly view. Now, we see some meaning- to impact the world. But that's very broad, and very difficult to do. Only a select few are remembered this way. Let's zoom in closer, to the national view. More names are there, and many more people have impacted this country. And zooming in closer, we see than many more have impacted communities. Finally, zooming into the spheres of peoples' personal lives, we see that there is an uncountable of impact people have had on other people.
We are concerned with a great deal of things every day. But like Sisyphus, we are living in the moment, in the only world we know- our own. Each person I see flooding the hallways has their own world- their own interests, plans, and friends. Here, we are meaningful.
Now the question of what is meaningful is not very difficult to answer. In our worlds, the only meaning we have is the meaning we can have. That is, whatever we can do to have meaning- that's what it is. Making an impact. That's what we can do. We may not be able to change the world, not the country, not even the community. But we can make impacts on our worlds, our lives- and the lives of others.
The stone, the mountain, the night- that is Sisyphus's world. And, knowing only his world, he can find momentary happiness. He can feel joy and meaning in what he's able to do. He may be meaningless in the larger picture. But he is meaningful when he is in his world.
As are we.
This is perhaps my favorite line in Albert Camus's essay on the myth of Sisyphus. Can a man condemned by the gods to forever roll a rock up a hill and watch it roll down, only to roll it up again, find meaning in such a repetitive, trivial task? Is there meaning? And we, in a way, are doing that exact same thing: living our repetitive, robotic lives, doing things over and over again, and finally dying. Is there meaning?
No. There isn't. That is, if you look at our existence from that angle. If we look at ourselves on a universal scale, it is true- we have no meaning. We're just a speck of dust in an infinite universe, a planet taking its place among the cosmos, and the creatures upon it unable to have even the slightest ripple of impact on the rest of the universe. But let's zoom in a little closer. Let's look at it from a worldly view. Now, we see some meaning- to impact the world. But that's very broad, and very difficult to do. Only a select few are remembered this way. Let's zoom in closer, to the national view. More names are there, and many more people have impacted this country. And zooming in closer, we see than many more have impacted communities. Finally, zooming into the spheres of peoples' personal lives, we see that there is an uncountable of impact people have had on other people.
We are concerned with a great deal of things every day. But like Sisyphus, we are living in the moment, in the only world we know- our own. Each person I see flooding the hallways has their own world- their own interests, plans, and friends. Here, we are meaningful.
Now the question of what is meaningful is not very difficult to answer. In our worlds, the only meaning we have is the meaning we can have. That is, whatever we can do to have meaning- that's what it is. Making an impact. That's what we can do. We may not be able to change the world, not the country, not even the community. But we can make impacts on our worlds, our lives- and the lives of others.
The stone, the mountain, the night- that is Sisyphus's world. And, knowing only his world, he can find momentary happiness. He can feel joy and meaning in what he's able to do. He may be meaningless in the larger picture. But he is meaningful when he is in his world.
As are we.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Crime & Punishment
Do Candide's various punishments throughout the novel fit his various crimes?
The punishments Candide faces throughout this tale are varied and intense. Foremost and most obviously, we see Candide being punished for kissing Cunegonde and being subsequently banished from his castle. But this isn't the only punishment Candide has endured: he was at the mercy of Bulgarians who punished him for what seemed to be dissent from their army; he was caught in the middle of a hurricane outside Portugal; his friends were persecuted, killed, and ravaged; his goods were stolen; he has had to face great uncertainty, hardship, and swindling in a new world. What crime did Candide do to bring about these great hardships, from others and from Providence?
First of all was his ignorance which brought him persecution from Bulgarians. His ignorance in philosophy prevented him from doing the right thing when situations called for it, believing that all was already the best it could be. He killed two men, and a third in a new land. He rejected happiness and security in a Utopian society for his lover and greed.
And upon viewing his various punishments and crimes, we can now ask if they are of equal magnitude. To me, the simple answer is that they are not: the punishments are far harsher. His physical, mental, and emotional tolls he has had to pay throughout this story (considering him having no previous preparation for such hardships) seems astronomical. Furthermore, some of his "crimes" seem like no crimes at all- the biggest one being ignorance.
In fact, looking deeper at the motives of all his crimes, ignorance is the root. He came together with the woman he loved, not knowing any better. He ignored honest men drowning based upon his belief that it was "the best." He took a careless stroll without knowing the misconceptions it might entail. He killed men based upon his innate hatred of them, not knowing how else to react to them. He wanted to succeed and get ahead in the world with riches from another.
So why should Candide be blamed? It is his ignorance which causes his crimes, and why is that punishable? It is clear that his punishments are far worse than his "crimes."
