Everybody's different. That's what we're always told when we're growing up. It's the reason why not everyone prefers chocolate ice cream over vanilla, why some people prefer blue to the color red, or why some people enjoy the opera and others don't. It's pretty apparent when we look at one another and talk with one another that, everyone is different. I suppose the logical question now to ask, as is the case with all of my writing (i.e. every post on this blog), is: where am I going with this? Well, I'm sure you've oft heard of how we have "luxurious problems" or have heard something regarding starving children in Africa. I'm not here to tell you that malnourished and impoverished African children aren't important. They're very important, but at the end of the day I'm not an impoverished, malnourished African child. I know that probably sounds somewhat cold and selfish, but that is reality.
Showing posts with label Random Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Random Philosophy. Show all posts
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Life by faith and by sight
"For we live by faith, not by sight."- 2 Corinthians 5:7
It's a familiar phrase, one that a lot of us have heard much before, especially those of us more involved with church and Christianity. It's a familiar verse, but what does it mean? What is faith? What does it mean to live by it? What does it mean to live by sight? My short answer to that is this: read a commentary. I'm really not here to go through and exegete this short verse. What I am here to consider is what it means now in the context of today. The apostle Paul wrote this in the context of a letter to the Corinthian church, in the context of awaiting the receipt of the new and redeemed body. I want to discuss what it is life by faith, because I would posit that we all do it, everybody. It's not a matter of whether or not we have faith but rather what we put our faith in.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Time Well Spent
"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."
- John 13:34 (KJV)
That probably looks pretty familiar to a number of you out there, and I suppose the question is where am I going with this whole thing? Which is a legitimate question. For those of you that are familiar with it, I'm sure you have heard a number of lessons and sermons on how we ought to love one another, how we are to love as Christ loved us, how Christ has loved us, etc... So I don't know that I'm going to say anything mind-shatteringly new. I'm probably not actually. But it doesn't have to be something new to be something important. I suppose in some sense what I am discussing is "how" one loves another, but I don't want to approach it in the sense of something like The Five Love Languages by Dr. Gary Chapman. I kind of just grant that everyone needs/desires to be loved differently, which naturally leads us to the conclusion that we are to love each person differently. I suppose this gets kind of confusing at times because we so often attempt to quantify love, but just because the treatment is different is not indicative of a different "amount" of love. That's not really what I want to talk about either though. I suppose at this point I'm just kind of rambling. The aspect of love that I wish to discuss here, is the aspect of time.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Changing perspectives
I'm somewhat melancholy when it comes to this time of year. Maybe it's because I'm single. Maybe it's because all the single people are melancholy and it's become some sort of airborne contagion that single people catch. Maybe it's because the not-single people are so blatantly not melancholy. If ever there was some contrived, commercialized holiday for the sake of a holiday it's Valentine's Day. I suppose I'm just sounding bitter right now, but honestly we don't really need a special day to remember our special someone do we? I hope not. Frankly, it just seems to be there to kind of rub it in the faces of those people who don't yet have special someones, but that's not really what this post is about.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Word of the day: apotyphobia
Apotyphobia - [a-po-ti-fo-bee-a] - noun - the fear of failure (note: apparently the real word is atychiphobia)
Derived from the Greek words apotychia which means failure, and phobos which means fear, and I totally just made this word up. While the word may be something that I randomly pulled together, the concept certainly isn't something altogether foreign to us. My brother once told me that Asian children will grow up to be good at what they do but they'll never be geniuses. In the wake of the moderately controversial WSJ article by Yale professor, Amy Chua, some have attributed this to the fact that typical Asian parental methods leaves the children dispassionate and disinterested, where life is a series of duties and obligations. I would contend that the problem may lie in passion, as it's not unfeasible for someone to be brilliant at something he/she doesn't particularly like doing, but rather, apotyphobia.
I think to best illustrate I will use a personal example, hopefully, said example will not alienate too many of my readers. Growing up, I used to play a game called Bandit Kings of Ancient China, a turn-based strategy game based around the well-known Chinese story entitled Outlaws of the Marsh. The game involved building armies and attacking different territories, and ultimately you are attempting to take down the evil prime minister Gao Qiu before the year 1127 when the Northern Barbarians take over China, or something along those lines. Anyways, the point is, that when I played the game, I would always run into the time constraint, and I always wondered why. The simple reason is this: I never went to battle unless I was very sure I could win. While it meant that I could be very systematic in my battle strategies, it also meant that a lot of time passed to get to the level of comfort that I had to reach before actually attacking someone else, in short, I was afraid to lose, even in a stupid computer game that didn't matter, because it was just against the computer.
We can denote it as fear of embarrassment, being overly people-conscious, or what have you, but ultimately, all these reasons conglomerate into a fear of getting it wrong, or as I now like to call it, apotyphobia. Now, I don't know if this is strictly a generality of Asian-American kids, but I definitely think it's much more prevalent in Asian-American kids per se, because of the Asian emphasis on appearances or in more colloquial terminology, "saving face". This isn't to say that I discourage the exercise of prudence or sound judgment, but rather, an encouragement to push past what we normally consider to be our areas of comfort. I say this as much to myself as I do to anyone reading this, which a large part of why I write these things in the first place. Too many times we forgo the opportunity to engage simply because of our aversion to an adverse outcome, I'll be the first to admit that I'm typically like this. I prefer a wide margin of buffer space so that if things to go as planned, the engagement can still be deemed as having achieved some modicum of success. What I loosely term "engagement" in this instance ranges anywhere from a project to a simple conversation.
What drives this apotyphobia? Primarily, I think it's a sense of judgment. One of the worst feelings in the world is to feel condescended or patronized, at least it is for me. Growing up (and I can't say whether or not this is an Asian thing or not) I always had this unconscious sense that being incompetent is worse than being wrong. I want to say that's a line from a movie (Day After Tomorrow maybe?). This nagging certainty that when I do something, I can't look bad doing it, always pervades and thereby, highly limits what I do end up doing. As a guy, this holds true even more when dealing with girls. Maybe it's a societal thing, maybe it's a cultural thing, all I'm sure if is this, at some point in time, or rather at several (more than several) points in time, I am going to screw up, I need to grow up and live with it, ultimately, I need to learn and to grow from it.
While the world isn't really a very friendly place to screw up, the lesson to be learned from this is whether or not I'm okay if someone else screws up. Certainly, there are going to be more critical issues where it's going to be a bigger deal if a mistake is made, but can I live with it, and help the transgressor become a better person from it? My thoughts on this rest largely in the context of church. While we strive for excellence in church, I find that it also should be an environment in which we are comfortable "being human" and thereby falling short. Will it be embarrassing? Most certainly, but as a church, it should be a place where learning experiences can be brought to light from each embarrassment. In order for us to be transparent with one another as we ought to be in the body of Christ, we must trust the intentions of those around us and thereby are willing to just give it our best, regardless of the result. For every success there will be a correlating number of failures, that's how we learn what is going to be successful. Living in a fellowship of Christ doesn't mean getting everything right, but rather, loving one another, even when we get things wrong. A church in which people are afraid to "do the wrong thing" I think needs to take a closer look at the relationships that it has between its members.
I'm certainly not saying I'm okay with screwing up, I hope that people don't walk away with that impression, but rather, the very real possibility of me screwing up doesn't push me to inaction. In some sense you can think of it this way, if nothing happens you're not successful, which is essentially screwing up. It's not a matter of not wanting to get things right all the time, but a matter of being willing to risk getting things wrong. I know I'm apotyphobic, and to some degree, that might be called prudence, but taken too far and it renders me a paralytic. Seize the moment, and if failure ensues, learn from it. Some opportunities only come once.
Derived from the Greek words apotychia which means failure, and phobos which means fear, and I totally just made this word up. While the word may be something that I randomly pulled together, the concept certainly isn't something altogether foreign to us. My brother once told me that Asian children will grow up to be good at what they do but they'll never be geniuses. In the wake of the moderately controversial WSJ article by Yale professor, Amy Chua, some have attributed this to the fact that typical Asian parental methods leaves the children dispassionate and disinterested, where life is a series of duties and obligations. I would contend that the problem may lie in passion, as it's not unfeasible for someone to be brilliant at something he/she doesn't particularly like doing, but rather, apotyphobia.
I think to best illustrate I will use a personal example, hopefully, said example will not alienate too many of my readers. Growing up, I used to play a game called Bandit Kings of Ancient China, a turn-based strategy game based around the well-known Chinese story entitled Outlaws of the Marsh. The game involved building armies and attacking different territories, and ultimately you are attempting to take down the evil prime minister Gao Qiu before the year 1127 when the Northern Barbarians take over China, or something along those lines. Anyways, the point is, that when I played the game, I would always run into the time constraint, and I always wondered why. The simple reason is this: I never went to battle unless I was very sure I could win. While it meant that I could be very systematic in my battle strategies, it also meant that a lot of time passed to get to the level of comfort that I had to reach before actually attacking someone else, in short, I was afraid to lose, even in a stupid computer game that didn't matter, because it was just against the computer.
We can denote it as fear of embarrassment, being overly people-conscious, or what have you, but ultimately, all these reasons conglomerate into a fear of getting it wrong, or as I now like to call it, apotyphobia. Now, I don't know if this is strictly a generality of Asian-American kids, but I definitely think it's much more prevalent in Asian-American kids per se, because of the Asian emphasis on appearances or in more colloquial terminology, "saving face". This isn't to say that I discourage the exercise of prudence or sound judgment, but rather, an encouragement to push past what we normally consider to be our areas of comfort. I say this as much to myself as I do to anyone reading this, which a large part of why I write these things in the first place. Too many times we forgo the opportunity to engage simply because of our aversion to an adverse outcome, I'll be the first to admit that I'm typically like this. I prefer a wide margin of buffer space so that if things to go as planned, the engagement can still be deemed as having achieved some modicum of success. What I loosely term "engagement" in this instance ranges anywhere from a project to a simple conversation.
What drives this apotyphobia? Primarily, I think it's a sense of judgment. One of the worst feelings in the world is to feel condescended or patronized, at least it is for me. Growing up (and I can't say whether or not this is an Asian thing or not) I always had this unconscious sense that being incompetent is worse than being wrong. I want to say that's a line from a movie (Day After Tomorrow maybe?). This nagging certainty that when I do something, I can't look bad doing it, always pervades and thereby, highly limits what I do end up doing. As a guy, this holds true even more when dealing with girls. Maybe it's a societal thing, maybe it's a cultural thing, all I'm sure if is this, at some point in time, or rather at several (more than several) points in time, I am going to screw up, I need to grow up and live with it, ultimately, I need to learn and to grow from it.
While the world isn't really a very friendly place to screw up, the lesson to be learned from this is whether or not I'm okay if someone else screws up. Certainly, there are going to be more critical issues where it's going to be a bigger deal if a mistake is made, but can I live with it, and help the transgressor become a better person from it? My thoughts on this rest largely in the context of church. While we strive for excellence in church, I find that it also should be an environment in which we are comfortable "being human" and thereby falling short. Will it be embarrassing? Most certainly, but as a church, it should be a place where learning experiences can be brought to light from each embarrassment. In order for us to be transparent with one another as we ought to be in the body of Christ, we must trust the intentions of those around us and thereby are willing to just give it our best, regardless of the result. For every success there will be a correlating number of failures, that's how we learn what is going to be successful. Living in a fellowship of Christ doesn't mean getting everything right, but rather, loving one another, even when we get things wrong. A church in which people are afraid to "do the wrong thing" I think needs to take a closer look at the relationships that it has between its members.
I'm certainly not saying I'm okay with screwing up, I hope that people don't walk away with that impression, but rather, the very real possibility of me screwing up doesn't push me to inaction. In some sense you can think of it this way, if nothing happens you're not successful, which is essentially screwing up. It's not a matter of not wanting to get things right all the time, but a matter of being willing to risk getting things wrong. I know I'm apotyphobic, and to some degree, that might be called prudence, but taken too far and it renders me a paralytic. Seize the moment, and if failure ensues, learn from it. Some opportunities only come once.
Friday, January 14, 2011
What's in a word? An exercise in context
Lately, I've been pretty big on the whole concept of contextualization, the reason why we do whatever it is we end up doing. Generally speaking, I find the question of "why?" to be a very important one. While a lot of us will correlate the question perhaps with smart-alecky kids who simply have nothing to do but pester you with "why?" at every single thing you ever say, the inherent reasoning behind our actions is what ultimately compels us to take such action, thus this singular word, why, becomes of the utmost importance, because without it we would do nothing. That's not to say that every answer to the question is a good one, and that we always have a good reason to do what we do, the reason could be a horrible one but good enough to spur us into doing what we do. I write this in the wake of Amy Chua's semi-controversial Wall Street Journal article regarding the superiority of the Chinese parenting methodology (not linking to it because it's in my previous post, so in efforts to shamelessly plug my material, I'm making you go read it). In a brief and concise synopsis of my response to the article my point was simply that successful parenting cannot be measured by what you allow your child to do and the subsequent accomplishments of said child, but rather that a context for what you allow or disallow, why you push to do certain things and discourage him/her from others, is necessary to gauge what makes you a good parent.
Certainly it is true that anything you do well you enjoy it more, and certainly it is also true that it takes work to do anything well. I'll go as far as to say that it's probably true that kids generally don't want to sit down and put in the work it takes to learn to do something well, I'll go even further and say that most people won't. Why is that? Well, simply put, we don't think it's worth it. In ours (and our children's) mindset, there simply isn't a compelling enough reason or benefit to put in the extra work and effort to get good at something. So ultimately, the question boils down to, what good is getting good at something? or succinctly, "why?" While with some things, we sometimes need to be okay with the answer "just because" or in the case of our parents or even spiritual guidance "because I (a parent, leader, or God) say so". However, other times, we really need to sit down and ponder exactly the reasoning behind our action or inaction, and contemplate how "valid" (for lack of a better word) our reasoning is. This holds true for any decision we make, be it for ourselves or for others.
