In a world so utterly lacking proper models and personalities in general who inspire value and the very presence of whom shatters any doubts about dubious morality and principles, people nowadays take a particular liking to Albert Einstein. Regardless of the level of education or intelligence exhibited by any one individual, Einstein is quoted, often with misattributed wisdom, in a reverential, pious manner, as if God Almighty Himself had uttered the words. Almost everybody has heard of the phrase "God does not play dice", but few are those who can name the context in which the words came to the German theoretical physicist who has come to symbolize the nonconformist genius, standing as a sort of promise that "anyone" might become a genius.
As evidenced by my earlier essays, I strongly oppose this idea. I shall, however take a moment to recall an anecdotal moment from the 1920's. During his many travels and guest lectures done around that time in a great number of scientific havens throughout the world, Albert Einstein also visited the Netherlands and delivered lectures at the University of Leiden. In a small village near Leiden, Rijnsburg, between the years 1661 and 1663 lived one of the greatest minds that this world had ever and will ever witness, the philosopher Baruch Spinoza or Benedictus de Spinoza, to cite his preferred name. The house, now a museum, was visited by Einstein and the latter was so inspired by the former's works and manner of thinking that he thenceforth declared to believe in "Spinoza's God". Einstein had already declared on numerous occasions when questioned on this matter that he finds the idea of an anthropomorphic God with thoughts and feelings, catering to our every need as humans, hilarious and impossible to take seriously.
This was precisely what a very rebellious Spinoza had told his fellow men in the 17th century, establishing himself as one of the more prominent minds of the Enlightenment and ensuring at the same time perpetual hate and even retribution or harassment from the many religious groups who were ever-present and all-powerful at the time and which could ensure the public ostracization of any and all individuals, if it was to their liking. Spinoza believed in a God whence all of nature stems, viewed as a dynamic entity devoid of human characteristics, such as wants, desires, feelings and the like. Thus absolute determinism was put in place, as any and all circumstances in the Universe stem from God, who is the Universe, both before but especially after change.
And if this was not complicated enough, let us turn to the dialectic of Hegel, a great admirer of Spinoza and the most important of all modern philosophers, and also perhaps the most difficult to read. He employs in his works a very seductive manner of approaching discourse, employing together with every proposed "thesis" an "antithesis", the very opposite of the former followed by a coupling of these two together through a process called by him "aufhebung" and for which no just translation exists that can preserve the fundamental underlying meaning. Through this process, then, a synthesis would be formed. For instance, Socrates's existence has to be coupled with his unfair and untimely death and together they form the synthesis which is the formidably enduring legacy that Socrates has to this very day. Now as you can see, in Hegel's view, God is again out there, absolutely determining various paths, invariably shaping destinies in an ever-morphing and impossible to dissect conundrum. Indeed, ideas seem to "come alive" in this respect and float around the human beings like stars in the night on a clear sky, ever setting their unkown course, morphing with one another or giving birth to one another.
This whole concept is then heartily and heavily contradicted by Marx, a very intelligent individual who did not claim, as I so often hear him be misquoted and misrepresented, that the material aspects of this world are the only things that matter. Rather, he refuses to give the ideas to power to morph into living entities and proposes that our ideas, which do exist, do not lead into a determinate solipsism wherefrom no escape is possible, but rather that our ideas have a direct consequence in the material world, determine the material world and that this, and this alone, should serve as their primary function and Raison d'être.
To sum up, a frequently quoted and much talked about book pertaining to Umberto Eco is called "Opera Aperta", or open text, wherein he postulates that the more chances a text gives the reader with regard to its possible interpretations, the better perceived, better liked and more valuable a text becomes. I think it has more to do with the open-mindedness with which you approach any given text. Maybe my previous articles had been purposefully leading in a clear direction or maybe, as I have written in a certain comment I simply choose the omniscient narrator perspective and offer everybody the chance to rationally critique and to rationally determine what they have read. Likewise, I urge you to simply think.
