Lately, I've been thinking about my life in terms of purpose and my reasons for doing the things I do. I find that, most of the time, when I engage in those musings, I either hit a point where I start lying to myself or I give up altogether. It isn't easy to maintain that introspective, self-critical thought process without performing mental gymnastics to avoid thinking about certain things and uncovering certain truths. Perfect self-honesty is nearly impossible. Still, on those occasions when I square my mind and force myself to answer to myself, I reach tentative conclusions about my current purpose in life.
Knowledge and learning are the most important things in my life. Everything else I do has little value compared to the knowledge that I absorb and attempt to spread. I see something beautiful in having the ability to educate others and share ideas with them. This fosters personal growth while making social interactions more meaningful and minimizing the amount of time I spend "shooting the shit" with people. My view about the questionable legitimacy of social interactions in America is based on the notion that people are over-reliant on so-called "referential content" in both face-to-face and virtual conversations. I define "referential content" as anything distinct from an independently arrived-at idea or view. People discuss the behavior of others, funny videos on the internet, clothing, social media, concerts, etc. But ultimately, where is the value in those interactions? I see a meaningful social interaction as an exchange of something personal and intellectually or emotionally significant to each individual involved. So few interactions in this country can be described as "meaningful" by that standard. I believe that the United States is suffering social degradation as a result of corrupting social, cultural and media influence. Education has become something of a stigma in many circles, and the exchange of ideas is termed "boring" or "pointless" when more amusing and more immediate distractions can dominate conversations.
Why do two neighbors who feel socially obligated to hold short conversations with each other inevitably turn to discussing the weather? The simple answer seems to be that they don't know each other very well and are desperately reaching for common ground, but that does not explain that same over-reliance on referential content in interactions between closely acquainted individuals. I think that America is slowly forgetting what legitimate interaction is, and our current social condition allows individuals to describe and put forth meaningless opinions on extraneous distractions rather than CREATING something with their minds in order to CONTRIBUTE it. Anyways, I'll quit rambling here.
From the limited glimpses I've had into myself, I've concluded that knowledge is the most important thing in my life. The experiences that I've had being taught by others and teaching others are extremely significant to me, and I can honestly say its a fair bet that, just like my father, I'll spend a lifetime worth of leisure time pursuing knowledge in different forms.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Thankful For A Classmate
Philosophy has been a great class for me this year, as it has sparked certain ideas and set off trains of thought that I pursue both in and out of school. The class as a whole is a great experience, and I am thankful to two individuals in particular for their contributions to the classroom.
The first honorable mention is Zach Hayes. I like having him in the room because he has a sharp mind and a great knowledge of history and politics. He keeps up with events past, present and future. When I speak, I know that if some dumb shit comes out of my mouth I'll get tapped on the shoulder from behind and told just that. Zach is also one of those people whose points in the classroom need to be closely followed in order to be fully appreciated, and he engages me mentally in following his lines of reasoning and making his mental leaps with him. Last but far from least, Zach is a bro, and is hilarious pretty much all of the time for one reason or another.
Another individual who has significantly affected me in Phil of Lit this year is Stephen Maloy. In class, I oppose him as a diehard pessimist, but my rock solid wall of denial in regards to his optimism has got quite a few more cracks in it than I may let on. In our discussion of Candide's conclusion, Stephen expressed his support for the interpretation of the garden in which it was cultivated to eventually better the world around it. I viewed the garden as a haven, a place to cultivate for self and live in, sheltered and fully isolated from the evils of the world. Lately, I've been thinking about that discussion in terms of the allegory of the cave, and I have concluded that Stephen is a better man than I. If the garden is to be man's purpose, work, fulfillment and, eventually, his revelation, then my view regarding the garden is extraordinarily selfish. In terms of the allegory and in keeping with my view, if I achieve personal enlightenment in my garden, I will lock myself in and refuse to share it with the world. In other words, I would refuse, having seen the light, to re-enter the cave for the sake of helping others. That is selfish. Yet it is easy. I am reconsidering that position because of the degree to which it is a cop-out, a complete refusal to accept responsibility for anything or anyone but me and mine. The issue is, I don't believe that the world can be greatly changed at the hands of one individual. But is that an excuse to escape, to refuse to bear the human suffering that Viktor Frankl describes as our eternal burden, our curse and our calling? I don't know. I know only that the road to Hell is short and wide, and the road to Heaven long and narrow.
Stephen, in proclaiming his position and declaring his belief in the ability of the individual to alter the course of the human future, chose a terrifying, thankless path. He would cultivate his garden for himself, but ultimately for others. He would share it with the world, try to cast light upon darkness. Instead of reveling in the beauty of his creation, he would choose to re-enter the "real" world of ignorance, suffering and greed. A thankless choice, as many are ignorant and misguided, preferring to remain that way. Yet, it is sacrifice. It is the choice to bear suffering as a duty, out of a sense of responsibility to others and a genuine desire to change the suboptimal world order. His words did nothing to change my pessimistic worldview, and I still have little faith in any one man's ability to change anything, but there is now something inside me....a flicker of understanding, if you will. I have become conscious of the fact that, maybe, against all odds, despite the mountains he would have to move, despite the huge pile of shit he would have to bear on his shoulders, man should TRY. My grandmother always said: Hope is the final spark in the darkness. Her words echo and resonate with my highly uncharacteristic thoughts. Stephen, you have brought me outside of my usual realm of thought, and for that as well as your views and choices, you are worthy of respect as an individual and a classmate.