One thing's for sure, though: after all this hardship, the ignorance which engendered it all will most likely die, and die quickly.
The punishments Candide faces throughout this tale are varied and intense. Foremost and most obviously, we see Candide being punished for kissing Cunegonde and being subsequently banished from his castle. But this isn't the only punishment Candide has endured: he was at the mercy of Bulgarians who punished him for what seemed to be dissent from their army; he was caught in the middle of a hurricane outside Portugal; his friends were persecuted, killed, and ravaged; his goods were stolen; he has had to face great uncertainty, hardship, and swindling in a new world. What crime did Candide do to bring about these great hardships, from others and from Providence?
First of all was his ignorance which brought him persecution from Bulgarians. His ignorance in philosophy prevented him from doing the right thing when situations called for it, believing that all was already the best it could be. He killed two men, and a third in a new land. He rejected happiness and security in a Utopian society for his lover and greed.
And upon viewing his various punishments and crimes, we can now ask if they are of equal magnitude. To me, the simple answer is that they are not: the punishments are far harsher. His physical, mental, and emotional tolls he has had to pay throughout this story (considering him having no previous preparation for such hardships) seems astronomical. Furthermore, some of his "crimes" seem like no crimes at all- the biggest one being ignorance.
In fact, looking deeper at the motives of all his crimes, ignorance is the root. He came together with the woman he loved, not knowing any better. He ignored honest men drowning based upon his belief that it was "the best." He took a careless stroll without knowing the misconceptions it might entail. He killed men based upon his innate hatred of them, not knowing how else to react to them. He wanted to succeed and get ahead in the world with riches from another.
So why should Candide be blamed? It is his ignorance which causes his crimes, and why is that punishable? It is clear that his punishments are far worse than his "crimes."
One thing's for sure, though: after all this hardship, the ignorance which engendered it all will most likely die, and die quickly.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Our Knowledge
How do we know what we know?
It's a tough and age old question- where does out knowledge come from? Do we learn everything from scratch, or are we born with some instincts that help characterize out intelligence? Do we learn more from teachers and stories or our own experiences?
Last week, the folks at my lunch table had a very heated discussion about weather intelligence is totally earned by experience or weather there's a genetic component as well. For me, while I believe that everyone thinks differently, most of our factual knowledge is given to us by our experience- though some learn faster and more than others. And most of our instinctive knowledge how to sleep, how to blink, who my mommy is- is given to us by mother nature.
For me, a parallel piece of knowledge I have is my steadfast belief of some divine supernatural entity. I believe in God. At the same time, I have many friends who are atheist or agnostic. How could we, all born the same way, have such different religious beliefs? I suppose it has to do with how we're raised and what we're taught- but at a certain age people can start deciding for themselves. That's when my personal experiences with religion kicked in- not only was I taught that God exists, but I truly believe in it.
Religion is a tough, controversial issue. The whole nation is like this- some have a strong belief in God, and others question the existence of any supernatural power at all. People around the world have fought, killed, and died over it. In a larger context, this means that what we know can be violent. If we weren't friends and united by similarities, the heated discussion my friends had last week could have gotten much worse. Our differences can be great and extensive. And this can only come from people's own experiences, not what they're taught- for if people were all critical thinkers and questioned what they did, I doubt there would be war in society.
Indeed, while some of what we know we learn, others are reinforced by our own experiences. And that's where I think the differences start, since it's a lot easier to teach people the same thing than to simulate the world in the same way for everyone. For me, I was raised in faith, and I still cling to my faith; at the same time, I do not hesitate to question my world and think of more questions to answer and add to my store of knowledge.
It's a tough and age old question- where does out knowledge come from? Do we learn everything from scratch, or are we born with some instincts that help characterize out intelligence? Do we learn more from teachers and stories or our own experiences?
Last week, the folks at my lunch table had a very heated discussion about weather intelligence is totally earned by experience or weather there's a genetic component as well. For me, while I believe that everyone thinks differently, most of our factual knowledge is given to us by our experience- though some learn faster and more than others. And most of our instinctive knowledge how to sleep, how to blink, who my mommy is- is given to us by mother nature.
For me, a parallel piece of knowledge I have is my steadfast belief of some divine supernatural entity. I believe in God. At the same time, I have many friends who are atheist or agnostic. How could we, all born the same way, have such different religious beliefs? I suppose it has to do with how we're raised and what we're taught- but at a certain age people can start deciding for themselves. That's when my personal experiences with religion kicked in- not only was I taught that God exists, but I truly believe in it.