Thursday 31 January 2013
Wednesday 30 January 2013
De Gaudiis Opus
This essay should have been called of the joys of labour. I think I cannot recall a situation when, with regard to the subjects of working and jobs in general, I would not hear the eternal phrase "in life, you have to do that which you like". I myself am guilty of using this poor reasoning more times than I wish to admit. However, I am at the point where I not only wish to marshal my facts so that I may present what in my opinion is the truth, but I am also in awe how a very simple-minded take on life could be held in such high esteem by people whom I thought to be of much greater mental quality and whose rational critique narrowly impressed me.
It would be indeed both useless and a waste of time to dwell again on the subjects of my previous 3 articles. If you have not read them, do so, in order to not wrongly accuse me of sophistical thinking, where presumably I allow my ideas to flow on a path littered with errors of premise. I shall not, thus, address the idea that education is extremely poor and simplified today, to the point where it narrowly misses the harrowing position of catering to the lowest common denominator of humanity. This is nothing more than fact. It has reached the point where if you attempt to free yourself from the shackles of poor education and follow the ideals set forth by Leonardo da Vinci and other Hominis Universalis you will find yourself being scoffed at by the very people who in their own private circles and indeed their own private bathrooms consider themselves as well-read, distinctly educated individuals with a poignant opinion. Educated people scoffing at other educated people out of spite and envy. Progress needs to be halted, because progress nowadays means going back to certification of merit. And seeing as merit is no longer relevant, I bid you welcome to the land of today. I must, however, urge you to smile, as tomorrow the situation will most likely spiral further until it reaches the blissful point of utter and complete ignorance.
This entire collection of essays is actually a revolt against said conformist petty-minded good-in-everyone oriented education. I shall transform not knowing into an art, as knowing disgusts me nowadays to the point where the more "education" an individual appears to have, the less likely I am tempted to establish any sort of contact and be once again chagrined by how much self-sufficiency and crass disinterest towards rational critique lie behind the wall of great and many "achievements".
We have thence established the disquieting nature of today's education, we have yet again enforced the idea that the people of today have extremely disconcerting ideals, and if you have stuck here long enough to get to this point you are ready to admit that which you have always known. Not every individual is relevant, not everybody is "good at something", not everybody should "have a place in the world" and most certainly life is not about doing what you like. This hedonistic epicurian misunderstanding stems from a clever manipulation: people who think they like what they do work with the most efficiency. And yes, the brain can be fooled in a wide array of ways, that is why a new job always comes with perks, trainings and the like, to fool the brain into thinking it has struck gold and has found heaven on earth in the form of a job. However, regardless of the complexity, of the complicated nature or of the ever-present challenges one faces while being employed anywhere, inevitably, if one is smart enough, routine will settle in. And this cannot be prevented in any manner, I'm afraid. The brain is hard-wired to operate in patterns but it is also hard-wired to seek pleasure. Perhaps a promotion or a raise due to the fact that you have strictly adhered to a pattern 1000 times seems like a proper stimulation of the feeling of praise, however although the brain might associate following the pattern with an award, it will get tired and eventually bored due to an overworking of synapses. The brain needs a new challenge in order to function properly. And man is expected to work for the better part of 50 years of his life, every year.
Of course, perhaps most of the people, with sufficient training and simple pleasures to occupy their worthless time at home can be docile and might "be efficient" at a "job they loved, but now are not so sure". There is no point in taking "liking" something as a criterium for choosing a path in life. You may find that something extremely difficult is very pleasurable after many failed attempts, and you might find that something you "like" because it was easy for you to accomplish is actually extremely boring in the long run, as the brain gets used to the pattern easily and routine quickly settles in. The only redeeming chance if you are not part of the flock and do not want to be herded for 50 years, is to make use of creativty and force your mind to be each day much better than the day before. You owe it to yourself, because at the end of the day the only thing you HAVE TO accomplish is this life is see yourself to the grave. Might as well make the journey as interesting as possible. Especially with respect to the choice of company.
