Do we really want justice? Really? Most people would say, "yes! Definitely! We need justice in our society!" But do we really, deep down inside, want it? And does our society today, over 2000 years after Plato, have it?
It seems to be an obvious issue- we want to live in a society that is as perfect as can be, ergo we want to live in a just society. But living together as a society has it's side effects that are hard to see just by looking at it on paper. The most clear side-effect of having a just society is a loss of individualism and personality as a result of living as a collective people. Most people don't want to give these up. In addition, more fundamentally, we humans have personal (sometimes unjust but personally beneficial) ambitions and desires, and we're more willing than it would seem to stomp on each other for personal gain. It is this taboo but very real nature of ourselves that keeps us in a society designed to be unjust.
So it may seem that we don't want a perfectly just society. This is evident, seeing as we live in a society that is far from just. It is corrupted and manipulated for a small elite class for their own benefit, and is accepted- if not endorsed- by the lower classes as they wait and work for the day when they're in that elite position (a day that seldom comes for many).
While justice is good, makes for goodness in a society, and is generally desired by everyone, people don't want to be the ones who have to sacrifice in order to get the collective benefit. If there's a trash problem, everyone wants a new landfill- it's just that nobody wants them across the street from them. Likewise, we like the idea of justice, but we also like individuality and selfishness. Justice, too, is hard to define- what may be justice for someone can be injustice for another. So it's hard to conceive of a just society, and even harder to live in one. And while we like justice, sadly, we don't really want it in our greater society.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Wisdom and Justice
Is wisdom the same as justice? Can it lead to justice? Are wise men just, are just men wise, or is there no correlation?
Wisdom and justice are often equatable. It is often argued that all just choices and just realities are wise, and that wise choices and wise realities are just. This would seem very evident; in nearly every instance, when people make just decisions they come back to benefit them- they're making wise choices. What goes around comes around, as they say. Likewise, when people do wise things, they often end up being, or appear to be, just.
The problem arises because wisdom and justice aren't definite and objective. What may be wise is different for every person, and the definition of justice also changes based on who you ask. Therefore, it may seem that wise choices aren't just and that just choices aren't wise. Bad things sometimes happen to just and wise people; sometimes, good things happen to those who lack these traits. it's all subjective, which makes it difficult to come up with a definite correlation.
Nevertheless, it seems that when in doubt, be just. Chances are, it will also be wise. You're hitting two birds with one stone. Even if the issue is difficult to define and form, it's easy to see a correlation between wisdom and justice.
Wisdom and justice are often equatable. It is often argued that all just choices and just realities are wise, and that wise choices and wise realities are just. This would seem very evident; in nearly every instance, when people make just decisions they come back to benefit them- they're making wise choices. What goes around comes around, as they say. Likewise, when people do wise things, they often end up being, or appear to be, just.
The problem arises because wisdom and justice aren't definite and objective. What may be wise is different for every person, and the definition of justice also changes based on who you ask. Therefore, it may seem that wise choices aren't just and that just choices aren't wise. Bad things sometimes happen to just and wise people; sometimes, good things happen to those who lack these traits. it's all subjective, which makes it difficult to come up with a definite correlation.
Nevertheless, it seems that when in doubt, be just. Chances are, it will also be wise. You're hitting two birds with one stone. Even if the issue is difficult to define and form, it's easy to see a correlation between wisdom and justice.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Dear parents,
An open letter to parents: The key to parenting is moderation and mutualism.
Parenting is a tough job. Before the advent of civilized society, all parents had to do was have the baby, take care of the baby for a few years and bid them farewell. Now, having the baby is probably the easiest part (which is saying something), and afterwards parents must feed, clothe, house, educate, instill values, clean, encourage, support, befriend, forgive, oversee, and love the child for nearly their entire life. It's a daunting task- and many people don't succeed in doing it.