While having purpose behind your actions is something worthwhile (I know, I've set myself up to be asked "why" on every statement), the exercise in context is primarily to help broaden the view to continually keep the end-goal in mind. Maybe the two are the same thing to you, but to me there is a small and subtle difference between the two. I'll explain it this way; just because you have a reason to do something doesn't make it a good reason. Though the same may be said of an end goal, I like to draw a distinction between the two. A reason is what drives the action, an end goal is what you get out of it in the end. I would posit that the latter should be the former. I know it seems like I'm leading you in circles here, but perhaps an example would clarify exactly where I'm trying to get to. When you practice a scale on a piano, you can say you do it for a variety of reasons; to increase manual dexterity, to familiarize yourself with the keyboard, to help better understand where the black keys are, etc... however the ultimate goal is really to become a better pianist. Once we've established that, the question then is "why become a better pianist?" That there is the end goal. Certainly each reason we give is a component of said goal, but it all builds to that one question, which typically will be answered in some form of "just because".
Going back to Amy Chua's article and the subsequent fallout on the internet of responses, mine included, we understand that Ms. Chua does the things she does so that her children can eventually receive (hopefully) a prestigious university education. This is going to sound redundant, but this begs the question, "why go to college?" While most of you might scoff at me at how obvious the answers are, I don't know that the obvious answers are necessarily very good ones. Let's sit down and think about this for a second. For twelve (plus) years of your life, you ultimately are grooming yourself for at least another four years which supposedly define the rest of your existence? Unless you go to grad school. Seriously though, we are groomed from elementary through secondary school to eventually go to an institution, where we pay tens of thousands of dollars for a bunch of administrators telling us we need to know calculus in order to take the class from some guy that will tell us, in a purely academic setting, the conceptual skills necessary to succeed in the "real world". Maybe I'm being a little dramatic with this, but I think it's definitely something consider, because, really? Is this all there is? Ms. Chua spending exorbitant amounts of time and money to get her children to a place where they are given anywhere between 3-6 years to figure out what they want to do for the rest of their lives? College is overwhelming, yes, it's a big transition for most kids, but I would argue that a large part of the reason why college is overwhelming is because we make it so. Not to say that kids shouldn't put in the effort to get into a good school, but if that is the reason for everything they do, then generally, I think they will be ill-equipped to attend any sort of collegiate level institution.
Before I go onto this massive tangent regarding how I think children ought to be raised, my point is this, while we need to have individually measurable and achievable goals (such as, did I get into one of my top 3 college choices?), we also need to continually have the broad overarching picture in mind; to borrow from renown author Chuck Colson: "How Now Shall We Live?" Each of our lives is comprised of a collection of individual moments, and while we live in each moment, our lives as a whole are more than each moment. The context of what we do (in other words why we do what we do) is what defines us. I would urge that we all consider carefully our own contexts.
Certainly it is true that anything you do well you enjoy it more, and certainly it is also true that it takes work to do anything well. I'll go as far as to say that it's probably true that kids generally don't want to sit down and put in the work it takes to learn to do something well, I'll go even further and say that most people won't. Why is that? Well, simply put, we don't think it's worth it. In ours (and our children's) mindset, there simply isn't a compelling enough reason or benefit to put in the extra work and effort to get good at something. So ultimately, the question boils down to, what good is getting good at something? or succinctly, "why?" While with some things, we sometimes need to be okay with the answer "just because" or in the case of our parents or even spiritual guidance "because I (a parent, leader, or God) say so". However, other times, we really need to sit down and ponder exactly the reasoning behind our action or inaction, and contemplate how "valid" (for lack of a better word) our reasoning is. This holds true for any decision we make, be it for ourselves or for others.
While having purpose behind your actions is something worthwhile (I know, I've set myself up to be asked "why" on every statement), the exercise in context is primarily to help broaden the view to continually keep the end-goal in mind. Maybe the two are the same thing to you, but to me there is a small and subtle difference between the two. I'll explain it this way; just because you have a reason to do something doesn't make it a good reason. Though the same may be said of an end goal, I like to draw a distinction between the two. A reason is what drives the action, an end goal is what you get out of it in the end. I would posit that the latter should be the former. I know it seems like I'm leading you in circles here, but perhaps an example would clarify exactly where I'm trying to get to. When you practice a scale on a piano, you can say you do it for a variety of reasons; to increase manual dexterity, to familiarize yourself with the keyboard, to help better understand where the black keys are, etc... however the ultimate goal is really to become a better pianist. Once we've established that, the question then is "why become a better pianist?" That there is the end goal. Certainly each reason we give is a component of said goal, but it all builds to that one question, which typically will be answered in some form of "just because".
Going back to Amy Chua's article and the subsequent fallout on the internet of responses, mine included, we understand that Ms. Chua does the things she does so that her children can eventually receive (hopefully) a prestigious university education. This is going to sound redundant, but this begs the question, "why go to college?" While most of you might scoff at me at how obvious the answers are, I don't know that the obvious answers are necessarily very good ones. Let's sit down and think about this for a second. For twelve (plus) years of your life, you ultimately are grooming yourself for at least another four years which supposedly define the rest of your existence? Unless you go to grad school. Seriously though, we are groomed from elementary through secondary school to eventually go to an institution, where we pay tens of thousands of dollars for a bunch of administrators telling us we need to know calculus in order to take the class from some guy that will tell us, in a purely academic setting, the conceptual skills necessary to succeed in the "real world". Maybe I'm being a little dramatic with this, but I think it's definitely something consider, because, really? Is this all there is? Ms. Chua spending exorbitant amounts of time and money to get her children to a place where they are given anywhere between 3-6 years to figure out what they want to do for the rest of their lives? College is overwhelming, yes, it's a big transition for most kids, but I would argue that a large part of the reason why college is overwhelming is because we make it so. Not to say that kids shouldn't put in the effort to get into a good school, but if that is the reason for everything they do, then generally, I think they will be ill-equipped to attend any sort of collegiate level institution.
Before I go onto this massive tangent regarding how I think children ought to be raised, my point is this, while we need to have individually measurable and achievable goals (such as, did I get into one of my top 3 college choices?), we also need to continually have the broad overarching picture in mind; to borrow from renown author Chuck Colson: "How Now Shall We Live?" Each of our lives is comprised of a collection of individual moments, and while we live in each moment, our lives as a whole are more than each moment. The context of what we do (in other words why we do what we do) is what defines us. I would urge that we all consider carefully our own contexts.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Measured Success
Recently, among my circle of friends and family, I found this little article circulating. Today, a friend of mine (one who had linked to the article in her GChat status), linked to this response. I suppose this is my take on it, though I don't know that I can fully put myself in that situation, as I can never be a Chinese mother, though I do have one myself. I'm not going to go on and say who is right and who isn't, not going to go into the psychology of child-rearing, and I'm not going to tell anyone how to raise his/her children. I'm not a parent myself, and perhaps I didn't have the most typical of Chinese parents, or at least according to Amy Chua, I didn't. However, I just find it very interesting the scope of the article and all that.
I just noted that in the headline of the article it reads:
I have a job (in this economy), I feel I'm living a well adjusted life, full of loving friends and family, and I'm happy with where I am, I'm content. Now, am I successful? Hard to say. It sort of begs the question: what is success? Is it based on what I have? If that's the case, then I'd say I'm moderately successful. I mean, I have nice apartment, a car, a job, a computer, some decent pieces of musical equipment, a my fair share of toys and gadgets, a bachelor's and a master's, then again, I also have debt from school. On that same note, there are a lot of things I don't have, a girlfriend, a house, lots of money, etc... Still, then, the question of success eludes me. I can only suggest that I am not unsuccessful. This inclines me towards the notion that success then, is a subjective and relative term. To me, success is measured by an end goal, therefore, the phrase "successful person" doesn't really hold much water. Think about it, realistically, what is the end goal of a person? I can say an experiment was either a success or failure by its results. I can say that a basketball coach is successful or not by how his/her team plays, by the team's record, are they winning more games? Are the players getting better? Yet what is that measure in a person? Wealth? Acclaim? Character? I posit, that at best, we can simply point out those that are "not unsuccessful". While the question is the same, the nature of what we measure is different with happiness.
I'm not here to say that it's bad to have/be a math whiz or musical prodigy, but I think everything needs to be put in an appropriate context, and ultimately that is the context of life. Chinese parents will spend tens of thousands of dollars (I'm not kidding) and hours for the musical and academic enrichment of their children, and for what purpose? As an aficionado of music, I'd be the first to tell you that I think children should all be given the opportunity to appreciate and make music, yet Ms. Hsu, in her response brings up the very legitimate point that Chinese (Asian) parents will often be displeased if music were to inspire their children to become a professional musician (or, as an ongoing joke, any profession not inclusive of doctors, lawyers, or engineers). Contextually then, what is the purpose of learning a musical instrument? Generally in the case of Chinese children, piano and/or violin. While perhaps that is asking a lot of a child, I don't know that I would condone asking one to do something he/she cannot answer why he/she is doing it (even if the answer is as simple as, "I like it"). One thing I've noted about Chinese culture, is that it's all about appearances, but to me, it frankly is a horrible reason to do something because every other Asian child is doing it or so that you can brag to your friends about your child. I'm sorry, but being able to play Rachmaninoff's Variations on Paganini at age 8 is hardly indicative to me of "good parenting", and yes, when you tell your friend how much your son/daughter studies/practices you're really saying, "Look at how well I discipline my children." While I don't doubt that every single Chinese parent has a picture of who/what he/she would want his/her child to become, there remains an issue; is the child on board? My personal experience, as well as my observations fellow 2nd generation Chinese children around me, has shown that generally, Chinese parenting is very short sighted. Ms. Hsu points out a lack of drive in Chinese children growing up, and I attribute that to above-mentioned short-sightedness. It's hard to get anyone really motivated about something if the driving reason behind doing it is being told by someone else to do it. You ask the question "Why?" enough times and you'll quickly realize that a lot of things these kids do simply because their parents have programmed them to be like that. Why get good grades? To go to a good college. Why go to a good college? To get a good job. Why get a good job? To make money to support a family. While none of these things are undesirable, I certainly don't see those as the purpose of existence.
Ms. Chua is to be commended for her perseverance in pushing her children to achieve, but again, we have to ask the question "to what end?" Certainly I believe in a degree of regimen growing up teaches us responsibility, but to essentially obliterate any "frivolous" childhood activity? Perhaps, I'll be accused of becoming "too American" but that hardly seems healthy. The Atkins diet is good, but that doesn't mean that's all you do for the rest of your life. We are to enjoy in the people, the places, and the things that God has placed around us, so living a life where what you "like" is irrelevant and "having a good time" is wasteful hardly seems like something God would want for us. In the case of music, the children are often asked to "grow out of" whatever they spent all that time, sweat, and dollars getting this stuff hammered into them. Isn't that frivolous? Certainly there is something other than music that can teach discipline. So, that begs the question, why have them learn music in the first place? The grand scheme of things, ultimately, I believe is for your children to grow up into productive, well-adjusted adults. How do painful hours of sitting in front of a piano either practicing, performing, or in lessons help? I'm not ungrateful my mom had me learn piano, and sometimes I do wish she pushed me harder, on that same note though, it's because in retrospect, there are a lot of things I would enjoy doing now had I been a better pianist as a child, in other words, I'm still playing piano. My father once told me after I graduated, "Now you can play well enough to play for praise in church, to me, that means the piano lessons were worth it." Context. Not that playing for church was the goal of my piano lessons, but, there needs to be something beyond that last recital if your child isn't going to become the next Lang Lang, even if it is the simple appreciation of music. I'm not accusing Ms. Chua of ruining her children's childhoods, no, it sounds like her husband does take them out to fun stuff, movies, baseball games, etc... Nonetheless, this no-nonsense style of raising her children is exactly that, a style, there's no basis for her to posit that hers is better than others, to do so is simply arrogance.
I suppose what makes this article somewhat intriguing, is this concept of superiority, that one is better than the other. Certainly, Ms. Chua brings up very good points in not allowing her children to give up, and I applaud her for her tenacity and her dedication, however, under what presumed authority can she say that what she is doing is "better" than the next parent who is perhaps by her standards more "lenient" on his/her child? I would posit the following broad generality based on the sort of broad sweeping generality that Ms. Chua has illustrated in her article: while Chinese parents may know (or at least think they know) what is best for their children, they don't know their children all that well. In her article, Ms. Chua all but writes off the concept of self-esteem, and sure, she's entitled to her opinions and her thoughts, and thus, she's very hard on her children when it comes to results. I posit this though, and perhaps Ms. Chua is different, but most Chinese parents aren't aware of how hard their children are on themselves. Going back to the music example, since that is one of the more understandable examples, "you played it wrong" is probably the most useless piece of feedback anyone can give/get. While the parent has spent the money sending the child to music lessons, the child is the one who has spent the time and effort studying the music, so therefore, the child probably knows more about music, or at the very least more about whatever piece he/she is practicing than the parent does, and generally will know if/when it is played incorrectly. It's kind of like telling someone who's parking he/she is close to the curb AFTER the car has run up on the sidewalk. While it's nice of Ms. Chua to think that there are no natural limitations in regards to what her children can do (at least musically and academically), can she affirm that the way she does things works for both of her children exactly the same way? No. While the intention may be good, a lot of times the comparison of one child to another comes across to the "lesser" child as simply, "Why are you so dumb?" or "What's wrong with you?" rather than "You can do it too". Calling your child "garbage" can be a learning implement, but as with all implements it must be properly used to be effective.
The more I think about how I want to proceed with this, the more I realize how this can exponentially bubble into any number of long-debated topics, from positive versus negative reinforcement to nature versus nurture. Now, I'm no psychologist, so I'm not going to get into all of this, so I suppose I've touched upon everything that really kind of irked me about this article. Maybe a Chinese kid can score higher on a math test or play some remarkably difficult piece at a younger age, but is that really all there is to it? If it is, then life is dumb. I'm all for giving children opportunities, but they have lives too, at some point in time, they need to live it.
I just noted that in the headline of the article it reads:
And then the first line of the article suddenly jumps into:
Can a regimen of no playdates, no TV, no computer games and hours of music practice create happy kids?