It would be indeed both useless and a waste of time to dwell again on the subjects of my previous 3 articles. If you have not read them, do so, in order to not wrongly accuse me of sophistical thinking, where presumably I allow my ideas to flow on a path littered with errors of premise. I shall not, thus, address the idea that education is extremely poor and simplified today, to the point where it narrowly misses the harrowing position of catering to the lowest common denominator of humanity. This is nothing more than fact. It has reached the point where if you attempt to free yourself from the shackles of poor education and follow the ideals set forth by Leonardo da Vinci and other Hominis Universalis you will find yourself being scoffed at by the very people who in their own private circles and indeed their own private bathrooms consider themselves as well-read, distinctly educated individuals with a poignant opinion. Educated people scoffing at other educated people out of spite and envy. Progress needs to be halted, because progress nowadays means going back to certification of merit. And seeing as merit is no longer relevant, I bid you welcome to the land of today. I must, however, urge you to smile, as tomorrow the situation will most likely spiral further until it reaches the blissful point of utter and complete ignorance.
This entire collection of essays is actually a revolt against said conformist petty-minded good-in-everyone oriented education. I shall transform not knowing into an art, as knowing disgusts me nowadays to the point where the more "education" an individual appears to have, the less likely I am tempted to establish any sort of contact and be once again chagrined by how much self-sufficiency and crass disinterest towards rational critique lie behind the wall of great and many "achievements".
We have thence established the disquieting nature of today's education, we have yet again enforced the idea that the people of today have extremely disconcerting ideals, and if you have stuck here long enough to get to this point you are ready to admit that which you have always known. Not every individual is relevant, not everybody is "good at something", not everybody should "have a place in the world" and most certainly life is not about doing what you like. This hedonistic epicurian misunderstanding stems from a clever manipulation: people who think they like what they do work with the most efficiency. And yes, the brain can be fooled in a wide array of ways, that is why a new job always comes with perks, trainings and the like, to fool the brain into thinking it has struck gold and has found heaven on earth in the form of a job. However, regardless of the complexity, of the complicated nature or of the ever-present challenges one faces while being employed anywhere, inevitably, if one is smart enough, routine will settle in. And this cannot be prevented in any manner, I'm afraid. The brain is hard-wired to operate in patterns but it is also hard-wired to seek pleasure. Perhaps a promotion or a raise due to the fact that you have strictly adhered to a pattern 1000 times seems like a proper stimulation of the feeling of praise, however although the brain might associate following the pattern with an award, it will get tired and eventually bored due to an overworking of synapses. The brain needs a new challenge in order to function properly. And man is expected to work for the better part of 50 years of his life, every year.
Of course, perhaps most of the people, with sufficient training and simple pleasures to occupy their worthless time at home can be docile and might "be efficient" at a "job they loved, but now are not so sure". There is no point in taking "liking" something as a criterium for choosing a path in life. You may find that something extremely difficult is very pleasurable after many failed attempts, and you might find that something you "like" because it was easy for you to accomplish is actually extremely boring in the long run, as the brain gets used to the pattern easily and routine quickly settles in. The only redeeming chance if you are not part of the flock and do not want to be herded for 50 years, is to make use of creativty and force your mind to be each day much better than the day before. You owe it to yourself, because at the end of the day the only thing you HAVE TO accomplish is this life is see yourself to the grave. Might as well make the journey as interesting as possible. Especially with respect to the choice of company.
Tuesday 29 January 2013
E Pluribus Unum
Don't worry, I have no intention to herein bring praise and/or malice with respect to the United States of America. That may well be the topic of another essay. This time I intend to weigh in on a topic which has been on my mind for as long as I remember, the uniqueness of each individual.