The first element of parenting is one of the easiest (for most people, at least): love your child. This bond is a biological instinct, so for everyone it's pretty easy to love your offspring (unless you're a guest on the Maury show and don't even know if the child is yours). Once you love your child, other things come easily: feeding, clothing, housing, and supporting your children. The tricky part comes when parents want to act in the interest of their child, out of love, but then inadvertently end up harming them.
That's the second element, I feel: moderation and mutualism. It's easier said than done- parent in moderation. Don't constantly order your child around, but don't let your child manipulate you. Give them freedom, but oversee their safety and well-being. Don't act as a "helicopter parent," nor as a "tiger mom." Most importantly, make sure that the relationship with your child is working. It needs to be mutual- any sort of friction that develops can destroy the lifelong bond between your child and you.
I like to use my parents as an example. I'm really fortunate to have such caring, yet understanding, parents. When I hear stories about other students, I realize that the key to my good relationship with my parents is moderation and mutualism. We communicate effectively, have nothing to hide, and nothing is unreasonable. Nothing my parents do is unreasonable or extreme, and I, in return, don't do anything to give them reason to act otherwise.
When the liquor companies say "please drink responsibly" at the end of every commercial, they really mean "please drink in moderation." When people say "please parent responsibly," we should instead think: "please parent in moderation."
Parenting is a tough job. Before the advent of civilized society, all parents had to do was have the baby, take care of the baby for a few years and bid them farewell. Now, having the baby is probably the easiest part (which is saying something), and afterwards parents must feed, clothe, house, educate, instill values, clean, encourage, support, befriend, forgive, oversee, and love the child for nearly their entire life. It's a daunting task- and many people don't succeed in doing it.
The first element of parenting is one of the easiest (for most people, at least): love your child. This bond is a biological instinct, so for everyone it's pretty easy to love your offspring (unless you're a guest on the Maury show and don't even know if the child is yours). Once you love your child, other things come easily: feeding, clothing, housing, and supporting your children. The tricky part comes when parents want to act in the interest of their child, out of love, but then inadvertently end up harming them.
That's the second element, I feel: moderation and mutualism. It's easier said than done- parent in moderation. Don't constantly order your child around, but don't let your child manipulate you. Give them freedom, but oversee their safety and well-being. Don't act as a "helicopter parent," nor as a "tiger mom." Most importantly, make sure that the relationship with your child is working. It needs to be mutual- any sort of friction that develops can destroy the lifelong bond between your child and you.
I like to use my parents as an example. I'm really fortunate to have such caring, yet understanding, parents. When I hear stories about other students, I realize that the key to my good relationship with my parents is moderation and mutualism. We communicate effectively, have nothing to hide, and nothing is unreasonable. Nothing my parents do is unreasonable or extreme, and I, in return, don't do anything to give them reason to act otherwise.
When the liquor companies say "please drink responsibly" at the end of every commercial, they really mean "please drink in moderation." When people say "please parent responsibly," we should instead think: "please parent in moderation."
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Individuals and Society
The Golden Rule: Treat others how you want to be treated
Humans are by nature social creatures. We don't live and work as individuals, but as groups. We work best when we work together. We function as a collective society. And in order to function successfully as a whole society, we must adhere to common standards of behaviour and respect- known as our civic duty.
"Civic duty," is what prevents people from littering. It prevents people from vandalizing public property. It allows for people to move around each other without running each other over, or sharing space on the train, or being courteous to complete strangers. In essence, it's the golden rule- treating others how you would like to be treated.
The only downside to this is that isn't mandatory or instinctive. It's voluntary. Because of that, there are people out there who litter, who vandalize property meant to be shared, who bump and run into others without notice, and who are simply not courteous to others. This is what is at the root of not only problems in our society, but problems for ourselves. Peoples' pet peeves or annoyances almost always stem from a lack of civic awareness and duty.