A lot of people wonder how Chinese parents raise such stereotypically successful kids. They wonder what these parents do to produce so many math whizzes and music prodigies, what it's like inside the family, and whether they could do it too.Hm... I don't know, there seems to be something of a dichotomy here. At least to me there is. What is this dichotomy? First, happiness and success. Are they one and the same? The second, math whizzes, music prodigies and success. Same question. Okay, so maybe dichotomy is a strong word, but I do find the immediate juxtaposition that Ms. Chua strings together within her article somewhat... well... hard to swallow. Of course, who am I to say anything? Relatively speaking, I'm hardly a typical "Chinese success story". I didn't get straight As in school, I didn't go to an Ivy League university for undergraduate, I didn't go to a "West Coast Ivy" like Stanford or Cal Tech, I didn't even go to a top 5 state university in the nation. Sure I played piano when I was younger, classically, my teacher lamented at my practice habits and called me her student with the most "unrealized potential", which essentially is an offhanded way of saying I could've been good if I tried or worked harder, so no, I never played in Carnegie Hall, or performed with some orchestra on tour. Biggest thing I've done is play in a couple of local competition recitals, a couple of local piano teacher showcase recitals, a master class, and a personal recital when I graduated from high school, oh, and I got paid once to play for a Unitarian church service. Now, I have a job, maybe I'll stay at it, maybe I won't. For one, I'm not a doctor, nor a lawyer, nor an engineer. By my schooling, I'm supposed to be an accountant (which I'm not right now vocationally), and I'm not even too sure I want to be that either. Does this mean I have failed to succeed? In other words, does this mean I'm a failure?
I have a job (in this economy), I feel I'm living a well adjusted life, full of loving friends and family, and I'm happy with where I am, I'm content. Now, am I successful? Hard to say. It sort of begs the question: what is success? Is it based on what I have? If that's the case, then I'd say I'm moderately successful. I mean, I have nice apartment, a car, a job, a computer, some decent pieces of musical equipment, a my fair share of toys and gadgets, a bachelor's and a master's, then again, I also have debt from school. On that same note, there are a lot of things I don't have, a girlfriend, a house, lots of money, etc... Still, then, the question of success eludes me. I can only suggest that I am not unsuccessful. This inclines me towards the notion that success then, is a subjective and relative term. To me, success is measured by an end goal, therefore, the phrase "successful person" doesn't really hold much water. Think about it, realistically, what is the end goal of a person? I can say an experiment was either a success or failure by its results. I can say that a basketball coach is successful or not by how his/her team plays, by the team's record, are they winning more games? Are the players getting better? Yet what is that measure in a person? Wealth? Acclaim? Character? I posit, that at best, we can simply point out those that are "not unsuccessful". While the question is the same, the nature of what we measure is different with happiness.
I'm not here to say that it's bad to have/be a math whiz or musical prodigy, but I think everything needs to be put in an appropriate context, and ultimately that is the context of life. Chinese parents will spend tens of thousands of dollars (I'm not kidding) and hours for the musical and academic enrichment of their children, and for what purpose? As an aficionado of music, I'd be the first to tell you that I think children should all be given the opportunity to appreciate and make music, yet Ms. Hsu, in her response brings up the very legitimate point that Chinese (Asian) parents will often be displeased if music were to inspire their children to become a professional musician (or, as an ongoing joke, any profession not inclusive of doctors, lawyers, or engineers). Contextually then, what is the purpose of learning a musical instrument? Generally in the case of Chinese children, piano and/or violin. While perhaps that is asking a lot of a child, I don't know that I would condone asking one to do something he/she cannot answer why he/she is doing it (even if the answer is as simple as, "I like it"). One thing I've noted about Chinese culture, is that it's all about appearances, but to me, it frankly is a horrible reason to do something because every other Asian child is doing it or so that you can brag to your friends about your child. I'm sorry, but being able to play Rachmaninoff's Variations on Paganini at age 8 is hardly indicative to me of "good parenting", and yes, when you tell your friend how much your son/daughter studies/practices you're really saying, "Look at how well I discipline my children." While I don't doubt that every single Chinese parent has a picture of who/what he/she would want his/her child to become, there remains an issue; is the child on board? My personal experience, as well as my observations fellow 2nd generation Chinese children around me, has shown that generally, Chinese parenting is very short sighted. Ms. Hsu points out a lack of drive in Chinese children growing up, and I attribute that to above-mentioned short-sightedness. It's hard to get anyone really motivated about something if the driving reason behind doing it is being told by someone else to do it. You ask the question "Why?" enough times and you'll quickly realize that a lot of things these kids do simply because their parents have programmed them to be like that. Why get good grades? To go to a good college. Why go to a good college? To get a good job. Why get a good job? To make money to support a family. While none of these things are undesirable, I certainly don't see those as the purpose of existence.
Ms. Chua is to be commended for her perseverance in pushing her children to achieve, but again, we have to ask the question "to what end?" Certainly I believe in a degree of regimen growing up teaches us responsibility, but to essentially obliterate any "frivolous" childhood activity? Perhaps, I'll be accused of becoming "too American" but that hardly seems healthy. The Atkins diet is good, but that doesn't mean that's all you do for the rest of your life. We are to enjoy in the people, the places, and the things that God has placed around us, so living a life where what you "like" is irrelevant and "having a good time" is wasteful hardly seems like something God would want for us. In the case of music, the children are often asked to "grow out of" whatever they spent all that time, sweat, and dollars getting this stuff hammered into them. Isn't that frivolous? Certainly there is something other than music that can teach discipline. So, that begs the question, why have them learn music in the first place? The grand scheme of things, ultimately, I believe is for your children to grow up into productive, well-adjusted adults. How do painful hours of sitting in front of a piano either practicing, performing, or in lessons help? I'm not ungrateful my mom had me learn piano, and sometimes I do wish she pushed me harder, on that same note though, it's because in retrospect, there are a lot of things I would enjoy doing now had I been a better pianist as a child, in other words, I'm still playing piano. My father once told me after I graduated, "Now you can play well enough to play for praise in church, to me, that means the piano lessons were worth it." Context. Not that playing for church was the goal of my piano lessons, but, there needs to be something beyond that last recital if your child isn't going to become the next Lang Lang, even if it is the simple appreciation of music. I'm not accusing Ms. Chua of ruining her children's childhoods, no, it sounds like her husband does take them out to fun stuff, movies, baseball games, etc... Nonetheless, this no-nonsense style of raising her children is exactly that, a style, there's no basis for her to posit that hers is better than others, to do so is simply arrogance.
I suppose what makes this article somewhat intriguing, is this concept of superiority, that one is better than the other. Certainly, Ms. Chua brings up very good points in not allowing her children to give up, and I applaud her for her tenacity and her dedication, however, under what presumed authority can she say that what she is doing is "better" than the next parent who is perhaps by her standards more "lenient" on his/her child? I would posit the following broad generality based on the sort of broad sweeping generality that Ms. Chua has illustrated in her article: while Chinese parents may know (or at least think they know) what is best for their children, they don't know their children all that well. In her article, Ms. Chua all but writes off the concept of self-esteem, and sure, she's entitled to her opinions and her thoughts, and thus, she's very hard on her children when it comes to results. I posit this though, and perhaps Ms. Chua is different, but most Chinese parents aren't aware of how hard their children are on themselves. Going back to the music example, since that is one of the more understandable examples, "you played it wrong" is probably the most useless piece of feedback anyone can give/get. While the parent has spent the money sending the child to music lessons, the child is the one who has spent the time and effort studying the music, so therefore, the child probably knows more about music, or at the very least more about whatever piece he/she is practicing than the parent does, and generally will know if/when it is played incorrectly. It's kind of like telling someone who's parking he/she is close to the curb AFTER the car has run up on the sidewalk. While it's nice of Ms. Chua to think that there are no natural limitations in regards to what her children can do (at least musically and academically), can she affirm that the way she does things works for both of her children exactly the same way? No. While the intention may be good, a lot of times the comparison of one child to another comes across to the "lesser" child as simply, "Why are you so dumb?" or "What's wrong with you?" rather than "You can do it too". Calling your child "garbage" can be a learning implement, but as with all implements it must be properly used to be effective.
The more I think about how I want to proceed with this, the more I realize how this can exponentially bubble into any number of long-debated topics, from positive versus negative reinforcement to nature versus nurture. Now, I'm no psychologist, so I'm not going to get into all of this, so I suppose I've touched upon everything that really kind of irked me about this article. Maybe a Chinese kid can score higher on a math test or play some remarkably difficult piece at a younger age, but is that really all there is to it? If it is, then life is dumb. I'm all for giving children opportunities, but they have lives too, at some point in time, they need to live it.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
If we'd only try...
I think this post is actually somewhat a continuation of my previous post, however disconnected my ideas conceptions were. I heard recently that, "there are no such things as soul mates". It's a very interesting statement, regardless of whether or not I agree or disagree. Of course, this ultimately boils down to what we define as a "soul mate". Intuitively, I'm inclined to think of a soul mate as someone whom God has prepared for someone else, and perhaps this is where my definition deviates from issuers of such statements. However, let's not get into that, I'm not here to discuss God's providence and marriage. Rather, let's consider a lot of times what society today construes as being a "soul mate". From my understanding (which I concede is rather limited), modern culture depicts soul mates as two people who just kind of "click". They'll always get along, they'll always be happy together, etc... I believe this view is often perpetuated by the constant "love-at-first-sight" kind of romances that happen in all sorts of fictional works; books, movies, television programming, etc...
Now, I want to move to a point where we step away from all this "romance" stuff, because this concept I think applies to all relationships in general. It's natural that we connect with some people more naturally than others. When we converse with one another, we generally need something to talk about. Hence why people who have the same interest generally can and will group together, they have something to talk about. Already there is the bond of a shared passion there. However, I hope that everyone would agree with me that friendship should be more than the things we have in common. Being human, there will ALWAYS be times when we are in disagreement with others, where my interests conflict with someone else's (my friend's). This could be a somewhat alien concept (while I hope it isn't, I wouldn't be surprised if it was), friendships are relationships in spite of the differences that separate us. Ultimately, I think the closeness of a relationship is measured by the amount of time spent with the other person. Time spent with each other may or may not be physical time, it could be done over the phone, Skype, mail, etc... depending on each person. Naturally, physical proximity is that much more poignant than more "long-distance" means of communication, but still, it is time spent with the other person.
We as a people are very good at compartmentalizing things. Each aspect of life goes into its own little box and never shall items be mixed. However, we as people are individuals, not stacks of boxes. I know for myself, I have a little hobby box here, and I hope to develop relationships with people in that box, but if I don't see them outside of the context of that hobby, how can I really get to know them? How can they get to know me? Perpetually, I'd probably end up as "that guy that's pretty fun to play volleyball with". It takes continual work and effort to get to know someone, but oftentimes we kind of just "expect" it to happen. We may not believe in "soul mates" but it's definitive that we connect with some people better than others. Even then, there isn't anyone out there that won't take work to get to know, we don't make best friends every other day. Part of what makes that friendship special is the time that has been invested into it. What am I putting in?
Now, I want to move to a point where we step away from all this "romance" stuff, because this concept I think applies to all relationships in general. It's natural that we connect with some people more naturally than others. When we converse with one another, we generally need something to talk about. Hence why people who have the same interest generally can and will group together, they have something to talk about. Already there is the bond of a shared passion there. However, I hope that everyone would agree with me that friendship should be more than the things we have in common. Being human, there will ALWAYS be times when we are in disagreement with others, where my interests conflict with someone else's (my friend's). This could be a somewhat alien concept (while I hope it isn't, I wouldn't be surprised if it was), friendships are relationships in spite of the differences that separate us. Ultimately, I think the closeness of a relationship is measured by the amount of time spent with the other person. Time spent with each other may or may not be physical time, it could be done over the phone, Skype, mail, etc... depending on each person. Naturally, physical proximity is that much more poignant than more "long-distance" means of communication, but still, it is time spent with the other person.
We as a people are very good at compartmentalizing things. Each aspect of life goes into its own little box and never shall items be mixed. However, we as people are individuals, not stacks of boxes. I know for myself, I have a little hobby box here, and I hope to develop relationships with people in that box, but if I don't see them outside of the context of that hobby, how can I really get to know them? How can they get to know me? Perpetually, I'd probably end up as "that guy that's pretty fun to play volleyball with". It takes continual work and effort to get to know someone, but oftentimes we kind of just "expect" it to happen. We may not believe in "soul mates" but it's definitive that we connect with some people better than others. Even then, there isn't anyone out there that won't take work to get to know, we don't make best friends every other day. Part of what makes that friendship special is the time that has been invested into it. What am I putting in?
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Do we even care anymore?
Sorry if my recent posts have been somewhat brooding as of late, that just tends to be my state of mind. Perhaps I should take the, "If you have nothing positive to say then don't say anything" approach but then, I'd be starving all 2 readers of this blog of any legitimate content. I'm not really here to provide any scathing commentary on the state of society and modern culture, but I feel like it's really gotten to a point where the status quo has degenerated into some form of polite apathy. Have you ever noticed that? I suppose I'm personally as much to blame as anyone, I do it a lot too, and as much as I want to blame my natural inclination towards introversion, I don't find it to be much of an excuse.
More and more I find that we try to occupy ourselves with various hobbies, past-times, etc... We involve ourselves with various clubs and associations, getting on the latest trends of the hottest hobbies, researching the best gear and the most effective techniques to do whatever it is we suddenly love doing better. We find the hottest locations and where everyone goes locally to do whatever it is you do. Not to say that this is a bad thing, it's not. Perhaps it's been taken a little too far though? Maybe I'm just being cynical and jaded, but has suddenly the thing we're doing suddenly become more important who we do it with? Again, I'm not trying to throw out some scathing commentary on our current cultural condition, but rather just a simple observation how things seem to me.