From the very starting point of our lives, we are taught that we are all unique individuals, each with important and relevant "strong points" that will someday "make a difference in the world". At least that is the paradigm instituted in western schools, not only in Europe, but especially in the U.S., where the school is a safehaven of any and all models of morality and achievement, inasmuch as everybody receives a trophy, regardless of actual merit. In other schools grading systems are turning into obsolete instruments of torture, the accent is placed on "personal development" and there is almost no differentiation of merit.
My opinion on this matter will most certainly be considered controversial, especially by those who are members of my generation. They will say that I have narrow views, that I think like an old person whose mind is filled with nostalgic memories, that I am too much of a conservative and I resist change for no good reason. Allow me to make it clear: I like change, I like evolution, I like pushing the boundaries ever further but that which I do not like is the trivialization which has turned much of modern education into a joke.
In the old days, education was reserved for certain cathegories of individuals pertaining to the higher social classes and to this day a higher level of education is most often associated with a higher social standing. More prejudice than truth, unfortunately. However, coupled with the industrial revolution of the 19th and especially 20th centuries, the rise of the middle class meant that "old" education had to be modified to suit more modern needs. This important change led to the two major consequences that are relevant to this day: almost anybody nowadays has access to education. However, as almost anybody had access to education, its level had to sink in order to accomodate the lesser endowed individuals. From this point forward, however, the trend has been nothing but a descending spiral threatening to make the act of education a futile undertaking.
Before you decide to rise against my dissertation on the high horse of equality and equal chances, take into consideration that there are some things which can only be fulfilled by an educative path that resembles a struggle, that some lessons can only be learned through a "master-apprentice" approach to education and that this idea is becoming more and more hated by the second because the people that are in charge of education as we know it today are the not-so-well endowed individuals who should never have polluted the fine art of teaching others in the first place. Higher education is not for everybody. This is not the case today. Everybody wants to major in something, and getting accepted into a higher education institution is uncannily facile and sometimes relies more on the amount of money one intends to spend and far less on the personal virtues which should constitute the most important premise of access into higher education.
Some countries have taken this idea too far, and we bare witness to people of no real capacity having doctorates in intricate fields and even university professors with almost nothing that recommends them for the job, not even pedagogical skill. The "magisters" of the Roman Era, of the Enlightenment, have all but vanished, leaving behind people who turn education into a joke and a business.
My opinion means no disrespect towards the people for whom the ideals of education are unaltered and who continue to do a magnificent job in their respective fields. My view addresses the declining situation of education in general. If you feel threatened by my opinion or react with unwarranted anger against it then you, too, are part of the problem.
So why "e pluribus unum"? Because society wants to falsely instill from a young age inside each individual the idea that he or she is unique, special and has extremely relevant character traits which can shape the world. Everybody is "the One". And the truth is, most of the population inhabitng this planet as we speak is irrelevant and education, instead of managing to make people matter in the reference system, actually manages the opposite nowadays, increasing said redundancy!
Of course I vouch for an educated society, of course people must be taught to behave, to live together, each person's supposed potential must be sought. However, we must differentiate the animals which need obedience training, and who need to be taught just how to behave and nothing more and the Mensch who needs to be turned into an Ubermensch by means of education. Otherwise we are just throwing the baby with the bathwater. Philosophers might well rule society someday, although chances are indeed slim.
From the very starting point of our lives, we are taught that we are all unique individuals, each with important and relevant "strong points" that will someday "make a difference in the world". At least that is the paradigm instituted in western schools, not only in Europe, but especially in the U.S., where the school is a safehaven of any and all models of morality and achievement, inasmuch as everybody receives a trophy, regardless of actual merit. In other schools grading systems are turning into obsolete instruments of torture, the accent is placed on "personal development" and there is almost no differentiation of merit.
My opinion on this matter will most certainly be considered controversial, especially by those who are members of my generation. They will say that I have narrow views, that I think like an old person whose mind is filled with nostalgic memories, that I am too much of a conservative and I resist change for no good reason. Allow me to make it clear: I like change, I like evolution, I like pushing the boundaries ever further but that which I do not like is the trivialization which has turned much of modern education into a joke.