There are some times when individuals are individuals, and some times when individuals are members of a collective society. People need to realize when to distinguish between them and to act in ways that are respectful to everyone. Unfortunately, this isn't taught in any class or required by law. Civic duty and the golden rule aren't enforced-they're just things that we rely on each other to do. Civic duty is the glue that keeps us together and the means of maintaining a successful society.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Choosing to change
"The reason socialism never took root in America is because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -John Steinbeck
Is poverty a choice? Of course, nobody directly chooses to be poor- if a magic genie came up to someone and asked them if they'd rather be rich or poor, very few people would choose poverty. But the American mentality, especially today, is that if you're poor, it's because you messed up. Somewhere along the way, you made a bad decision, or you were too lazy, or you weren't smart or strong enough, and you're suffering the consequences. You chose to be lazy, you made your own decisions- you can reap the rewards or endure the losses.
The problem is that this is a false mentality. Those who are poor each have their own story and personality, and labeling them before you know them is no different than sexism or racism. If you go and see who the poor are, you'll see minimum wage workers, hardworking and dedicated but facing higher living costs and lower pay checks. You'll see parents trying to juggle a job, an aspiring college education, and children at the same time. You'll see people who were born into a tough situation and who can't seem to find a way out. And labeling any of these people as people who "choose" to live the way they are is wrong and offensive.
We live in a society where half the people are trying to go back to an era without a social safety net and relentless business domination- in short, an era where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And over the last decade, it's succeeding- the rich now take a larger share of the income and the poor take a smaller share. See the chart below:
(Source: The Atlantic)
But the most frustrating thing for me is not the reality of our dire situation, but the unawareness by many Americans about it and the general acceptance- even the promotion- of this recent trend. Theres a huge movement and a wide belief that people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and that government shouldn't help them. But guess what- these people don't own boots.
The idea that if you're poor or if you are struggling to get by, you somehow chose that lifestyle, is wrong and deeply offensive. Americans are living and working in a society with an "uneven playing field," as Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren put it. As a society, we must choose to change that.
We need to change the playing field. We need to restart the war on poverty and end the war on the poor. And we need to end that baseless, false idea and ignorant mentality that if you're poor, that was your choice.
Is poverty a choice? Of course, nobody directly chooses to be poor- if a magic genie came up to someone and asked them if they'd rather be rich or poor, very few people would choose poverty. But the American mentality, especially today, is that if you're poor, it's because you messed up. Somewhere along the way, you made a bad decision, or you were too lazy, or you weren't smart or strong enough, and you're suffering the consequences. You chose to be lazy, you made your own decisions- you can reap the rewards or endure the losses.
The problem is that this is a false mentality. Those who are poor each have their own story and personality, and labeling them before you know them is no different than sexism or racism. If you go and see who the poor are, you'll see minimum wage workers, hardworking and dedicated but facing higher living costs and lower pay checks. You'll see parents trying to juggle a job, an aspiring college education, and children at the same time. You'll see people who were born into a tough situation and who can't seem to find a way out. And labeling any of these people as people who "choose" to live the way they are is wrong and offensive.
We live in a society where half the people are trying to go back to an era without a social safety net and relentless business domination- in short, an era where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And over the last decade, it's succeeding- the rich now take a larger share of the income and the poor take a smaller share. See the chart below:
But the most frustrating thing for me is not the reality of our dire situation, but the unawareness by many Americans about it and the general acceptance- even the promotion- of this recent trend. Theres a huge movement and a wide belief that people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and that government shouldn't help them. But guess what- these people don't own boots.
The idea that if you're poor or if you are struggling to get by, you somehow chose that lifestyle, is wrong and deeply offensive. Americans are living and working in a society with an "uneven playing field," as Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren put it. As a society, we must choose to change that.
We need to change the playing field. We need to restart the war on poverty and end the war on the poor. And we need to end that baseless, false idea and ignorant mentality that if you're poor, that was your choice.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Differentiation and Integration
When Leibniz was mentioned in both my calculus and philosophy classes on the same day toward the start of the year, I thought that there would be no more cross-class references from these two very different classes. It turns out, with all this talk of solving for x, integration, and differentiation, I was wrong.