Religion is a tough, controversial issue. The whole nation is like this- some have a strong belief in God, and others question the existence of any supernatural power at all. People around the world have fought, killed, and died over it. In a larger context, this means that what we know can be violent. If we weren't friends and united by similarities, the heated discussion my friends had last week could have gotten much worse. Our differences can be great and extensive. And this can only come from people's own experiences, not what they're taught- for if people were all critical thinkers and questioned what they did, I doubt there would be war in society.
Indeed, while some of what we know we learn, others are reinforced by our own experiences. And that's where I think the differences start, since it's a lot easier to teach people the same thing than to simulate the world in the same way for everyone. For me, I was raised in faith, and I still cling to my faith; at the same time, I do not hesitate to question my world and think of more questions to answer and add to my store of knowledge.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Modern Day Socrates
Yesterday, I just watched the 10th and final episode of season one of a brilliant television drama called "The Newsroom." (For all those who haven't heard of it, I highly recommend it- or at least watch the first ten minutes of it on YouTube which will definitely leave you thinking.) Written by Aaron Sorkin, this show surrounds a fictional news corporation with real life news stories, ranging from the BP Oil Spill to the death of Osama bin Laden. Yet the plot of the show is centered on the news anchor, Will McAvoy, as he and his team try a whole new style of reporting only facts and the truth, free of bias and irrelevance.
Now you would think that this revolutionary idea of reporting the truth wouldn't be all that revolutionary, and that Will McAvoy would be supported for sharing the truth. But if that were the case, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN would all be reporting stories free of irrelevance with only important, truthful news. And this isn't the case because people nowadays want to be entertained, not informed. And when you inform people, they switch the channel- which is why people like Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather are no longer reporting the real news.
And so the criticism for Will McAvoy began. Tabloid stories tarnish his character on a weekly basis. Editorials come out criticizing the new style of reporting. Will is faced with death threats. His attempt to report facts and ask tough questions makes him viewed as more biased than other reporters who report on rhetoric, and even the executives of the news corporation try to find ways to fire him.
Like Socrates, Will McAvoy is trying to spread the truth, and is ridiculed and criticized by many. Their messages were parallel: to bring the light to those who don't have it. And yet people reject that light. They don't want to see it. They're content with the life they're living and don't wish to drastically adjust it. Hopefully, over time, people will begin to adjust, and if all goes well, the civilization living a century from now will look upon this age as we look upon Socrates': as a less advanced, less informed people. In other words, hopefully the intellect of humans will only get brighter as time moves on.
Now you would think that this revolutionary idea of reporting the truth wouldn't be all that revolutionary, and that Will McAvoy would be supported for sharing the truth. But if that were the case, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN would all be reporting stories free of irrelevance with only important, truthful news. And this isn't the case because people nowadays want to be entertained, not informed. And when you inform people, they switch the channel- which is why people like Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather are no longer reporting the real news.
And so the criticism for Will McAvoy began. Tabloid stories tarnish his character on a weekly basis. Editorials come out criticizing the new style of reporting. Will is faced with death threats. His attempt to report facts and ask tough questions makes him viewed as more biased than other reporters who report on rhetoric, and even the executives of the news corporation try to find ways to fire him.
Like Socrates, Will McAvoy is trying to spread the truth, and is ridiculed and criticized by many. Their messages were parallel: to bring the light to those who don't have it. And yet people reject that light. They don't want to see it. They're content with the life they're living and don't wish to drastically adjust it. Hopefully, over time, people will begin to adjust, and if all goes well, the civilization living a century from now will look upon this age as we look upon Socrates': as a less advanced, less informed people. In other words, hopefully the intellect of humans will only get brighter as time moves on.
The Unexamined Life
The unexamined life is not worth living.
The famous words of Socrates are familiar to many. His life's message, his core belief- that if you don't search for the truth, if you don't examine in life, it is worthless. If we don't seek to look beyond mere shadows to see the light creating them, we are wasting our lives. The unexamined life is not worth living.
It's hard to disagree with a man so intelligent, dedicated, and renowned. Socrates devoted his entire life and even death to philosophy, whereas I just completed my eleventh day in a high school introductory class. And yet I'm a little uneasy with this phrase. While for the most part it makes sense- that we are not truly living unless we examine and seek the truth- I still feel like there are some unexamined lives that are worth living, and likewise examined lives that aren't.
The wordage is harsh- "not worth living." I think of it more as making good use of your existence or not. And therein lies the question humans have wrestled with for its entirety: what constitutes making good use of your existence? To Socrates, according to this statement, seeking the light of truth makes good use of your existence. But is that the only component?
In this young, 11-day old philosopher's opinion, it does not. What I think constitutes good use of your existence is something far more important: bringing that light of truth to others. Thus, there are those who seek out the light, who examine their lives, and enjoy their discoveries with themselves. They die, not shedding a single photon of that light onto others. What a tragic waste. And at the same time, there are those who go their whole lives without seeing the light, yet make do with what they do know to be true. They help others, and although they don't see the full intensity of the light, they give to others what light they do have.