In the old days, education was reserved for certain cathegories of individuals pertaining to the higher social classes and to this day a higher level of education is most often associated with a higher social standing. More prejudice than truth, unfortunately. However, coupled with the industrial revolution of the 19th and especially 20th centuries, the rise of the middle class meant that "old" education had to be modified to suit more modern needs. This important change led to the two major consequences that are relevant to this day: almost anybody nowadays has access to education. However, as almost anybody had access to education, its level had to sink in order to accomodate the lesser endowed individuals. From this point forward, however, the trend has been nothing but a descending spiral threatening to make the act of education a futile undertaking.
Before you decide to rise against my dissertation on the high horse of equality and equal chances, take into consideration that there are some things which can only be fulfilled by an educative path that resembles a struggle, that some lessons can only be learned through a "master-apprentice" approach to education and that this idea is becoming more and more hated by the second because the people that are in charge of education as we know it today are the not-so-well endowed individuals who should never have polluted the fine art of teaching others in the first place. Higher education is not for everybody. This is not the case today. Everybody wants to major in something, and getting accepted into a higher education institution is uncannily facile and sometimes relies more on the amount of money one intends to spend and far less on the personal virtues which should constitute the most important premise of access into higher education.
Some countries have taken this idea too far, and we bare witness to people of no real capacity having doctorates in intricate fields and even university professors with almost nothing that recommends them for the job, not even pedagogical skill. The "magisters" of the Roman Era, of the Enlightenment, have all but vanished, leaving behind people who turn education into a joke and a business.
My opinion means no disrespect towards the people for whom the ideals of education are unaltered and who continue to do a magnificent job in their respective fields. My view addresses the declining situation of education in general. If you feel threatened by my opinion or react with unwarranted anger against it then you, too, are part of the problem.
So why "e pluribus unum"? Because society wants to falsely instill from a young age inside each individual the idea that he or she is unique, special and has extremely relevant character traits which can shape the world. Everybody is "the One". And the truth is, most of the population inhabitng this planet as we speak is irrelevant and education, instead of managing to make people matter in the reference system, actually manages the opposite nowadays, increasing said redundancy!
Of course I vouch for an educated society, of course people must be taught to behave, to live together, each person's supposed potential must be sought. However, we must differentiate the animals which need obedience training, and who need to be taught just how to behave and nothing more and the Mensch who needs to be turned into an Ubermensch by means of education. Otherwise we are just throwing the baby with the bathwater. Philosophers might well rule society someday, although chances are indeed slim.
Monday 28 January 2013
De potestate in sermonis
It is not very likely that I shall most often publish on my private blog opinions expressed by other people, nor is it very likely that I shall offer praise to many people in general. My love for the ability to think freely and for the liberty of the mind offerd to us as people by the Enlightenment comes with the responsibility to protect these virtues and to carry on thinking of my own accord as much as possible.
However, my love for these ideals, my worship of debate and argumentative discourse and last but not least my disdain for the hypocrisy which is exhibited by the Catholic Church are masterfully represented in the following argument against the motion "Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?". I bestow upon Stephen Fry a most profound and adulative respect, not only for his ideas and for his steadfast defence of the Enlightenment and of the virtues of free thought, but for his love of the English language which exudes in I daresay the most beautiful pronounciation I have ever heard in my life.
Before I let Mr. Fry have the word, however, I cannot help but mention again Sir Thomas More, known to most of you as Thomas Morus, or properly names The Right Honourable Sir Thomas Morus, famed author of the philosophical treaty "Utopia", Lord Chancellor at the court of Henry the VIIIth, statesman, politician, High Steward of the Univeristies of Oxford and Cambridge, who burned and tortured anyone who dared own a Bible in English. He was canonized by the Catholic Church in 1935 and in the year 2000 became the heavenly patron of statesmen and politicians.