That's of course meant to be funny, as integration and differentiation mean very different things in calculus and philosophy. But the philosophical discussion of racial integration and separation crosses all walks of life and directly impacts the connections I have with other people. Should the world be integrated, in spite of de facto segregation and occasional conflicts, or should races maintain a peaceful separation?
It's a tough question. There are pros and cons to both, and even as our society has moved down the "integration" path we see conflict and separation. In our own city, recently named as the most segregated in America, we see ethnic pockets with little integration. So which is better?
For me, the question comes down to this: is it fair to clump entire groups of people together with a single label, and assume that interaction among these umbrella groups leads to inevitable conflict? And for me, the answer is no. I have a problem when people say that all blacks and whites are different and will never be able to get along- I've personally encountered and lived out examples that dismiss that. To be separate, I think, is to loose a part of humanity. It's to loose our brothers and sisters, and to reduce our judgment of other people to the basis of skin tone.
Yes, integration isn't perfect. We still see conflicts. We still see separation. Look at neighborhood demographics across Chicago and it's suburbs. Look at non-selective high school demographics. We live in a society where the law says "integrate" and the people say "separate"- with only a few exceptions.
So whats next? Will there continue to be separation, or will we integrate fully? I think, and I hope, that the future will be the later. The old ideas of racism and stereotypes will begin to die out, replaced by a new idea of looking past each person's race and seeing who they are as a person. A generation of increased multinationalism and understanding will soon rise to make a more integrated society.
Differences shouldn't mean conflict. They should be recognized and respected, but shouldn't bar peaceful coexistence.
That's of course meant to be funny, as integration and differentiation mean very different things in calculus and philosophy. But the philosophical discussion of racial integration and separation crosses all walks of life and directly impacts the connections I have with other people. Should the world be integrated, in spite of de facto segregation and occasional conflicts, or should races maintain a peaceful separation?
It's a tough question. There are pros and cons to both, and even as our society has moved down the "integration" path we see conflict and separation. In our own city, recently named as the most segregated in America, we see ethnic pockets with little integration. So which is better?
For me, the question comes down to this: is it fair to clump entire groups of people together with a single label, and assume that interaction among these umbrella groups leads to inevitable conflict? And for me, the answer is no. I have a problem when people say that all blacks and whites are different and will never be able to get along- I've personally encountered and lived out examples that dismiss that. To be separate, I think, is to loose a part of humanity. It's to loose our brothers and sisters, and to reduce our judgment of other people to the basis of skin tone.
Yes, integration isn't perfect. We still see conflicts. We still see separation. Look at neighborhood demographics across Chicago and it's suburbs. Look at non-selective high school demographics. We live in a society where the law says "integrate" and the people say "separate"- with only a few exceptions.
So whats next? Will there continue to be separation, or will we integrate fully? I think, and I hope, that the future will be the later. The old ideas of racism and stereotypes will begin to die out, replaced by a new idea of looking past each person's race and seeing who they are as a person. A generation of increased multinationalism and understanding will soon rise to make a more integrated society.
Differences shouldn't mean conflict. They should be recognized and respected, but shouldn't bar peaceful coexistence.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Find X
Who was Malcolm X?
That's a question which, if I take nothing else from his autobiography, I hope to answer after reading it. This is a man whose vision and ideas have been distorted and warped by history, and who very few people understand and know. Sadly, nowadays it seems that the only way to completely understand this great historical icon and his message is to read his autobiography, and see what his own words have to say.
I was slightly surprised, while coming to the completion of the first half of Malcolm X's autobiography, to see that the book wasn't divided into two parts. Yes, it's an autobiography- a journey through the life of one man- and breaks aren't common in autobiographies. People live one life, not multiple ones. But I thought it would help the reader to see who Malcolm X really is, since he lived a more or less two-part life. Part 1, a life as a young black boy and an adolescent hustler, and part 2 as a revolutionary black leader advocating for racial separation and black nationalism.