Maybe I'm just strange, but have you ever wanted to have just a deeper conversation? As sappy as they are, why do you think Hollywood keeps making these "soul mate" chick flicks? Why are we so stirred by men who understand each other so as to be as brothers? (I hope that this analogy still rings true today, despite the general degradation of familial bonds within recent times). When I think about it though, 80% of my conversations are "small talk" or "shop talk". "How are you doing?" has become a cliched kind of greeting where the obligatory answer is the synonym of a shrug or if you're a little more optimistic "Pretty good." Not to say that I want to go discussing deep philosophy with the next random stranger I meet or that every other conversation has to be about something "deep", but there certainly it is a lonely existence where we cannot share in life with others. While much of life is shared doing stuff together, lives are also matters of the heart; what is weighing upon our hearts, what is inspiring us, etc... It's sad that our interest is only piqued when we discuss things we like to do rather than how the person we're talking to actually is. I don't know that it's that we're so cold and apathetic that we don't care or want to care, but rather, perhaps we're just too caught up in ourselves. Let's open our eyes up a little.
More and more I find that we try to occupy ourselves with various hobbies, past-times, etc... We involve ourselves with various clubs and associations, getting on the latest trends of the hottest hobbies, researching the best gear and the most effective techniques to do whatever it is we suddenly love doing better. We find the hottest locations and where everyone goes locally to do whatever it is you do. Not to say that this is a bad thing, it's not. Perhaps it's been taken a little too far though? Maybe I'm just being cynical and jaded, but has suddenly the thing we're doing suddenly become more important who we do it with? Again, I'm not trying to throw out some scathing commentary on our current cultural condition, but rather just a simple observation how things seem to me.
Maybe I'm just strange, but have you ever wanted to have just a deeper conversation? As sappy as they are, why do you think Hollywood keeps making these "soul mate" chick flicks? Why are we so stirred by men who understand each other so as to be as brothers? (I hope that this analogy still rings true today, despite the general degradation of familial bonds within recent times). When I think about it though, 80% of my conversations are "small talk" or "shop talk". "How are you doing?" has become a cliched kind of greeting where the obligatory answer is the synonym of a shrug or if you're a little more optimistic "Pretty good." Not to say that I want to go discussing deep philosophy with the next random stranger I meet or that every other conversation has to be about something "deep", but there certainly it is a lonely existence where we cannot share in life with others. While much of life is shared doing stuff together, lives are also matters of the heart; what is weighing upon our hearts, what is inspiring us, etc... It's sad that our interest is only piqued when we discuss things we like to do rather than how the person we're talking to actually is. I don't know that it's that we're so cold and apathetic that we don't care or want to care, but rather, perhaps we're just too caught up in ourselves. Let's open our eyes up a little.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Growing up isn't easy
I'm not dead, just, lazy? Anyways, today's random thought, is about growing up. I remember as a child, I looked up to adults and think, "Man, they got it all figured out." Today, I am among that population of "adults", even though I still think to myself, "Man, they got it all figured out." Implicitly saying, I don't have it figured out, which I don't. I suppose part of me is caught up in the consumerist attitude of everything being just kind of given to me when I pass "Go" enough times and can pay up. Perhaps I'm just cynical, but the great epiphany of life, at least for myself, is that there isn't a great epiphany of life. Things don't just fall into place and everything makes sense and works out. Sometimes it providentially does, but it really is an act of God.
In the end I think it's all about how the little things add together to make the bigger picture. Nonetheless, I'm an adult, I've got it worked out right? Not. The word "adult" really is intimidating, and I'm not entirely comfortable labeling myself with it, though technically I'm already years past legally qualifying for the honor. Will it make sense with more time? Maybe, but not time alone. Maybe I just haven't had my epiphany yet, but still, life goes on. I can't just stop because my personal life hasn't been sorted out, I have to do it on the fly. How do I do that? Well, one thing I realize more as I grow older is the enormity of the extent of things I can't do. More and more, I realize that while I'm bumbling about hoping to serndipidously stumble upon the right answer, there's someone I know that's got it all figured out already, I just have to ask. So, I just need to trust Him (the guy with the right answers) and trust His answers, and live accordingly. Things will work out in the end. He's got it figured out.
In the end I think it's all about how the little things add together to make the bigger picture. Nonetheless, I'm an adult, I've got it worked out right? Not. The word "adult" really is intimidating, and I'm not entirely comfortable labeling myself with it, though technically I'm already years past legally qualifying for the honor. Will it make sense with more time? Maybe, but not time alone. Maybe I just haven't had my epiphany yet, but still, life goes on. I can't just stop because my personal life hasn't been sorted out, I have to do it on the fly. How do I do that? Well, one thing I realize more as I grow older is the enormity of the extent of things I can't do. More and more, I realize that while I'm bumbling about hoping to serndipidously stumble upon the right answer, there's someone I know that's got it all figured out already, I just have to ask. So, I just need to trust Him (the guy with the right answers) and trust His answers, and live accordingly. Things will work out in the end. He's got it figured out.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Not enough...
I find it intriguing that we often complain we don't have enough of things. Maybe it's a sign of the modern era of discontentment. I mean, we always say, "Grass is always greener on the other side." Though I'm not here to really talk about how we are a very instant-gratification generation, how we have to have things now. I'm in a sort of contemplative mood, I suppose, so now I'm going to do some contemplative ranting. So here goes... I don't believe the statement, "I don't have enough time..." This is something that's a little difficult for me to articulate, but it's something that I frankly don't believe is really the case a lot of times when people say it. How should I put this?
Time, I think is like money. The primary difference is that everyone has a fixed amount whereas our earning potential has some flexibility. There are things we need to spend our money on; food, clothing, rent, bills, etc... What money we have remaining we can spend on the remaining things that we want or in some cases to improve on the niceties of such things we spend our money on. Likewise, we have things we ought to spend our time on; work (be it vocation or school), family, sleep (seriously, we do), etc... We were given 24 hours in a day for a reason, I'm sure that it's not impossible to get by with just that amount, otherwise we'd have more. I think I'm sort of at a loss as to where exactly I was going with this...
It's basically along these lines, we spend on what we find to be important. Generally, we spend in sequence of descending importance, the things that are important get first priority, as our resources are limited, it's uncertain as to when we're going to run out at any given point in time, thus it's only natural that we want to get the most important things out of the way first. So I guess the first point would be to really take time to recognize what you're spending (time and money) on. Maybe I'm just overly-sensitive, but this I feel becomes extraordinarily important especially when it comes to relating with other people. I suppose I wouldn't really think of things this way if I didn't first come up with this perspective on spending, so I only really have myself to blame.
In terms of relationships, we can spend both money and time as well. Generally, spending a ton of money I don't think works very well. Thus, I think more indicative of how seriously a person takes a relationship is the time spent "invested" into the relationship. Naturally, there are things we absolutely have to spend our time on, but I think too often we blur the lines between need and want. Simply put, since we only have 24 hours to the day, at some point in time, something is going to have to give. Oftentimes people forgo meals or sleep in order to do the things they find to be important. What I'm ultimately saying is that we MAKE time for what's important. Isn't that how we do things already? We allocate a certain degree of relative importance to our tasks on hand and then accordingly allocate the time we have available appropriately. While we may not find something as mundane as meeting and catching up with a friend to be "unimportant" it certainly would fall low on a scale of relative importance. Thus the question falls back to one of perspective. We measure not only tasks but also hobbies and even relationships and determine what things are worth spending on.
I suppose the direction I'm going here is a call to introspection, figuring out what really is important. We certainly say a lot of things but is it true? Think about it this way, in the event of a schedule conflict, what takes precedence? While the whole process may be very similar to asking yourself in a schedule conflict, which you would rather do, the difference is there. What takes precedence really is a mirror of what you hold to be important. As calloused as it may sound, if, in the event of a schedule conflict, I found that going to open gym volleyball was more important than meeting my friend for dinner, then the reality of the situation is that I find volleyball to be more important than that dinner date. This isn't to say that I can't schedule things around when I play volleyball (dinner included), but when push comes to shove something has to give. When I cannot accommodate a friend who really wants to meet but can only do so on a specific date, then in some sense, I have put whatever it is I'm doing (volleyball, work, school, other friends, etc...) in front of that friend in terms of importance. We make time for what's important, that's how things are. I understand that we all weigh the varying factors of life differently, some of us think work is more important, some of us friends, some of us school, etc... My thing is this, just take an inventory now and figure out what's important and if that's what you want to be important. When I don't have "enough time" for something, I think it ultimately means this: it's not important enough.
It's basically along these lines, we spend on what we find to be important. Generally, we spend in sequence of descending importance, the things that are important get first priority, as our resources are limited, it's uncertain as to when we're going to run out at any given point in time, thus it's only natural that we want to get the most important things out of the way first. So I guess the first point would be to really take time to recognize what you're spending (time and money) on. Maybe I'm just overly-sensitive, but this I feel becomes extraordinarily important especially when it comes to relating with other people. I suppose I wouldn't really think of things this way if I didn't first come up with this perspective on spending, so I only really have myself to blame.
In terms of relationships, we can spend both money and time as well. Generally, spending a ton of money I don't think works very well. Thus, I think more indicative of how seriously a person takes a relationship is the time spent "invested" into the relationship. Naturally, there are things we absolutely have to spend our time on, but I think too often we blur the lines between need and want. Simply put, since we only have 24 hours to the day, at some point in time, something is going to have to give. Oftentimes people forgo meals or sleep in order to do the things they find to be important. What I'm ultimately saying is that we MAKE time for what's important. Isn't that how we do things already? We allocate a certain degree of relative importance to our tasks on hand and then accordingly allocate the time we have available appropriately. While we may not find something as mundane as meeting and catching up with a friend to be "unimportant" it certainly would fall low on a scale of relative importance. Thus the question falls back to one of perspective. We measure not only tasks but also hobbies and even relationships and determine what things are worth spending on.
I suppose the direction I'm going here is a call to introspection, figuring out what really is important. We certainly say a lot of things but is it true? Think about it this way, in the event of a schedule conflict, what takes precedence? While the whole process may be very similar to asking yourself in a schedule conflict, which you would rather do, the difference is there. What takes precedence really is a mirror of what you hold to be important. As calloused as it may sound, if, in the event of a schedule conflict, I found that going to open gym volleyball was more important than meeting my friend for dinner, then the reality of the situation is that I find volleyball to be more important than that dinner date. This isn't to say that I can't schedule things around when I play volleyball (dinner included), but when push comes to shove something has to give. When I cannot accommodate a friend who really wants to meet but can only do so on a specific date, then in some sense, I have put whatever it is I'm doing (volleyball, work, school, other friends, etc...) in front of that friend in terms of importance. We make time for what's important, that's how things are. I understand that we all weigh the varying factors of life differently, some of us think work is more important, some of us friends, some of us school, etc... My thing is this, just take an inventory now and figure out what's important and if that's what you want to be important. When I don't have "enough time" for something, I think it ultimately means this: it's not important enough.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
The Remarkable Jading Effect of Time
Hm... Was the title a little too cynical? I dunno, it's just something I've been thinking about. It's kind of sad that I haven't realized it until now, but have you noticed that things get less interesting as time passes? I know I've heard it before, the more I do things the more commonplace they become and they lose their initial appeal, maybe that's it. I used to always want to go to McDonald's and my mom would say how if I had too much McDonald's I'd get sick of it. I didn't really believe her of course, but then, I didn't have McDonald's everyday either. Nonetheless, it's interesting how remarkably unappealing the mundane and routine become once they become mundane and routine. It's weird.
This is something that I find happening in life, and more specifically through my personal walk of faith. It's rather ironic, but what was once construed as spiritual fervor is now viewed with a rather cynical perspective. Everything that I once was passionate about has become cliched, and I wish it weren't so. A lot of times I go back to those cliched attitudes and sayings, and I sometimes cringe at how cliched it is, but also, I remember, how when it wasn't so. It's a difficult battle, and one that I think we need to be aware of. Time jades, we should realize that. I don't know if it's a by-product of the cynicism in our society or if it's the natural degeneration of man, but it happens. There's an opening line to a song that I've been listening to lately, and it goes like thus, "Can I look past the cliches?" Well, can I?
I suppose this has been a little on the depressing side, so I suppose I'll try to put a more positive perspective on this. I believe that in understanding this it's a calling to bring us back to the simplicity of children, where there are no cliches. Just because it's cliched doesn't make it wrong. Just overused, but we always have to have that fresh perspective, that kid constantly craving the simple things. I've noticed most of it comes back to a matter of perspective. As life progresses the wonder comes out of things little by little, but I believe with the proper perspective, things can be better.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
A.D.
If I were to just leave the title at that, you'd think I'd be doing some kind of post on the naming convention of the years. Something about anno domini Latin for "In the year of our Lord". However, in this case, I mean AD to stand for something else, it has nothing to do with the Western calendar, what I wish to discuss today is this one concept summed up in two English words; after death. I suppose I could be fancy and have done PM and used like post mortem or something but I'm sure you get the general idea, and I'm tired of trying to be witty and creative.
So let's give a little context, where did I come up with the motivation to write on such a (seemingly) morbid subject? Well, a few of the youth kids I know from my church went to a conference called Worldview Academy, and during street evangelism sessions, one of the common lead-in questions used was this: "Where do you go after you die?". It's a question people don't often give much thought to, at least not when they're younger, yet it is a question of utmost importance in life. Perhaps I could say it's a matter of perspective, how? Well, in the sense that knowing the choices of where you end up is a good motivator of what you do now and how you go about doing it. An example of such would be someone studying hard now because he/she wishes to attend a better college/university in the future. It is that goal of the university, say an Ivy League versus a local community college, that pushes our student here to study. If perhaps that example doesn't ring home, it is also the idea of an employee working hard now in hopes of a future promotion and raise.
How does getting into a good school or getting promoted to a better job have anything to do with death? Well, it is that forward looking that we're examining here, both student and employee are looking to what is to come or what they hope to become (where they hope to be) and acting accordingly to put themselves in the best position to reach their goals. Now if we were to expand that to the full spectrum of life, the ultimate inevitability that we can observe in this existence is physical death. We know we were born, we know we will die, we don't really know much about what happens afterwards and we're currently living out the in between. However, if we let what will happen tomorrow affect how we act and live today, all the more should we not let what is ultimately inevitable for all of us affect our lives?