Stephen Fry- Intelligence Squared Debate
However, my love for these ideals, my worship of debate and argumentative discourse and last but not least my disdain for the hypocrisy which is exhibited by the Catholic Church are masterfully represented in the following argument against the motion "Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?". I bestow upon Stephen Fry a most profound and adulative respect, not only for his ideas and for his steadfast defence of the Enlightenment and of the virtues of free thought, but for his love of the English language which exudes in I daresay the most beautiful pronounciation I have ever heard in my life.
Before I let Mr. Fry have the word, however, I cannot help but mention again Sir Thomas More, known to most of you as Thomas Morus, or properly names The Right Honourable Sir Thomas Morus, famed author of the philosophical treaty "Utopia", Lord Chancellor at the court of Henry the VIIIth, statesman, politician, High Steward of the Univeristies of Oxford and Cambridge, who burned and tortured anyone who dared own a Bible in English. He was canonized by the Catholic Church in 1935 and in the year 2000 became the heavenly patron of statesmen and politicians.
Stephen Fry- Intelligence Squared Debate
Sunday 27 January 2013
De Humani Dimicationes
In an interview regarding his latest novel, The Prague Cemetery, Umberto Eco raised a poignant point of view which has been on my mind for the better part of the last ten years. In a discussion with his american counterpart, a well-read but utterly misguided young man, he argued for the motion that the primary driving force for us as human beings is hatred.
As shocking as his evaluation stands at a first glance, a brutally honest and incisive critique of the human spirit will reveal this to be true. With only minimal historical knowledge, one can easily see that hatred and all emotions associated with it, and therefore with the primal instinct of overpowering others and overcoming the "foes", these emotions, therefore have had the biggest influence in shaping the world as we presently know it.
Eco argued that love is a feeling that is extremely limited per se. The feeling of love cast upon another individual brings with itself in almost every case a desire that the feeling be reciprocated as well as the desire that no other individual, or at most a hand-picked, trusted conclave of individuals bestow upon the loved one alike feelings. We do not wish to share our love for another with anyone and this is the cornerstone of the family in the western world. There are obvious differences with regard to the Orient, but we shall not dwell into that for the time being. Despite these differences though, in both cultures the root of the problem stems from precisely the same root, only in the case of the oriental culture the sex of the individual and the strength of said sex come into play, which makes the argument as unfair as it is thus irrelevant. Until said society evolves into a more modern approach with regard to sexes, neither extreme nor indifferent I see no reason to give any amount of respect and consideration to this culture or to include it as a relevant argument on which to rest my thesis on.
One could argue the existence of groups of people that advocate the spread of "free love", a sort of unanimous gathering wherein all humans share all possible love for every other individual. And while some of these movements have had a larger or a lesser impact on history, they have been more often than not a reaction to certain historic misdemeanours. Their ability to profoundly alter our mentality has been, however, disappointingly limited. It would be fair to mention that the hippie movement of the 60's, which came as a revolt to the two wars which had taken the world by storm in an extremely short timespan, has had somewhat of an influence on modern civilization. However, to argue that the evolution into a more peace-prone world rests heavily on the existence on this movement is downright hilarious, as this is due more, in my opinion to the founding of, for instance, the U. N.
So if a very, if not the most, powerful driving mechanism of the human race is hatred, overcoming the enemies, overthrowing the "bad guys", erecting peace through extremely bloody conflicts, this brings me to my own thesis. The recently deceased(July 12th, 2012) Stephen Covey, renowned author, businessman, educator and professor at Utah State University, wrote in 1989 the highly-acclaimed book "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People". This book has a very particular meaning to me, but before I dwelve into the problem, I wish to point out that I do not believe in books written by people who are not themselves experts in the matter. Thus, if you write a book on positive thinking but you as a person are rather gloomy and easily irritable then I call hypocrisy and automatically disregard you as a person and everything you wrote in the book, even though the content might be accurate! I might be able to write a book on differential equations and even get some things right, but the book is of no value nevertheless and there is really no point in wasting time in reading it.