We've basically finished reading Malcolm X, part 1. This was his life story through childhood and his childhood stories- memories of the Ku Klux Klan's attacks on his family, memories from growing up in Michigan, the white people who murdered his father, the welfare people, the family he lived with, his crushed dreams from his teacher, living with his half-sister Ella in Boston, meeting Shorty, working in a drug store, as a shoeshiner, an on a train line, geting conks and zoot suits, and his hustles in Harlem. This all came to an abrupt end with his arrest, which started Part 2 of his life.
It is really interesting to me that history does't remember Part 1 of Malcolm X, which is quite fascinating and had a huge impact on who he came to be. Malcolm X stood out from other civil rights leaders due to his extreme ideas and his fiery passion, brought about by his early adversities. He lived the life of the average African-American suffering in America and knew well the challenges and unfairness the white America created. That's the one thing I would characterize Malcolm X as, and one thing that I overlooked- his passion. No other civil rights leader went through so much as he, and its evident in his passion he had for civil rights.
That's what we find when we look to "find x." A struggle to live in white society as part one of his life, and a call to action in part two. By looking at his entire life, especially part one, we can "solve for x" and see who Malcolm X truly was- a passionate civil rights leader using his struggles in a past life to make a new life better for his fellow man.
That's a question which, if I take nothing else from his autobiography, I hope to answer after reading it. This is a man whose vision and ideas have been distorted and warped by history, and who very few people understand and know. Sadly, nowadays it seems that the only way to completely understand this great historical icon and his message is to read his autobiography, and see what his own words have to say.
I was slightly surprised, while coming to the completion of the first half of Malcolm X's autobiography, to see that the book wasn't divided into two parts. Yes, it's an autobiography- a journey through the life of one man- and breaks aren't common in autobiographies. People live one life, not multiple ones. But I thought it would help the reader to see who Malcolm X really is, since he lived a more or less two-part life. Part 1, a life as a young black boy and an adolescent hustler, and part 2 as a revolutionary black leader advocating for racial separation and black nationalism.
We've basically finished reading Malcolm X, part 1. This was his life story through childhood and his childhood stories- memories of the Ku Klux Klan's attacks on his family, memories from growing up in Michigan, the white people who murdered his father, the welfare people, the family he lived with, his crushed dreams from his teacher, living with his half-sister Ella in Boston, meeting Shorty, working in a drug store, as a shoeshiner, an on a train line, geting conks and zoot suits, and his hustles in Harlem. This all came to an abrupt end with his arrest, which started Part 2 of his life.
It is really interesting to me that history does't remember Part 1 of Malcolm X, which is quite fascinating and had a huge impact on who he came to be. Malcolm X stood out from other civil rights leaders due to his extreme ideas and his fiery passion, brought about by his early adversities. He lived the life of the average African-American suffering in America and knew well the challenges and unfairness the white America created. That's the one thing I would characterize Malcolm X as, and one thing that I overlooked- his passion. No other civil rights leader went through so much as he, and its evident in his passion he had for civil rights.
That's what we find when we look to "find x." A struggle to live in white society as part one of his life, and a call to action in part two. By looking at his entire life, especially part one, we can "solve for x" and see who Malcolm X truly was- a passionate civil rights leader using his struggles in a past life to make a new life better for his fellow man.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
The King's Proclamation
"We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths- that all of us are created equal- is the star that guides us still...just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth."
-President Barack Obama, 1/21/12
The King's great proclamation still rings, loud and clear. It was a proclamation that said we are all created equal, no matter our appearance. It was a proclamation that said we all had rights to freedom and liberty. It was a proclamation that said the oppressed will no longer be oppressed, that justice and righteousness will prevail, that we are all brothers and sisters, and that out of many, we are one. It still rings today.
I am a volunteer at the Field Museum of Natural History, and I work in the museum's education department, primarily with young children. Today, in honor of Martin Luther King Jr.'s message and legacy, we did activities where we showed children different artifacts, like shoes or tools from around the world, and had them see that many things are different, many cultures are different- but no one artifact or one region or one culture is greater than another. It was a message that said, "we are all different, but difference is okay- difference doesn't mean conflict."