We live in a world of action and reaction, cause and effect, deed and consequence, and so on and so forth. While a lot of time we spend studying where we come from (history), we need also to plan for where we are going and that plan will determine ultimately how we are to live. Let us again consider the situation of a student. Now, a student who aimed to be a doctor would not spend large chunks of time taking literature or discrete mathematics courses, of course not. Our student would take only the necessary courses to graduate and focus his/her studies on subjects that would aid in the pursuit of a career in the field of medicine, taking classes on biology, anatomy, perhaps even pharmacology, and the like. Likewise an aspiring engineer would not stop to study philosphy, anthropology, or history extraordinarily extensively, but would put more effort into the familiarizing himself/herself in the realms of physics, mathematics, and other related sciences (depending on the brand of engineering). As we can see, what we aim for in the future determines what we do here and now. If we aim for nothing, we do nothing. So if where we are going determines what we do now, where is our ultimate destination but death? So therefore, the question of what happens after we die becomes rather important in regards to the meaning of life and the purpose for which we live.
Now I'm not going to come out and claim to be any expert on any sort of theological matters, in this case, afterlife, but there are a few more commonly held views out there that I'd like to explore. To me, there are three major ways we can look at what happens after death; nothing, reincarnation, or heaven/hell. As with the question of where we come from (the ever lengthy debate between creationism and evolution) each of these make a profound impact on how we are to live, I would go as far to say as to what our purpose is. The difficulty in such a question (as simple as it seems on the surface) is that we aren't really certain about it, and there is no way we can be certain about it until we experience it for ourselves (that is, when we die). While there is a great degree of uncertainty, that is no reason to shy away from the question for its impact on how we live is so great we cannot address it quickly enough. Why must we address it quickly? Well simply put, because we could die in any given instant. Morbid, but true. Anyways, I digress, let us press onward.
When I consider the idea of nothingness, I realize it's a relatively difficult idea to really grasp. While conceptually I can kind of imagine the idea of there be nothing, absolutely nothing, it's not something I can easily say that I can imagine. There's a difference, it might seem like I'm contradicting myself, but there's a difference, I can imagine the idea of nothingness, but not really nothingness itself, I suppose the best way to put it would be, ideal versus experiential imagination, or something like that. Sorry for all these minor tangents, but since I generally write colloquially, I'd probably do the same thing if we were actually talking, this way, you can just go back and read everything instead of having me repeat it again.
Anyways, while the concept of nothingness after this life (or death, however you want to put it) seems reassuring in the sense that it's all just over, the more I think about it the more I realize it's a pretty scary concept. So what exactly is the implication of nothing after death? Well firstly, it means that everything here is the be-all-end-all to our existence. Some might agree with that. It just simply means make the most of each moment because this one life is all we have. However, it also means that ultimately, there is no consequence to any of our actions. Life becomes a series of things "you get away with" simply because consequences are only temporal things, there are none afterward, the ultimate consequence is death, and everyone dies anyways, so it's just a matter of how. So if you get to do whatever you want and no adverse consequence comes of it, then great, you've made the most. If for some reason, something bad befalls you, well, it just sucks to be you. Concepts of right and wrong, crime and justice, fairness and unfairness, well, they're pretty arbitrary then, since all's well if you do something "wrong" and get away with it, right? What's to govern that? Society? Okay, perhaps to some degree, but if someone gets away with it, then hey, there's nothing beyond that right? This is starting to get a little abstract, so I'm going to try to bring this discussion to another issue. Let's take the simple law of economics; nothing happens if people don't see an inherent benefit or gain from doing something. I paraphrased that a little, but that's the general gist of it. If that's the case, what reason do I have to sacrifice what I have now for the sake of people tomorrow? For example, going green. Beyond some warm fuzzy feeling, what do I get out of it? I'll be gone, and if there's nothing afterward, I'm sacrificing something (money, comfort, time, just to name a few examples) for no gain to myself, right? Maybe it'll all change when I have children, but if I remain single for the rest of my life, then what benefit do I get from helping people in the future? Well, if I spend enough money, maybe a place in the history books, but again, if there's nothing after life, what good is it? It's not like I'll somehow know if I get mentioned in some 7th grader's history class as some altruistic gentleman or not. It sort of reminded me of the character the Joker from the most recent Batman film The Dark Knight. If there is no consequence beyond death, then why not live as you please until you die? Okay, so maybe you want to live long and die peacefully, fine, but my point is this, the mob boss that dies peacefully in bed because the police never could convict him is the same as the doctor working pro-bono in Africa who succumbed to some disease because of the poor living conditions. They both died naturally, and they go... nowhere, they become nothing. Intuitively, we want to make a distinction, but why? One impacted more people? Well, how about this example, two families, classic rags to riches story, both the fathers were poor but each managed to become successful and wealthy and provide for his family and generations to come. The difference, one came about his wealth through honest hard labor, the other through illegitimate and illegal practices. Both pass away quietly and peacefully in their old age. So now that they're both dead, they're the same, nothing. Okay... so, if the thief steals and gets away with it ends up the same as the man who sweat and work for every single dollar of his paycheck, then why bother with niceties like justice and law and order. It's the same as an investment, high-risk, high reward, low-risk, low reward. Since there is no ultimate consequence, those that are willing to face death (like say suicide bombers), can't be wrong. Sure we can condemn their actions, but hey, what're you going to do about it? They became nothing, just like everyone else before them, and just like all of us will after them. The victim and the perpetrator are both the same. Nothing. Intuitively, that just seems wrong, intuition is there for a reason. While intuitively we want to answer the question "Do you want to be remembered poorly?" with a no, if nothing were to come after death, then, what does it matter if I am remembered at all? It's not like the more I'm remembered the more I'm less nothing. Then again, that could be speculation on my part, but if we simply cease to exist as soon as our physical body expires, then, what reason have we to believe that by the will of others we can come back into existence?
If we look next into the idea of reincarnation, we find that the issue of consequence and action addressed via the means of karmic retribution. Our mob boss above who got away with stealing money will then be subject to a worse life the next time around in the great wheel of reincarnation, perhaps he will become a pauper, perhaps he'll become reincarnated as some beast of some form or another, a lowlier being than that of a human. Certainly the idea of getting another life based on how you do in this one brings some sense of consequence to our actions, but there's also a certain sense of futility to it, as if there's no real goal in mind. A lot of proponents of reincarnation say that we as humans are striving to become one with everything and thereby nothing, as far as I understand it, but if we're to become nothing, isn't that really just the same as what we discussed above, just with more rules and a more convoluted method getting there. I'm not here to really get into a whole lot of theology though, let's discuss the idea that you get a "better" life the next time around for the "good" life that you live now. First and foremost, we need a definition of what is "good". I think inherently we all have a general sense of what it is, but then when it comes to some more conflicting issues (like helping someone at the expense of another) then what is "good"? However, that also is another issue regarding ethics and morals that I don't intend to cover here, so the second issue then is what is a "better" life? There really isn't any apt measurement of what is "better" or "worse" in terms of living. Certainly, those who can provide for themselves are generally considered to have "better" lives than those who are starving, but how far does it go with haves and have-nots? Are more riches, more fame, more prominence, more whatever, really indications of a better life? Are we to say that an upper-middle class family having luxury cars, a large 4 bedroom home, the ability to fund its children through Ivy League college education, parents successfully working prominent positions, but on the brink of divorce due to family strife, disagreements, and miscommunication really lead a better life than that of a lower-middle class single-income family living happily and quietly in a small 2 bedroom apartment? What makes one life better than the other? Which situation would you rather be in? Is it physical posessions or is it the state of mind? We see people both in prince and pauper like situations with both kinds of mindsets. If we were to go further with the idea of potential reincarnation into non-human creatures, how do we know that a dog or insect live "worse" lives than that of a person? It's impossible. While the idea of consequence is there, it's fairly arbitrary given reincarnation, it really poses more questions than it answers, while there is the idea of action and reaction, choice and consequence, there is not much in terms of rhyme or reason behind how it is applied, in other words, there's really no feasible way to arbitrarily assign what kind of life is better than another, it's just life.
Finally then, is this concept of an afterlife, a final reckoning siphoning out the people between the two planes, as we'll call them, heaven and hell. It serves to say that there is an ultimate judgment that determines our place after our place here on this world in this life. What is this heaven then? Well, I can't say for sure as I've never been there, but from what I can reason, it can't be anything we can imagine. Some would have heaven being nothing but wealth and a blissful life of doing nothing, I'm pretty sure there are a good number of people that pretty much live that sort of lifestyle here and now, so if heaven can be achieved on earth then what need do we have for it? However, regardless of what exactly it is, it addresses the issue of what happens after one dies, and it gives each person a purpose, that is, an ultimate consequence for his/her life. It gives each of us a direction to move towards, and that is why, intuitively it seems the most reasonable and feasible answer. As a final note, allow me to point to Pascal's Wager, while I don't necessarily endorse those who have a flippant attitude towards it, it is something to ponder. Pascal's Wager states, that if I believe in God and I'm wrong about it, and there's nothing after death, then nothing happens, the same thing happens to me as everybody else, but if I don't believe in God and I'm wrong, then the consequences are both dire and eternal. Something for us to ponder and think about.
So let's give a little context, where did I come up with the motivation to write on such a (seemingly) morbid subject? Well, a few of the youth kids I know from my church went to a conference called Worldview Academy, and during street evangelism sessions, one of the common lead-in questions used was this: "Where do you go after you die?". It's a question people don't often give much thought to, at least not when they're younger, yet it is a question of utmost importance in life. Perhaps I could say it's a matter of perspective, how? Well, in the sense that knowing the choices of where you end up is a good motivator of what you do now and how you go about doing it. An example of such would be someone studying hard now because he/she wishes to attend a better college/university in the future. It is that goal of the university, say an Ivy League versus a local community college, that pushes our student here to study. If perhaps that example doesn't ring home, it is also the idea of an employee working hard now in hopes of a future promotion and raise.
How does getting into a good school or getting promoted to a better job have anything to do with death? Well, it is that forward looking that we're examining here, both student and employee are looking to what is to come or what they hope to become (where they hope to be) and acting accordingly to put themselves in the best position to reach their goals. Now if we were to expand that to the full spectrum of life, the ultimate inevitability that we can observe in this existence is physical death. We know we were born, we know we will die, we don't really know much about what happens afterwards and we're currently living out the in between. However, if we let what will happen tomorrow affect how we act and live today, all the more should we not let what is ultimately inevitable for all of us affect our lives?
We live in a world of action and reaction, cause and effect, deed and consequence, and so on and so forth. While a lot of time we spend studying where we come from (history), we need also to plan for where we are going and that plan will determine ultimately how we are to live. Let us again consider the situation of a student. Now, a student who aimed to be a doctor would not spend large chunks of time taking literature or discrete mathematics courses, of course not. Our student would take only the necessary courses to graduate and focus his/her studies on subjects that would aid in the pursuit of a career in the field of medicine, taking classes on biology, anatomy, perhaps even pharmacology, and the like. Likewise an aspiring engineer would not stop to study philosphy, anthropology, or history extraordinarily extensively, but would put more effort into the familiarizing himself/herself in the realms of physics, mathematics, and other related sciences (depending on the brand of engineering). As we can see, what we aim for in the future determines what we do here and now. If we aim for nothing, we do nothing. So if where we are going determines what we do now, where is our ultimate destination but death? So therefore, the question of what happens after we die becomes rather important in regards to the meaning of life and the purpose for which we live.
Now I'm not going to come out and claim to be any expert on any sort of theological matters, in this case, afterlife, but there are a few more commonly held views out there that I'd like to explore. To me, there are three major ways we can look at what happens after death; nothing, reincarnation, or heaven/hell. As with the question of where we come from (the ever lengthy debate between creationism and evolution) each of these make a profound impact on how we are to live, I would go as far to say as to what our purpose is. The difficulty in such a question (as simple as it seems on the surface) is that we aren't really certain about it, and there is no way we can be certain about it until we experience it for ourselves (that is, when we die). While there is a great degree of uncertainty, that is no reason to shy away from the question for its impact on how we live is so great we cannot address it quickly enough. Why must we address it quickly? Well simply put, because we could die in any given instant. Morbid, but true. Anyways, I digress, let us press onward.
When I consider the idea of nothingness, I realize it's a relatively difficult idea to really grasp. While conceptually I can kind of imagine the idea of there be nothing, absolutely nothing, it's not something I can easily say that I can imagine. There's a difference, it might seem like I'm contradicting myself, but there's a difference, I can imagine the idea of nothingness, but not really nothingness itself, I suppose the best way to put it would be, ideal versus experiential imagination, or something like that. Sorry for all these minor tangents, but since I generally write colloquially, I'd probably do the same thing if we were actually talking, this way, you can just go back and read everything instead of having me repeat it again.