The first honorable mention is Zach Hayes. I like having him in the room because he has a sharp mind and a great knowledge of history and politics. He keeps up with events past, present and future. When I speak, I know that if some dumb shit comes out of my mouth I'll get tapped on the shoulder from behind and told just that. Zach is also one of those people whose points in the classroom need to be closely followed in order to be fully appreciated, and he engages me mentally in following his lines of reasoning and making his mental leaps with him. Last but far from least, Zach is a bro, and is hilarious pretty much all of the time for one reason or another.
Another individual who has significantly affected me in Phil of Lit this year is Stephen Maloy. In class, I oppose him as a diehard pessimist, but my rock solid wall of denial in regards to his optimism has got quite a few more cracks in it than I may let on. In our discussion of Candide's conclusion, Stephen expressed his support for the interpretation of the garden in which it was cultivated to eventually better the world around it. I viewed the garden as a haven, a place to cultivate for self and live in, sheltered and fully isolated from the evils of the world. Lately, I've been thinking about that discussion in terms of the allegory of the cave, and I have concluded that Stephen is a better man than I. If the garden is to be man's purpose, work, fulfillment and, eventually, his revelation, then my view regarding the garden is extraordinarily selfish. In terms of the allegory and in keeping with my view, if I achieve personal enlightenment in my garden, I will lock myself in and refuse to share it with the world. In other words, I would refuse, having seen the light, to re-enter the cave for the sake of helping others. That is selfish. Yet it is easy. I am reconsidering that position because of the degree to which it is a cop-out, a complete refusal to accept responsibility for anything or anyone but me and mine. The issue is, I don't believe that the world can be greatly changed at the hands of one individual. But is that an excuse to escape, to refuse to bear the human suffering that Viktor Frankl describes as our eternal burden, our curse and our calling? I don't know. I know only that the road to Hell is short and wide, and the road to Heaven long and narrow.
Stephen, in proclaiming his position and declaring his belief in the ability of the individual to alter the course of the human future, chose a terrifying, thankless path. He would cultivate his garden for himself, but ultimately for others. He would share it with the world, try to cast light upon darkness. Instead of reveling in the beauty of his creation, he would choose to re-enter the "real" world of ignorance, suffering and greed. A thankless choice, as many are ignorant and misguided, preferring to remain that way. Yet, it is sacrifice. It is the choice to bear suffering as a duty, out of a sense of responsibility to others and a genuine desire to change the suboptimal world order. His words did nothing to change my pessimistic worldview, and I still have little faith in any one man's ability to change anything, but there is now something inside me....a flicker of understanding, if you will. I have become conscious of the fact that, maybe, against all odds, despite the mountains he would have to move, despite the huge pile of shit he would have to bear on his shoulders, man should TRY. My grandmother always said: Hope is the final spark in the darkness. Her words echo and resonate with my highly uncharacteristic thoughts. Stephen, you have brought me outside of my usual realm of thought, and for that as well as your views and choices, you are worthy of respect as an individual and a classmate.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Who would Voltaire and Camus vote for?
I can tell you all right now that I don't have a damn clue who these philosophers of old would vote for in this year's presidential election. Hell, I don't even know the names of all the candidates. However, I do wonder if either of them would even vote at all.
It seems that Voltaire was a believer in self-determination of purpose, which is evident in Candide, as no matter what sort of societies the characters encountered or what trials they faced, they reached their own conclusion in the end. Their experiences contributed to them finally settling in the garden, but at the end of the day, no one exerted outside influence on the existence they had carved out for themselves. I don't think that Voltaire would appreciate casting his vote for ANY individual that would be in a position to make decisions about his life. Camus, too, appears to question the meaning of his existence and would probably like to be able to determine his own fate. In my view, both Voltaire and Camus would likely prefer not only not to vote, but leave society altogether. It seems as though the characters in Candide and Mersault in The Stranger are nothing but victims of societal influence, and it could be concluded that the two works are manifestations of the authors' desire to exit society and live unconstrained by it. Based on that reasoning, neither of them would vote for any kind of external oppressor.
It seems that Voltaire was a believer in self-determination of purpose, which is evident in Candide, as no matter what sort of societies the characters encountered or what trials they faced, they reached their own conclusion in the end. Their experiences contributed to them finally settling in the garden, but at the end of the day, no one exerted outside influence on the existence they had carved out for themselves. I don't think that Voltaire would appreciate casting his vote for ANY individual that would be in a position to make decisions about his life. Camus, too, appears to question the meaning of his existence and would probably like to be able to determine his own fate. In my view, both Voltaire and Camus would likely prefer not only not to vote, but leave society altogether. It seems as though the characters in Candide and Mersault in The Stranger are nothing but victims of societal influence, and it could be concluded that the two works are manifestations of the authors' desire to exit society and live unconstrained by it. Based on that reasoning, neither of them would vote for any kind of external oppressor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)