And I try to live that way in life, too. Unlike some people, I don't try to ignore race, but I try to embrace it as any other aspect of personality. Race in our society has become taboo, where people try to ignore it and pretend that everyone's the same, for harmony's sake. But I believe that race is a part of people, that we are all shaped by our cultures, and it's not something to be ignored, but embraced. We are all different, and differences shouldn't be ignored, but they should be embraced.
On the other hand, some people see differences as hostile, and see people who are different from them as people who should be blocked out of their lives. They see differences in humanity and see, in them, a lack of humanity. They oppress and try to rid the world of people who are different from them, and try to make a homogeneous population with people who they see as true.
But here's the thing- we're not that different. Of course we have different races and cultures, and we have different interests and beliefs, we may live differently or eat differently or speak differently. But humans have something distinct that makes them human (and it's not opposable thumbs or walking upright). It's that we all want to have freedom and liberty, we want to live in a just world, and we want to be treated equally. We all have hopes and dreams, we all have motives and goals, and we all want to have a fair journey to attain them. That's something all of us have in common.
The small differences we have should be embraced as individuality and richness among our population. The differences shouldn't be ignored as parts of people that don't matter and they shouldn't be taken to mean war among people. We are shaped by our differences, we are shaped by our race, and we are individual because of it.
And that's what I think Dr. King stood for. Being different isn't bad, it's good. We should accept these differences and learn about each other, and we shouldn't judge people because of them. We humans, though different, are created equal, and this equality and freedom are gifts that we are meant to share as one.
-President Barack Obama, 1/21/12
The King's great proclamation still rings, loud and clear. It was a proclamation that said we are all created equal, no matter our appearance. It was a proclamation that said we all had rights to freedom and liberty. It was a proclamation that said the oppressed will no longer be oppressed, that justice and righteousness will prevail, that we are all brothers and sisters, and that out of many, we are one. It still rings today.
I am a volunteer at the Field Museum of Natural History, and I work in the museum's education department, primarily with young children. Today, in honor of Martin Luther King Jr.'s message and legacy, we did activities where we showed children different artifacts, like shoes or tools from around the world, and had them see that many things are different, many cultures are different- but no one artifact or one region or one culture is greater than another. It was a message that said, "we are all different, but difference is okay- difference doesn't mean conflict."
And I try to live that way in life, too. Unlike some people, I don't try to ignore race, but I try to embrace it as any other aspect of personality. Race in our society has become taboo, where people try to ignore it and pretend that everyone's the same, for harmony's sake. But I believe that race is a part of people, that we are all shaped by our cultures, and it's not something to be ignored, but embraced. We are all different, and differences shouldn't be ignored, but they should be embraced.
On the other hand, some people see differences as hostile, and see people who are different from them as people who should be blocked out of their lives. They see differences in humanity and see, in them, a lack of humanity. They oppress and try to rid the world of people who are different from them, and try to make a homogeneous population with people who they see as true.
But here's the thing- we're not that different. Of course we have different races and cultures, and we have different interests and beliefs, we may live differently or eat differently or speak differently. But humans have something distinct that makes them human (and it's not opposable thumbs or walking upright). It's that we all want to have freedom and liberty, we want to live in a just world, and we want to be treated equally. We all have hopes and dreams, we all have motives and goals, and we all want to have a fair journey to attain them. That's something all of us have in common.
The small differences we have should be embraced as individuality and richness among our population. The differences shouldn't be ignored as parts of people that don't matter and they shouldn't be taken to mean war among people. We are shaped by our differences, we are shaped by our race, and we are individual because of it.
And that's what I think Dr. King stood for. Being different isn't bad, it's good. We should accept these differences and learn about each other, and we shouldn't judge people because of them. We humans, though different, are created equal, and this equality and freedom are gifts that we are meant to share as one.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Music Review: Karmin
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
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 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)