Anyways, while the concept of nothingness after this life (or death, however you want to put it) seems reassuring in the sense that it's all just over, the more I think about it the more I realize it's a pretty scary concept. So what exactly is the implication of nothing after death? Well firstly, it means that everything here is the be-all-end-all to our existence. Some might agree with that. It just simply means make the most of each moment because this one life is all we have. However, it also means that ultimately, there is no consequence to any of our actions. Life becomes a series of things "you get away with" simply because consequences are only temporal things, there are none afterward, the ultimate consequence is death, and everyone dies anyways, so it's just a matter of how. So if you get to do whatever you want and no adverse consequence comes of it, then great, you've made the most. If for some reason, something bad befalls you, well, it just sucks to be you. Concepts of right and wrong, crime and justice, fairness and unfairness, well, they're pretty arbitrary then, since all's well if you do something "wrong" and get away with it, right? What's to govern that? Society? Okay, perhaps to some degree, but if someone gets away with it, then hey, there's nothing beyond that right? This is starting to get a little abstract, so I'm going to try to bring this discussion to another issue. Let's take the simple law of economics; nothing happens if people don't see an inherent benefit or gain from doing something. I paraphrased that a little, but that's the general gist of it. If that's the case, what reason do I have to sacrifice what I have now for the sake of people tomorrow? For example, going green. Beyond some warm fuzzy feeling, what do I get out of it? I'll be gone, and if there's nothing afterward, I'm sacrificing something (money, comfort, time, just to name a few examples) for no gain to myself, right? Maybe it'll all change when I have children, but if I remain single for the rest of my life, then what benefit do I get from helping people in the future? Well, if I spend enough money, maybe a place in the history books, but again, if there's nothing after life, what good is it? It's not like I'll somehow know if I get mentioned in some 7th grader's history class as some altruistic gentleman or not. It sort of reminded me of the character the Joker from the most recent Batman film The Dark Knight. If there is no consequence beyond death, then why not live as you please until you die? Okay, so maybe you want to live long and die peacefully, fine, but my point is this, the mob boss that dies peacefully in bed because the police never could convict him is the same as the doctor working pro-bono in Africa who succumbed to some disease because of the poor living conditions. They both died naturally, and they go... nowhere, they become nothing. Intuitively, we want to make a distinction, but why? One impacted more people? Well, how about this example, two families, classic rags to riches story, both the fathers were poor but each managed to become successful and wealthy and provide for his family and generations to come. The difference, one came about his wealth through honest hard labor, the other through illegitimate and illegal practices. Both pass away quietly and peacefully in their old age. So now that they're both dead, they're the same, nothing. Okay... so, if the thief steals and gets away with it ends up the same as the man who sweat and work for every single dollar of his paycheck, then why bother with niceties like justice and law and order. It's the same as an investment, high-risk, high reward, low-risk, low reward. Since there is no ultimate consequence, those that are willing to face death (like say suicide bombers), can't be wrong. Sure we can condemn their actions, but hey, what're you going to do about it? They became nothing, just like everyone else before them, and just like all of us will after them. The victim and the perpetrator are both the same. Nothing. Intuitively, that just seems wrong, intuition is there for a reason. While intuitively we want to answer the question "Do you want to be remembered poorly?" with a no, if nothing were to come after death, then, what does it matter if I am remembered at all? It's not like the more I'm remembered the more I'm less nothing. Then again, that could be speculation on my part, but if we simply cease to exist as soon as our physical body expires, then, what reason have we to believe that by the will of others we can come back into existence?
If we look next into the idea of reincarnation, we find that the issue of consequence and action addressed via the means of karmic retribution. Our mob boss above who got away with stealing money will then be subject to a worse life the next time around in the great wheel of reincarnation, perhaps he will become a pauper, perhaps he'll become reincarnated as some beast of some form or another, a lowlier being than that of a human. Certainly the idea of getting another life based on how you do in this one brings some sense of consequence to our actions, but there's also a certain sense of futility to it, as if there's no real goal in mind. A lot of proponents of reincarnation say that we as humans are striving to become one with everything and thereby nothing, as far as I understand it, but if we're to become nothing, isn't that really just the same as what we discussed above, just with more rules and a more convoluted method getting there. I'm not here to really get into a whole lot of theology though, let's discuss the idea that you get a "better" life the next time around for the "good" life that you live now. First and foremost, we need a definition of what is "good". I think inherently we all have a general sense of what it is, but then when it comes to some more conflicting issues (like helping someone at the expense of another) then what is "good"? However, that also is another issue regarding ethics and morals that I don't intend to cover here, so the second issue then is what is a "better" life? There really isn't any apt measurement of what is "better" or "worse" in terms of living. Certainly, those who can provide for themselves are generally considered to have "better" lives than those who are starving, but how far does it go with haves and have-nots? Are more riches, more fame, more prominence, more whatever, really indications of a better life? Are we to say that an upper-middle class family having luxury cars, a large 4 bedroom home, the ability to fund its children through Ivy League college education, parents successfully working prominent positions, but on the brink of divorce due to family strife, disagreements, and miscommunication really lead a better life than that of a lower-middle class single-income family living happily and quietly in a small 2 bedroom apartment? What makes one life better than the other? Which situation would you rather be in? Is it physical posessions or is it the state of mind? We see people both in prince and pauper like situations with both kinds of mindsets. If we were to go further with the idea of potential reincarnation into non-human creatures, how do we know that a dog or insect live "worse" lives than that of a person? It's impossible. While the idea of consequence is there, it's fairly arbitrary given reincarnation, it really poses more questions than it answers, while there is the idea of action and reaction, choice and consequence, there is not much in terms of rhyme or reason behind how it is applied, in other words, there's really no feasible way to arbitrarily assign what kind of life is better than another, it's just life.
Finally then, is this concept of an afterlife, a final reckoning siphoning out the people between the two planes, as we'll call them, heaven and hell. It serves to say that there is an ultimate judgment that determines our place after our place here on this world in this life. What is this heaven then? Well, I can't say for sure as I've never been there, but from what I can reason, it can't be anything we can imagine. Some would have heaven being nothing but wealth and a blissful life of doing nothing, I'm pretty sure there are a good number of people that pretty much live that sort of lifestyle here and now, so if heaven can be achieved on earth then what need do we have for it? However, regardless of what exactly it is, it addresses the issue of what happens after one dies, and it gives each person a purpose, that is, an ultimate consequence for his/her life. It gives each of us a direction to move towards, and that is why, intuitively it seems the most reasonable and feasible answer. As a final note, allow me to point to Pascal's Wager, while I don't necessarily endorse those who have a flippant attitude towards it, it is something to ponder. Pascal's Wager states, that if I believe in God and I'm wrong about it, and there's nothing after death, then nothing happens, the same thing happens to me as everybody else, but if I don't believe in God and I'm wrong, then the consequences are both dire and eternal. Something for us to ponder and think about.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
All or Nothing
Something I've been thinking about a little while is the idea of compartmentalization. I think it's something that happens because we feel like we need to organize our lives. I don't think I exactly thought of it this way though. If you think of the idea of "big picture/little picture" thinkers then come to the idea of compartmentalization then maybe you get a little closer to what I'm thinking about. Hopefully this conveys my thoughts on the issue adequately, but of course, I doubt my communication abilities do my theories much justice, then again, perhaps there's not much to be had from such theorizing, regardless, I appreciate the time that you (the reader) take to peruse and consider what I have to say (write) and the attempt (however meager) made to understand my point.
We live a world where everything needs to have a time and place, everything is categorized, filed, and organized accordingly. If you go to a store, items are sorted by type and arranged accordingly, in a music store there is a guitar section, an acoustic section, a bass section, a live sound section, a keyboard section, a recording section, a miscellaneous items section, etc... in a supermarket there is the fresh produce section, canned goods, dairy, frozen foods, meat, juices, beverages, etc... Likewise, we've been encouraged to perform such organization with our lives, and to some extent it's helpful, we have work, school, recreational hobbies, family, friends, and various other things in our lives that we can make various categories for. We take each experience and then neatly file it away under a specific category in our lives. In some instances, things might fall under a couple of categories which might make things a little messier, but it's still manageable nonetheless.
The problem with this view is that life invariably is more than the sum of its parts, and there are things that call from us our entire being, not just a part. The "here and now"s of life require our everything, and if we're not all here, then invariably we miss out on something. Not to say that we ought not look at the future and plan what may be had, but we ought not be reserved or hesitant because of what "might be". When we start planning based on hypotheticals, then we start holding ourselves back, we miss out. Life will be that much sweeter if we learn to immerse ourselves in what we have now as opposed to what we might have in the future.
Maybe I'm being "irresponsible", but I think the fact of the matter is, that we live in the here and now. There's no point in fretting over something that hasn't happened yet, in fact something that might not even happen. I don't know what's going to happen, plans have changed for me several times, I've gotten it wrong enough times to know; I miss out of I hold back now. I feel like that I cheat myself of a lot if I don't. Hopefully this made sense to whoever is reading it. I hope.
We live a world where everything needs to have a time and place, everything is categorized, filed, and organized accordingly. If you go to a store, items are sorted by type and arranged accordingly, in a music store there is a guitar section, an acoustic section, a bass section, a live sound section, a keyboard section, a recording section, a miscellaneous items section, etc... in a supermarket there is the fresh produce section, canned goods, dairy, frozen foods, meat, juices, beverages, etc... Likewise, we've been encouraged to perform such organization with our lives, and to some extent it's helpful, we have work, school, recreational hobbies, family, friends, and various other things in our lives that we can make various categories for. We take each experience and then neatly file it away under a specific category in our lives. In some instances, things might fall under a couple of categories which might make things a little messier, but it's still manageable nonetheless.
The problem with this view is that life invariably is more than the sum of its parts, and there are things that call from us our entire being, not just a part. The "here and now"s of life require our everything, and if we're not all here, then invariably we miss out on something. Not to say that we ought not look at the future and plan what may be had, but we ought not be reserved or hesitant because of what "might be". When we start planning based on hypotheticals, then we start holding ourselves back, we miss out. Life will be that much sweeter if we learn to immerse ourselves in what we have now as opposed to what we might have in the future.
Maybe I'm being "irresponsible", but I think the fact of the matter is, that we live in the here and now. There's no point in fretting over something that hasn't happened yet, in fact something that might not even happen. I don't know what's going to happen, plans have changed for me several times, I've gotten it wrong enough times to know; I miss out of I hold back now. I feel like that I cheat myself of a lot if I don't. Hopefully this made sense to whoever is reading it. I hope.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Beyond Simply Patience
I haven't written much recently, and perhaps that's not necessarily a bad thing. In some respects I suppose I'm my own harshest critic and therefore my own worst censor. On the other hand a lot of random junk doesn't get thrown up here because of it, and perhaps it's better that way, the Internet already has enough of that already. Then again, this could possibly be construed as random junk. Anyways, I think I probably already wrote about this somewhere, I have the recollection of doing so, but I want to revisit this simply because it's something that I feel like God has been pounding into me again and again.
Over the past 20-some years of my life I've had 4 major relocations. That's not a lot by any stretch of the imagination, I know people that have jumped from country to country throughout their childhood, however, it's enough. My most recent and shortest relocation being moving approximately 850 miles south from Seattle to the Silicon Valley. The furthest relocation being a 7600 mile move from cozy old Niskayuna, NY to Hsin-Chu, Taiwan for two-and-a-half years, and then an about face and back. In the middle is a 2800 mile move from Niskayuna to Seattle for college. Within the course of the past 4 years or so I've had to move a good 9-10 times within the local area, so I'm pretty familiar with the whole moving process and all that. So what's this have to do with anything?
I think the major thing that I've learned from the frequent movement is that I really can't take anything for granted. Furthermore, I can't afford to be idle, lest time pass me by and take away whatever opportunity that I may have had for growth and development of relationships. God put me in each and every situation for a reason, and for that reason I'm there. It's no good to sit and ponder if I should be somewhere else, and even if I plan to be somewhere else, I'm here now. I don't know if I'm being clear, but the lesson is this, make the most of what you have now. I may not plan on being where I am a year, maybe two years from now, I may more may not see my plan through for various reasons. However, any time I hold back because I don't plan on being here, I'm losing out. Any time I spend worrying about what may be is a moment lost in the here and now. If I say, "I'm not going to commit to anything because it's only short-term" then in essence I idle away whatever time that "short-term" period denotes. If that's not a waste of time I don't know what is. I am where I am, I need to make the most of what's in front of me.
Over the past 20-some years of my life I've had 4 major relocations. That's not a lot by any stretch of the imagination, I know people that have jumped from country to country throughout their childhood, however, it's enough. My most recent and shortest relocation being moving approximately 850 miles south from Seattle to the Silicon Valley. The furthest relocation being a 7600 mile move from cozy old Niskayuna, NY to Hsin-Chu, Taiwan for two-and-a-half years, and then an about face and back. In the middle is a 2800 mile move from Niskayuna to Seattle for college. Within the course of the past 4 years or so I've had to move a good 9-10 times within the local area, so I'm pretty familiar with the whole moving process and all that. So what's this have to do with anything?
I think the major thing that I've learned from the frequent movement is that I really can't take anything for granted. Furthermore, I can't afford to be idle, lest time pass me by and take away whatever opportunity that I may have had for growth and development of relationships. God put me in each and every situation for a reason, and for that reason I'm there. It's no good to sit and ponder if I should be somewhere else, and even if I plan to be somewhere else, I'm here now. I don't know if I'm being clear, but the lesson is this, make the most of what you have now. I may not plan on being where I am a year, maybe two years from now, I may more may not see my plan through for various reasons. However, any time I hold back because I don't plan on being here, I'm losing out. Any time I spend worrying about what may be is a moment lost in the here and now. If I say, "I'm not going to commit to anything because it's only short-term" then in essence I idle away whatever time that "short-term" period denotes. If that's not a waste of time I don't know what is. I am where I am, I need to make the most of what's in front of me.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
A Thought on "Personality" Tests
By "personality" test I'm generally referring to something along the lines of Myers-Brigg assessment or the Carl Jung test or something along those lines. Those four random letters that people seem to spout that supposedly tells you everything about them. Are you ISFJ? ENTP? INFP? ESTJ? BXYQ? ASDF? It seems kind of ridiculous after a while, yet a lot of people get really into it and some people make a pretty big deal out of it. I've taken a number of them before, I've been everything from ISFJ to INTP, though most consistently I'm something of an INTP, and I suppose it fairly accurately describes me, but a lot of it seems to something of posturing as well. Honestly, I don't really see how any of this really counts for a whole lot. Certainly it's a form of behavioral sciences to an extent, but simply put it's trying to define us by what we do. I must be an "I" because I am more frequently alone than with other people. I must be an "E" because I enjoy being at the center of attention at times. Sure I think it has its merits, it allows us to understand tendencies and the patterns in which people behave to better help us interact with one another, but honestly, do we really need it?
At what point does it vary from "oh, that's just his/her personality" to being some kind of cop out for a means of behavior? I feel like a lot of times we live in a society where if we can explain something that makes it okay, regardless of the consequences. We live in a society of justification, if you can spout off enough reasons that smatters of legitimacy, if you can convince enough people that your case was something of an exception, or that you were in an extenuating circumstance then anything is permissable then you are always right. If you want it put shortly, we live a society of lawyers. Not to say all lawyers are like that, however, there's that idea that if you can sell your case strongly enough then it's okay, if you can get away with it, it's not wrong. So how does this tie in with a Myers-Brigg assessment? I appear to have deviated onto a major tangent here. To bring it back to my original point, I believe that the more people fall into these "personality" categories the more they pigeon hole themselves into something that they are not. We're a society that likes to label without looking like we're labeling people.