The reason this book is so famous is because, in this critic's opinion, of a clever play upon words which Covey used in order to lure and seduce, especially the more broad-minded individuals into reading him. He advocates a so-called "Character Ethic" as opposed to regular self-help books which advocate, in his view, "Personality Ethic". Now, I have to point out that there are several languages where character is indeed something different from personality, but in the American English which Mr. Covey can barely write in, the difference is so small it is practically disregardable. If Mr. Covey were to have written his book in Her Majesty's English, then his denomination would have made sense, however his poor grasp on the finer aspects of language leaves much to be desired and said aforementioned assesment stems from someone whose mother tongue is not English.
The first step in the so-called "Character Ethic" that Mr. Covey proposes, the basis for the entire system and the only one which I shall review is called "Be Proactive". The advice given to the reader is that we as people are far too reliant on being reactive. We react to everything around us and modify our decisions and feelings accordingly. Being proactive means a complete disregard for external stimuli and an inward-prone attention, with all decisions coming from the inside undistorted by outside influences. These are decisions for which we shall naturally assume responsibility. And however seducing, I, for one, think that humans are genetically engineered to be incapable of true proactivity the way Mr. Covey describes it. I find it also hard to believe that this man was never or was but seldomly annoyed by petty things which occur all around us. I think it improbable if not impossible, lest he be a monk or had found some access to the fabled Nirvana, that the bike fall which led to his being paralyzed and ultimately to his untimely demise in July after months of struggle to have been met with proactivity and with a shiny, positive outlook, with his life occuring undisturbed thanks to the proactivity he so vividly taught.
I could carry on with my argument but I think the following final example should suffice: at the "Save Traditional Family" fundraiser in 1998 he expressed a vivid opposition of gay marriage and asked that the constitution oppose such marriage as fast as possible. He apologized for the fervent opposing rant, but remained extremely outspoken against homosexuality. I once again retain the right to call Hypocrisy! and to point out that I find his takes on open-mindedness, freedom of each individual and reactivity nothing more than mere marketing ploys promising Nirvana for intellectuals. Like setting a hamster on a treadmill and unlocking the cage. He will spin forever with the apparent purpose of escaping the cage, never being truly able to. How exactly is opposing gay marriage not precisely the reactivity he so vividly portrayed as the purveyor of all that is evil in the human nature?
To end with a biological reference, it is reactivity which has allowed us to evolve as species, to evolve as thinking individuals, that which allows us to always go beyond, to question everything, to rise against the outdated and to establish the future. Reacting to external stimuli is what makes us human and what makes us alive. An areactive cell is a dead cell.
"Considerate la vostra semenza:
fatti non foste a viver come bruti,
ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza."
Dante, Inferno, Canto XXVI: Ulysses.
Eco argued that love is a feeling that is extremely limited per se. The feeling of love cast upon another individual brings with itself in almost every case a desire that the feeling be reciprocated as well as the desire that no other individual, or at most a hand-picked, trusted conclave of individuals bestow upon the loved one alike feelings. We do not wish to share our love for another with anyone and this is the cornerstone of the family in the western world. There are obvious differences with regard to the Orient, but we shall not dwell into that for the time being. Despite these differences though, in both cultures the root of the problem stems from precisely the same root, only in the case of the oriental culture the sex of the individual and the strength of said sex come into play, which makes the argument as unfair as it is thus irrelevant. Until said society evolves into a more modern approach with regard to sexes, neither extreme nor indifferent I see no reason to give any amount of respect and consideration to this culture or to include it as a relevant argument on which to rest my thesis on.