I therefore think it unfair to deem all those who find the light as "worth living," and all those who don't as "worthless." Much more important than what you know is what you do, for knowledge isn't power unless used properly.
Socrates may have overlooked this simple concept because he assumed it to be true. He went his whole life, not only examining and seeking the light, but spreading the light onto others. He definitely lived a life worth living, and the obligation to share his discoveries with others came so naturally to him that he probably overlooked its importance. I could indeed be wrong, Socrates was a brilliant man. But I'm not sure that I can so easily accept the generalization that, no matter what, all unexamined lives are not worth living. Indeed, it is the actions you do with the light that are far more impacting and worthy than seeking the light itself.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Eulogy: About Chris Pieper
Chris Pieper (Christopher William Pieper) was born on March 1, 1996. Born and raised in the magnificent metropolis that is Chicago, he's become embedded with the great culture, knowledge, and diversity the city offers that is only challenged by few other places.
Growing up, Chris went to elementary school at South Loop elementary in Chicago's downtown. He was raised by two educators and spent much time at Lincoln Park Zoo's education department, where his mom worked. He also enjoined visiting museums and other public places that the great city of Chicago has to offer. In seventh grade, he transferred to Whitney Young Academic Center in the west loop, conveniently located within a short walk of his house. There, he studied until his junior year at WY High School, with some of the best students, teachers, and curriculum in the city.
Chris was a man of many interests. He was a lighting designer with Whitney Young's theater company, and ran sound and light technical operations for a variety of events. He also played clarinet in the school band. When he wasn't working in the Company, or working on schoolwork at home, he was found doing puzzles, playing (amateur) soccer, watching the Cubs, Bears, or Blackhawks, doing crafts, baking, listening to music, reading, socializing, or atrophying in front of a computer. Chris was a teen journalist for the Chicago teen newspaper The Mash, volunteered at the Field Museum of Natural History's education department. He was a passionate environmentalist, a big political junkie and a progressive Christian, all of which drastically helped shape his personal philosophy.
Some of Chris' core beliefs are that every person has good inside of them, that everything happens for a reason, and that everyone can be great. He believed that no matter who you are or what your background, we are all created in an image of goodness and love and can thus overcome differences and forgive wrongdoing. He believed that although life may have hit you, or times may be hard, and bad things may happen, it all happens for a reason, even if we go our entire lives not knowing what that reason is. And he believed that when people emerge from tough times, resilient and inspiring, that they emerge stronger than before. Finally, he thought that everyone has the capacity for greatness, but not everyone is one of the greats for one large reason: because they didn't unlock their maximum potential. Tragic it may be, but only those who reach for the stars and aspire to greatness are the ones who get there.
He also had beliefs with the world as a whole. He understood that the world's resources were limited, that energy must be conserved and matter cannot be created or destroyed. He therefore supported clean, renewable energy sources that last forever, recycling and using less which saves resources and reduces waste for future generations. Above all, Chris has a passionate support for protecting land that was special, touching, and magnificent that ought be preserved for future use. He was a big fan of the Native American proverb: "This land was not given to you by your fathers- it was loaned to you by your sons."
Chris was a man of many thoughts. He died at a young age, before he was able to let them further evolve or put them into action. He dreamed of impacting the world. He wanted to help people, to improve lives, and to touch someone in a way that reminded them of the goodness in the world and everyone in it. His driving inspiration: Someone, somewhere, waking up one morning in a better world than when they went to bed. He wanted to impact the world, and make it just a little, just a touch, brighter.
...............................................................................................................................................
Disclaimer: The above piece of writing was written for a philosophy of literature class on September 6, 2012 when the aforementioned Christopher Pieper was 16 years and 189 days old and in 11th grade. On that day he was not in any physical state that can be described by the following- including, but not limited to: dead, dying, of death, lifeless, not alive, lack of life, deceased, departed, late, gone, passed on, or any other English words of similar meaning or connotation. On September 6, 2012, he was not in a state near death and was not suffering from any major medical ailments ("major medical ailments" as defined and accepted by the majority of American doctors, nurses, workers in the field of medicine, the general public and general understanding of "major medical ailments" on September 6, 2012). The views, beliefs, opinions, and all other thoughts expressed in this piece are not necessarily the views, beliefs, opinion, and all other thoughts that Christopher Pieper will have in the future ("future" as defined as Spetember 7, 2012 or any subsequent date in the standard calendar of 2012 and every day of each following year), and should not be taken by the viewer of the aforementioned piece of writing as such.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)