From personal experience I have found that interaction with other people is largely something that is developed. Sure it comes more naturally to some than to others, however, I believe that each person is capable of change. Through the labels of INFJ, ISTP, ESFP, etc... then there creates a sort of boundary. In our attempts to explain ourselves we also devoid ourselves of any reason to change. I believe there is a difference between being accepting of someone for who they are as compared to being a doormat. In any social interaction there is a certain amount of etiquette to be observed, however what these labels successfully do is toss out that etiquette because that's "just who people are". Sure I can buy that, but that doesn't make it okay. For any good thought experiment to work, we need to take it to an extreme, say I'm belligerent by nature and just smack any random person I don't like the look of. That's just the way I am. Doesn't make it right. If that's who I am, and who I am is not right, then I need to change it.
Now before people start bashing me for bashing Myers-Briggs and Carl Jung let me speak in their defense. They are positive for the purposes of self-reflection. In understanding ourselves we can then make that move to improve the areas where we are weaker, to work on being more outgoing if we're introverted, on being more understanding of others feelings if we're more rational and calculating in thought. When it becomes something of, "this is who I am, take it or leave it" I think then that it's a useless label maker that doesn't really do anything except marginalize people.
At what point does it vary from "oh, that's just his/her personality" to being some kind of cop out for a means of behavior? I feel like a lot of times we live in a society where if we can explain something that makes it okay, regardless of the consequences. We live in a society of justification, if you can spout off enough reasons that smatters of legitimacy, if you can convince enough people that your case was something of an exception, or that you were in an extenuating circumstance then anything is permissable then you are always right. If you want it put shortly, we live a society of lawyers. Not to say all lawyers are like that, however, there's that idea that if you can sell your case strongly enough then it's okay, if you can get away with it, it's not wrong. So how does this tie in with a Myers-Brigg assessment? I appear to have deviated onto a major tangent here. To bring it back to my original point, I believe that the more people fall into these "personality" categories the more they pigeon hole themselves into something that they are not. We're a society that likes to label without looking like we're labeling people.
From personal experience I have found that interaction with other people is largely something that is developed. Sure it comes more naturally to some than to others, however, I believe that each person is capable of change. Through the labels of INFJ, ISTP, ESFP, etc... then there creates a sort of boundary. In our attempts to explain ourselves we also devoid ourselves of any reason to change. I believe there is a difference between being accepting of someone for who they are as compared to being a doormat. In any social interaction there is a certain amount of etiquette to be observed, however what these labels successfully do is toss out that etiquette because that's "just who people are". Sure I can buy that, but that doesn't make it okay. For any good thought experiment to work, we need to take it to an extreme, say I'm belligerent by nature and just smack any random person I don't like the look of. That's just the way I am. Doesn't make it right. If that's who I am, and who I am is not right, then I need to change it.
Now before people start bashing me for bashing Myers-Briggs and Carl Jung let me speak in their defense. They are positive for the purposes of self-reflection. In understanding ourselves we can then make that move to improve the areas where we are weaker, to work on being more outgoing if we're introverted, on being more understanding of others feelings if we're more rational and calculating in thought. When it becomes something of, "this is who I am, take it or leave it" I think then that it's a useless label maker that doesn't really do anything except marginalize people.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Nature of Introversion
I've always considered myself somewhat of an introvert. If the Myers-Brigg assessments can be trusted, I've been anywhere between 80%-100% introverted on all of the assessments save the most recent one, which, if the MyType application in Facebook is too be believed, then I am hardly an introvert, but somewhere on the border between introversion and extroversion, leaning ever so slightly towards the side of introversion. One of my greatest shortcomings is that I can be something of recluse, I easily, and readily, and often subconsciously alienate myself from other people and various social situations. I still do sometimes. It's something that I have been working on extensively for the better part of the last 5-6 years. However, I am still more inclined to believe I am a major introvert as opposed to the fact that I have changed drastically. Of course, then that comes to the question of what is the nature of introversion and extroversion, which I hope that some of my theorizing may illuminate the perspective by which I view things.
I believe that Myers-Brigg falls somewhat short in that it attempts to assess personality via simple behavioral patterns (I know I likely oversimplify it, but that is how I see it), and while generally an accurate measure, it has by my experience, not really captured the essence of who we really are. It's a quantitative approach at something that is better measured qualitatively. Not to say that Myers-Brigg is completely invalid, however, I believe that relying on it alone would be very poor judgment of any person's character. While introversion and extroversion are measured very much on a behavioral standpoint, I believe that there has been a large misconception of equating such with what I will simply call social competency. The general premise being that extroverts are naturally more socially adept than their introverted counterparts. To some extent this is true, but however, I believe that the nature of introversion and extroversion are not the proficiency with which one handles a social situation.
I speak more from experience than from any intensive study of the matter, but I know many people who have been somewhat surprised that I claim to be as introverted as I am, but I personally have no doubts regarding my own introversion. I am somewhat shy and reserved, but I have no qualms about speaking in public, about taking initiative, about being around people, about being the center of attention, I however, still consider myself extremely introverted. I believe introversion to be a matter of preference rather than ability. I think that social grace (at least to the extent of being around many people and carrying on a conversation) is like a language that can be learned, it comes more naturally to the extroverts than to introverts. That is not to say that introverts cannot be experts in the language, but they must work that much harder to express themselves thus. My primary language is English, I am very comfortable in almost any sort of exposition so long as it is in English, however, when you move the language to Chinese, a language I can speak fluently but am less proficient in, it becomes a greater chore and requires much greater effort for me to express myself with the same effectiveness as I would in English. Likewise (I can only speak for introversion as I am not an extrovert), an introverted person would require that much more effort to be a more "social" person. Not to say that he/she would not be able to carry himself/herself perfectly fine in a more "social" environment but that it would simply require more effort and would be more taxing (as I've found) both mentally and physically. Some of the most socially adept people I know are actually introverted. I just believe that many of them (introverts) do not actively practice this "language" and thus the correlation is created, whereas extroverts continually put themselves in said situation and are very much comfortable and at ease given the circumstances.
So is there an application to all of this? For one, the tried and true rule of not being able to judge anyone or anything simply on appearances. Additionally, I think for perhaps friends and family and loved ones understanding perhaps that though they appear to be handling themselves well in a social situation it may be more taxing than it appears. It's hard to be conscious about that, but now we know, and at the very least it's something. It requires a lot of energy for an introvert to be around people, especially for a long period of time. Not to say they don't get lonely and can live without company indefinitely, but understanding that they recharge by taking a break from people for a little bit. It's not that they don't like it, it's just that it requires more energy from them than it does of the extroverts. When an athlete stops to rest between games, it's not because he/she hates the sport, the athlete is just tired.
I believe that Myers-Brigg falls somewhat short in that it attempts to assess personality via simple behavioral patterns (I know I likely oversimplify it, but that is how I see it), and while generally an accurate measure, it has by my experience, not really captured the essence of who we really are. It's a quantitative approach at something that is better measured qualitatively. Not to say that Myers-Brigg is completely invalid, however, I believe that relying on it alone would be very poor judgment of any person's character. While introversion and extroversion are measured very much on a behavioral standpoint, I believe that there has been a large misconception of equating such with what I will simply call social competency. The general premise being that extroverts are naturally more socially adept than their introverted counterparts. To some extent this is true, but however, I believe that the nature of introversion and extroversion are not the proficiency with which one handles a social situation.
I speak more from experience than from any intensive study of the matter, but I know many people who have been somewhat surprised that I claim to be as introverted as I am, but I personally have no doubts regarding my own introversion. I am somewhat shy and reserved, but I have no qualms about speaking in public, about taking initiative, about being around people, about being the center of attention, I however, still consider myself extremely introverted. I believe introversion to be a matter of preference rather than ability. I think that social grace (at least to the extent of being around many people and carrying on a conversation) is like a language that can be learned, it comes more naturally to the extroverts than to introverts. That is not to say that introverts cannot be experts in the language, but they must work that much harder to express themselves thus. My primary language is English, I am very comfortable in almost any sort of exposition so long as it is in English, however, when you move the language to Chinese, a language I can speak fluently but am less proficient in, it becomes a greater chore and requires much greater effort for me to express myself with the same effectiveness as I would in English. Likewise (I can only speak for introversion as I am not an extrovert), an introverted person would require that much more effort to be a more "social" person. Not to say that he/she would not be able to carry himself/herself perfectly fine in a more "social" environment but that it would simply require more effort and would be more taxing (as I've found) both mentally and physically. Some of the most socially adept people I know are actually introverted. I just believe that many of them (introverts) do not actively practice this "language" and thus the correlation is created, whereas extroverts continually put themselves in said situation and are very much comfortable and at ease given the circumstances.
So is there an application to all of this? For one, the tried and true rule of not being able to judge anyone or anything simply on appearances. Additionally, I think for perhaps friends and family and loved ones understanding perhaps that though they appear to be handling themselves well in a social situation it may be more taxing than it appears. It's hard to be conscious about that, but now we know, and at the very least it's something. It requires a lot of energy for an introvert to be around people, especially for a long period of time. Not to say they don't get lonely and can live without company indefinitely, but understanding that they recharge by taking a break from people for a little bit. It's not that they don't like it, it's just that it requires more energy from them than it does of the extroverts. When an athlete stops to rest between games, it's not because he/she hates the sport, the athlete is just tired.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The Man: Who Really Makes the Rules?
I'm not sure why, but I've been pondering these things more and more, specifically the idea of who we answer to on a moral level. The idea of whether or not there is such a thing as morality and such, and where it comes from, how our ethics are determined, etc... I'm not really here to discuss the existence of morality and ethics and the like, however, I believe in order for us to really get anywhere with this sort of discourse, it is required that we take a slight line of tangency and first discuss the merits of morality, ethics, what they are, and how they affect us. So let us begin there.
Now there are several definitions of morality or morals that we can draw from, but for extensive purposes let us use the following:
"1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical"
Then what is ethics? Let's see, it is redundantly defined thus:
"the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group"
I'm not sure of any official definition, but for all extensive purposes, we will assume that the definitions above provided by www.dictionary.com are indeed sufficient for our needs. If I may, I am going to truncate the definition to a fragment of what is above mentioned, that fragment being, "the distinction between right and wrong".
I like trying to appeal to one's intuition because intuition is a very strong thing, granted, our intuitions may fail us, but mostly we don't want our intuitions to be wrong. Now, I believe that the concept of right and wrong, good and bad, in essence, morality is a very intuitive thing. Sure we need laws and regulation to tell us the specifics, such as what punishments are merited if you do something wrong, and what specifically is wrong about what you do, however, the feeling of whether or not that is right or wrong is inherently there without the regulation or legal trappings.
Inherently we make a decision determining what is right and what is wrong, what is better and what is worse, in every crossroad we come across, it'll be that sort of decision, even if we can't explain it, and it's just some "hunch". What I ultimately want to come across is that there is a certain degree of universality that is inherent in morals of mankind. If there is no objective standard, there is no perfection, there is no good, there is no bad, there is no right, there is no wrong. Middle Eastern terrorists have every right to slam planes into civilian buildings in the claim of Islamic Jihad, and they're not wrong, because if morals are man made then no one has any more of a legitimate claim on what is right than anyone else, save that perhaps one is stronger than the other. We trust the opinion of a doctor because he has studied the body and understands how it functions, not because he made up how the body functions. Likewise, if a man is to be an expert on morals it cannot really be because he "made it up", otherwise, we're all experts and we're all perfect people.
Now there are several definitions of morality or morals that we can draw from, but for extensive purposes let us use the following:
"1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical"
Then what is ethics? Let's see, it is redundantly defined thus:
"the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group"
I'm not sure of any official definition, but for all extensive purposes, we will assume that the definitions above provided by www.dictionary.com are indeed sufficient for our needs. If I may, I am going to truncate the definition to a fragment of what is above mentioned, that fragment being, "the distinction between right and wrong".
I like trying to appeal to one's intuition because intuition is a very strong thing, granted, our intuitions may fail us, but mostly we don't want our intuitions to be wrong. Now, I believe that the concept of right and wrong, good and bad, in essence, morality is a very intuitive thing. Sure we need laws and regulation to tell us the specifics, such as what punishments are merited if you do something wrong, and what specifically is wrong about what you do, however, the feeling of whether or not that is right or wrong is inherently there without the regulation or legal trappings.
Inherently we make a decision determining what is right and what is wrong, what is better and what is worse, in every crossroad we come across, it'll be that sort of decision, even if we can't explain it, and it's just some "hunch". What I ultimately want to come across is that there is a certain degree of universality that is inherent in morals of mankind. If there is no objective standard, there is no perfection, there is no good, there is no bad, there is no right, there is no wrong. Middle Eastern terrorists have every right to slam planes into civilian buildings in the claim of Islamic Jihad, and they're not wrong, because if morals are man made then no one has any more of a legitimate claim on what is right than anyone else, save that perhaps one is stronger than the other. We trust the opinion of a doctor because he has studied the body and understands how it functions, not because he made up how the body functions. Likewise, if a man is to be an expert on morals it cannot really be because he "made it up", otherwise, we're all experts and we're all perfect people.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Absolutely Confusing
So, I've been thinking a lot about these random existential questions, and there comes to mind a question that I've been asked previously, and only recently did I recall how to work out the solution. The question being; "What is wrong with the statement; 'There are no absolutes except for the fact that there are no absolutes.'?" Which in appearance seems to be a legitimate statement. However, if we look at it from a logical standpoint, I think we can firmly diffuse the statement has being somewhat self-contradictory. For the sake of brevity, assume that when I use the phrase "there are no absolutes" that the exception is implicitly included.