One could argue the existence of groups of people that advocate the spread of "free love", a sort of unanimous gathering wherein all humans share all possible love for every other individual. And while some of these movements have had a larger or a lesser impact on history, they have been more often than not a reaction to certain historic misdemeanours. Their ability to profoundly alter our mentality has been, however, disappointingly limited. It would be fair to mention that the hippie movement of the 60's, which came as a revolt to the two wars which had taken the world by storm in an extremely short timespan, has had somewhat of an influence on modern civilization. However, to argue that the evolution into a more peace-prone world rests heavily on the existence on this movement is downright hilarious, as this is due more, in my opinion to the founding of, for instance, the U. N.
So if a very, if not the most, powerful driving mechanism of the human race is hatred, overcoming the enemies, overthrowing the "bad guys", erecting peace through extremely bloody conflicts, this brings me to my own thesis. The recently deceased(July 12th, 2012) Stephen Covey, renowned author, businessman, educator and professor at Utah State University, wrote in 1989 the highly-acclaimed book "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People". This book has a very particular meaning to me, but before I dwelve into the problem, I wish to point out that I do not believe in books written by people who are not themselves experts in the matter. Thus, if you write a book on positive thinking but you as a person are rather gloomy and easily irritable then I call hypocrisy and automatically disregard you as a person and everything you wrote in the book, even though the content might be accurate! I might be able to write a book on differential equations and even get some things right, but the book is of no value nevertheless and there is really no point in wasting time in reading it.
The reason this book is so famous is because, in this critic's opinion, of a clever play upon words which Covey used in order to lure and seduce, especially the more broad-minded individuals into reading him. He advocates a so-called "Character Ethic" as opposed to regular self-help books which advocate, in his view, "Personality Ethic". Now, I have to point out that there are several languages where character is indeed something different from personality, but in the American English which Mr. Covey can barely write in, the difference is so small it is practically disregardable. If Mr. Covey were to have written his book in Her Majesty's English, then his denomination would have made sense, however his poor grasp on the finer aspects of language leaves much to be desired and said aforementioned assesment stems from someone whose mother tongue is not English.
The first step in the so-called "Character Ethic" that Mr. Covey proposes, the basis for the entire system and the only one which I shall review is called "Be Proactive". The advice given to the reader is that we as people are far too reliant on being reactive. We react to everything around us and modify our decisions and feelings accordingly. Being proactive means a complete disregard for external stimuli and an inward-prone attention, with all decisions coming from the inside undistorted by outside influences. These are decisions for which we shall naturally assume responsibility. And however seducing, I, for one, think that humans are genetically engineered to be incapable of true proactivity the way Mr. Covey describes it. I find it also hard to believe that this man was never or was but seldomly annoyed by petty things which occur all around us. I think it improbable if not impossible, lest he be a monk or had found some access to the fabled Nirvana, that the bike fall which led to his being paralyzed and ultimately to his untimely demise in July after months of struggle to have been met with proactivity and with a shiny, positive outlook, with his life occuring undisturbed thanks to the proactivity he so vividly taught.
I could carry on with my argument but I think the following final example should suffice: at the "Save Traditional Family" fundraiser in 1998 he expressed a vivid opposition of gay marriage and asked that the constitution oppose such marriage as fast as possible. He apologized for the fervent opposing rant, but remained extremely outspoken against homosexuality. I once again retain the right to call Hypocrisy! and to point out that I find his takes on open-mindedness, freedom of each individual and reactivity nothing more than mere marketing ploys promising Nirvana for intellectuals. Like setting a hamster on a treadmill and unlocking the cage. He will spin forever with the apparent purpose of escaping the cage, never being truly able to. How exactly is opposing gay marriage not precisely the reactivity he so vividly portrayed as the purveyor of all that is evil in the human nature?
To end with a biological reference, it is reactivity which has allowed us to evolve as species, to evolve as thinking individuals, that which allows us to always go beyond, to question everything, to rise against the outdated and to establish the future. Reacting to external stimuli is what makes us human and what makes us alive. An areactive cell is a dead cell.
"Considerate la vostra semenza:
fatti non foste a viver come bruti,
ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza."
Dante, Inferno, Canto XXVI: Ulysses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)