Let's start with an easy statement. Let us for the sake of argument assume that the statement, "There are no frogs" is true. Therefore it logically follows that the statement "Kermit is a frog" would therefore be false. If we were then to assume that the following carries over into the realm of absolutes, then perhaps it works out. So if the statement; "There are no absolutes" is true, then therefore the statement; "This is an absolute" would be false. For the sake of simplicity I have used the idea of an absolute the same as frog, therefore the generic statement; "This is an absolute" is sort of a representation of any absolute that we can think of, such as; "gravity is absolute". The same logic carries over, right? Just as Kermit cannot be a frog in a world without frogs, "this" or gravity cannot be an absolute in a world without absolutes. Yes, but here is where the comparison falls apart; consider the nature of the word absolute, or rather just what does absolute mean? The statement; "there is no absolute", in short, can be summed up to mean that nothing is always true. If that's the case then, we come to something of a conundrum. In this "absolute-less" world, we know that the statement; "this is an absolute" is false, however, in a world without absolutes, does this mean that the statement can also be true? Here is where our logical mind cannot reconcile the statement. If the statement were to be true, at least sometimes, then that means that "this" is in fact an absolute, be it only sometimes, meaning that there are absolutes outside of there being no absolutes. However, if the statement were always false, then the statement "the statement 'this is an absolute' is false" is always, or absolutely, true, another absolute. By claiming an absolute, it logically defeats the premise that there are no absolutes, I really don't see a way it can be logically reconciled, therefore, I think the statement, "there are absolutes" must be true.
Let's start with an easy statement. Let us for the sake of argument assume that the statement, "There are no frogs" is true. Therefore it logically follows that the statement "Kermit is a frog" would therefore be false. If we were then to assume that the following carries over into the realm of absolutes, then perhaps it works out. So if the statement; "There are no absolutes" is true, then therefore the statement; "This is an absolute" would be false. For the sake of simplicity I have used the idea of an absolute the same as frog, therefore the generic statement; "This is an absolute" is sort of a representation of any absolute that we can think of, such as; "gravity is absolute". The same logic carries over, right? Just as Kermit cannot be a frog in a world without frogs, "this" or gravity cannot be an absolute in a world without absolutes. Yes, but here is where the comparison falls apart; consider the nature of the word absolute, or rather just what does absolute mean? The statement; "there is no absolute", in short, can be summed up to mean that nothing is always true. If that's the case then, we come to something of a conundrum. In this "absolute-less" world, we know that the statement; "this is an absolute" is false, however, in a world without absolutes, does this mean that the statement can also be true? Here is where our logical mind cannot reconcile the statement. If the statement were to be true, at least sometimes, then that means that "this" is in fact an absolute, be it only sometimes, meaning that there are absolutes outside of there being no absolutes. However, if the statement were always false, then the statement "the statement 'this is an absolute' is false" is always, or absolutely, true, another absolute. By claiming an absolute, it logically defeats the premise that there are no absolutes, I really don't see a way it can be logically reconciled, therefore, I think the statement, "there are absolutes" must be true.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Humanism vs Intuition: The Moral Dilemma
In recent history the debate regarding the origin of the world has come and gone, and continues through today. I believe that in the current day, we have boiled all the arguments down to two possible options; complete random chance (that is to say evolution) or purposed creation (intelligent design). There has been heated arguments from either side regarding who in fact has the scientific backing to support his/her cause, and I could tout various scientific findings, theorems, and postulates and whatnot in favor of one or the other. However, the issue I want to address is more at the core of the debate. Some people might be indifferent, stating that we're here now, regardless of how we got here, however, I would argue that knowing where we come from is a crucial or at the very least largely insightful part of understanding and knowing who we (collectively as human beings) really are. However, I am not here to argue in terms of science, but of something I think more people can relate to, which is intuition, the intuition of morality, which I believe is insufficiently addressed by any proponent of evolution.
Firstly, I want to make something very clear. I believe that the idea of evolution is ultimately trying to sell to people the a lifestyle or worldview, which some have called humanism and which is a term that I will aptly adopt. Humanism, basically holds that we are here more or less because we "just happen" to have been created. By some series of mutations and adaptations life was both created and eventually evolved into us. Therefore, ultimately, the only accountability we ultimately have is to ourselves, while we may put ourselves in positions of accountability to others, the boss, the one who has the ultimate say, the be-all, end-all, is the individual. This sort of fits then with the common post-modern philosophy of relativism. The idea, that everything is not only permissible, but also right, each person has his/her own truth, and that each truth is equally truthful. Reality, in essence is defined by each individual. Ultimately, the phrase "there is no absolute truth except that there is no absolute truth".
Now, let us consider the implication of evolution. If we assume that we were indeed created by random chance, then obviously there is no higher order, words such as "good", "bad", "right", "wrong" are all somewhat arbitrary concepts that ultimately are subject to be relative to the definition of each individual. The simple fact that we were the product of dumb-luck, the remote possibility of the right chemicals mixing at the right time, concludes that we therefore are ultimately the bosses of ourselves. At the basic definitive level of things, there would be confusion. Who is to say that the sky is blue? Why can't it be pink? Why can't the sky be A# major 9th? I may think it's blue, but it would be perfectly alright for my neighbor to believe that it's minty. It's a silly example, but, in order for this idea of evolution to be feasible, would that not be what would ultimately happen? Yet, it is universally agreed that the sky is blue.
Moving to another example, let us consider the implications of morality within a hypothetically functional society built from evolved beings. Since we answer to no one but ourselves, ultimately, what my purpose in life is, is to do what makes me feel the best. As the theory of evolution must conclude, we're here "just because" and therefore there's nothing afterward, so logically we need to make the most of what's here now. There is no compunction for what we call "good behavior" or what is socially accepted because there is no benefit from it. Certainly I want to live a comfortable life within the rules and regulations of a social norm, where a government structure will protect me from lawlessness (all this being somewhat contradictory to relativism to begin with, but assuming), I have no reason to be altruistic or the sort. While I may be willing to give up some of my freedoms so that the ones I value may be protected as well, the question then remains, what about those things that we consider good outside the strictures of legality? What about true altruism? Other than a warm and fuzzy feeling, what's there to get out of it? Why bother?
We live in a world of absolutes, and quite simply, if there is a definition of "right" and "wrong" to be had, it must have been determined outside of humanity. I don't think that there is any intrinsic merit to what any man has to say. We trust people's expertise because they have painstakingly studied their area, we trust that astronomers know what they're talking about when they speak of the stars, that a botanist is knowledgeable in a discourse on plant life, a mathematician in the theorems and equations that make up what we know as math. Yet, did the astronomers make the stars? Did the botanist create the plants which he studies? Does the mathematician create the foundations that enables his equations to balance? I would argue that no, these don't happen, and therefore morality and ethics cannot be a simple product of human thought, as humanism would have us believe.
I have yet to meet a person who has not used the word "should" or "ought". As soon as these words are used an absolute is formed and the idea that each person is judged by his/her own standard is thrown completely out the door. I think people will agree with me when I say that the world ought to do away with slavery. If I were to ask or be asked why, I believe a large part of the answer would be along the lines of, "To make the world a better place." In a humanistic society, the idea of better or worse cannot exist, if I were to believe that I define my own truth, that there is no greater being to answer to than myself, then there is only yours and mine, not better or worse. Intuitively we understand that there is something that we can call "good" and "bad", actions that we can call "right" and "wrong". Author Chuck Colson gives this example; there is an elderly woman standing at the corner waiting to cross the street, you have three options; a.) help the woman across, b.) ignore the woman, c.) push her into oncoming traffic. Most people would agree that (a) is the "good" thing to do, and (b) while not "wrong" is still "worse" than (a), and finally that (c) is the obviously wrong thing to do. For someone to say that he/she has never felt guilt, I believe, is for that someone to tell a lie. So, if I were to define what is right and wrong in my life, then how can any of my actions be wrong? More importantly, how can we say that the people who opt to push the lady into oncoming traffic are wrong? Intuitively there just seems to be something about it that seems unjust, downright, I say it again, wrong.
I have heard that perhaps it is the strictures of society, and the laws that govern us within our society that determines what is right and wrong. Let us look at another simple example; there are several young school children lining up to get lunch, right before one child is about to ask the cafeteria working for food, a larger boy shoves the child aside and takes his place in line. Perhaps the shoving could be legally termed as assault and battery, but point is, is that inherently, we feel that the larger boy, who did not wait his turn, has done something wrong. The teacher may not have seen it, and thus may not have done anything about it, but, the child whose place was taken inherently understands that what happened to him was unfair, was wrong. We don't need society to tell us that when something is taken from us that we have been wronged. The concepts of evolution, humanism, etc.. don't answer why that feeling is there. Intuitively we live that there are ways things should and should be, ways that are outside of us. I don't think that this would occur if we all just happened to pop out of some primordial soup. Intuitively, I feel that humanism, specifically the explaination of our origin via evolution addresses the moral quandry that we so often find ourselves in.
To me the logical explanation then becomes, there is some standard that has been set outside of humanity that we're supposed to meet. Logically, the being that set that standard, is the one who made us. Think of a car manufacturer, there is a performance standard that each car has to meet before being sent out on the roads, likewise, we have moral standards that we were designed to meet. I don't know that this answers questions that have been there age long, but it's just my 2 cents when thinking about it.
Firstly, I want to make something very clear. I believe that the idea of evolution is ultimately trying to sell to people the a lifestyle or worldview, which some have called humanism and which is a term that I will aptly adopt. Humanism, basically holds that we are here more or less because we "just happen" to have been created. By some series of mutations and adaptations life was both created and eventually evolved into us. Therefore, ultimately, the only accountability we ultimately have is to ourselves, while we may put ourselves in positions of accountability to others, the boss, the one who has the ultimate say, the be-all, end-all, is the individual. This sort of fits then with the common post-modern philosophy of relativism. The idea, that everything is not only permissible, but also right, each person has his/her own truth, and that each truth is equally truthful. Reality, in essence is defined by each individual. Ultimately, the phrase "there is no absolute truth except that there is no absolute truth".
Now, let us consider the implication of evolution. If we assume that we were indeed created by random chance, then obviously there is no higher order, words such as "good", "bad", "right", "wrong" are all somewhat arbitrary concepts that ultimately are subject to be relative to the definition of each individual. The simple fact that we were the product of dumb-luck, the remote possibility of the right chemicals mixing at the right time, concludes that we therefore are ultimately the bosses of ourselves. At the basic definitive level of things, there would be confusion. Who is to say that the sky is blue? Why can't it be pink? Why can't the sky be A# major 9th? I may think it's blue, but it would be perfectly alright for my neighbor to believe that it's minty. It's a silly example, but, in order for this idea of evolution to be feasible, would that not be what would ultimately happen? Yet, it is universally agreed that the sky is blue.
Moving to another example, let us consider the implications of morality within a hypothetically functional society built from evolved beings. Since we answer to no one but ourselves, ultimately, what my purpose in life is, is to do what makes me feel the best. As the theory of evolution must conclude, we're here "just because" and therefore there's nothing afterward, so logically we need to make the most of what's here now. There is no compunction for what we call "good behavior" or what is socially accepted because there is no benefit from it. Certainly I want to live a comfortable life within the rules and regulations of a social norm, where a government structure will protect me from lawlessness (all this being somewhat contradictory to relativism to begin with, but assuming), I have no reason to be altruistic or the sort. While I may be willing to give up some of my freedoms so that the ones I value may be protected as well, the question then remains, what about those things that we consider good outside the strictures of legality? What about true altruism? Other than a warm and fuzzy feeling, what's there to get out of it? Why bother?
We live in a world of absolutes, and quite simply, if there is a definition of "right" and "wrong" to be had, it must have been determined outside of humanity. I don't think that there is any intrinsic merit to what any man has to say. We trust people's expertise because they have painstakingly studied their area, we trust that astronomers know what they're talking about when they speak of the stars, that a botanist is knowledgeable in a discourse on plant life, a mathematician in the theorems and equations that make up what we know as math. Yet, did the astronomers make the stars? Did the botanist create the plants which he studies? Does the mathematician create the foundations that enables his equations to balance? I would argue that no, these don't happen, and therefore morality and ethics cannot be a simple product of human thought, as humanism would have us believe.
I have yet to meet a person who has not used the word "should" or "ought". As soon as these words are used an absolute is formed and the idea that each person is judged by his/her own standard is thrown completely out the door. I think people will agree with me when I say that the world ought to do away with slavery. If I were to ask or be asked why, I believe a large part of the answer would be along the lines of, "To make the world a better place." In a humanistic society, the idea of better or worse cannot exist, if I were to believe that I define my own truth, that there is no greater being to answer to than myself, then there is only yours and mine, not better or worse. Intuitively we understand that there is something that we can call "good" and "bad", actions that we can call "right" and "wrong". Author Chuck Colson gives this example; there is an elderly woman standing at the corner waiting to cross the street, you have three options; a.) help the woman across, b.) ignore the woman, c.) push her into oncoming traffic. Most people would agree that (a) is the "good" thing to do, and (b) while not "wrong" is still "worse" than (a), and finally that (c) is the obviously wrong thing to do. For someone to say that he/she has never felt guilt, I believe, is for that someone to tell a lie. So, if I were to define what is right and wrong in my life, then how can any of my actions be wrong? More importantly, how can we say that the people who opt to push the lady into oncoming traffic are wrong? Intuitively there just seems to be something about it that seems unjust, downright, I say it again, wrong.
I have heard that perhaps it is the strictures of society, and the laws that govern us within our society that determines what is right and wrong. Let us look at another simple example; there are several young school children lining up to get lunch, right before one child is about to ask the cafeteria working for food, a larger boy shoves the child aside and takes his place in line. Perhaps the shoving could be legally termed as assault and battery, but point is, is that inherently, we feel that the larger boy, who did not wait his turn, has done something wrong. The teacher may not have seen it, and thus may not have done anything about it, but, the child whose place was taken inherently understands that what happened to him was unfair, was wrong. We don't need society to tell us that when something is taken from us that we have been wronged. The concepts of evolution, humanism, etc.. don't answer why that feeling is there. Intuitively we live that there are ways things should and should be, ways that are outside of us. I don't think that this would occur if we all just happened to pop out of some primordial soup. Intuitively, I feel that humanism, specifically the explaination of our origin via evolution addresses the moral quandry that we so often find ourselves in.
To me the logical explanation then becomes, there is some standard that has been set outside of humanity that we're supposed to meet. Logically, the being that set that standard, is the one who made us. Think of a car manufacturer, there is a performance standard that each car has to meet before being sent out on the roads, likewise, we have moral standards that we were designed to meet. I don't know that this answers questions that have been there age long, but it's just my 2 cents when thinking about it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)